I thought I would make a quick point about sponsored tweets given all the discussion going on. Direct and indirect monetization of Twitter is nothing new.

My buddy Mike over at TechCrunch has been doing sponsored tweets for some time. I think TechCrunch actually helped pioneer sponsored tweets.


The only difference is that TC is pointing you back to a sponsored blog post, which also happens to be surrounded by tons of ads that advertisers pay for on a CPM basis. The more people that click on the link above the more money TC makes.


Not only is TC getting paid for the tweet, they are getting paid for the post and the display ads. In fact, every tweet that drives people back to TechCrunch.com is monetized. If that isn’t a sponsored tweet I don’t know what is. I commend TechCrunch. It is a smart business move for them to integrate all of their social media assets into their advertiser offering.

What we are doing is cutting out the middle step. Instead of pointing someone to a blog post, that then points them to a sponsor we are simply pointing to the sponsor.


Either way it is sponsored, our method just generates better results for the advertiser because it is directly sponsored. It’s more efficient, you don’t lose anyone in the pass through.

Ted Murphy

Ted Murphy

Ted Murphy is an American entrepreneur. He is currently the Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of IZEA, a technology company that provides software for influencer marketing.


  • Excellent point Ted. You hit the nail on the head with this one.

  • Anthony says:

    Ted, you are completely right and just like any form of communication people should be allowed to use it as they please.

    For example, television has a mass broadcast and they choose to put commercials on while the audience gets to choose to change the channel. That is the double choose effect !

    If someone chooses to have sponsored tweets, I can choose to un-follow / block them. Yet again with the double choose.

    I am entirely for something like this as long as it has some structure that …

    a. Keeps the control in the hands of the user. I wasn’t a fan of magpie because it took over your account and posted unknown messages on your behalf.

    b. Does not “take over” the reason that social media awesome: building relationships, and making connections. I think that people will understand this because if you go crazy with sponsored tweets you are going to lose followers, thereby lowering your credibility.

    I don’t think it will get out of hand. The smart people will be smart about it, and maintain respect to their audience / following – and the people who abuse it will never be heard from again.


  • Hmmm… there is always something behind the door, it really makes sense…. and I believe in the future there will be more of this method of driving people using twitter.

  • Penny G says:

    Well, gotta tell you, some people will take this idea and run it into the ground. If I am following someone that does nothing but market to me I get annoyed and unfollow, and sometimes block. I really only want to follow people, not tweeting robots. So I say there needs to be a happy medium. 90% talk and conversation and 10% marketing tweets would be tolerable. Remember tweeples, build you personality first, and then market second!

  • Ted Murphy says:

    @Penny G:
    I couldn’t agree more Penny. People must maintain a balance of content. Nobody want to follow someone who is constantly doing sponsored tweets. There is a happy medium, we just need to find it.

  • I’ve been wondering about this concept. Personally I think it’s kind of awful but creative at the same time. Monetization methods with social media are always difficult. Very few companies do it well.

    Jonathan Mac
    Social Focus VP
    Social Networking Software

  • The last graph (method vs method) succinctly explains your pal Mike’s anti-Izea position.

  • alexven75 says:

    Be a celebrity in twitter with the Referral Program by Sponsored Tweets http://t.co/EZLzgi7r

Leave a Reply