I Tweet, But I Don’t Know Why


Kevin Wassong is the president of Minyanville Media Inc., a digital network that creates branded content about the world of finance. Prior to joining Minyanville, he built one of the first “new-media” advertising agencies, digital@jwt, within J. Walter Thompson, and before that was assistant to the chairman of Creative Artists Agency as well as a development executive with network TV shows including Golden Girls and Empty Nest.

I consider myself an early adopter of technology. I had all the first Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) computers–and still have them. I also was online in the early ’90s through Prodigy, and I had Pointcast for those who remember. (Hopefully they bring that one back now that bandwidth has caught up with the times.)

I’ve worked in technology and the Internet for almost 15 years and I’ve seen companies come and go. I’ve lived through the dot-com boom and bust and resurgence. There have been a number of occasions where I’ve asked, “What am I missing?”

Twitter is one of those occasions.

I Tweet, but I have yet to figure out why. I have also yet to figure out how Twitter can make money.

What am I missing? Twitter is a $250 million company? Really? It’s actually instant messaging but semi-useless unless you have a tremendous amount of time on your hands or took an Evelyn Wood speed-reading course. Are people willing to pay to broadcast the most mundane crap about their daily life? The better question is: don’t we have something better to do than read about the mundane crap of someone else’s life?

Investors are practically throwing money at Twitter in the hopes that it’s the next Facebook. Well, Twitter. you sir are no Facebook. This brings me to my point: There’s a trend emerging that feels awfully familiar. It’s the trend of chasing the next big shiny thing.

In 1999, I was running the interactive division of J. Walter Thompson. I had started the group in the New York office. The oldest advertising agency in the world was devoid of any technology or interactive marketing unit. The 30-second spot ruled the day. About two years into starting this division, a senior executive who had just left CNN to join a company called All Advantage approached me. He took me, my head of account services and media director to lunch and put an offer on the table. “I want to hire the three of you: marketing, business development and sales,” he said. He explained the business model, and at the end of the meal said, “What do you think?” I asked him two questions: “What am I missing? How do you ever make money?”

I told him no matter how many times he tried to explain it, I still did not get the idea. I could not figure out how the company would ever make money. My head of account services and media director both left to join the startup. All Advantage raised over $200 million. The concept was this: Download a small application to your desktop. Set up a profile. Start watching ads and get paid for the ads served that were based on your profile. More targetable, higher receptivity, shared revenue with the viewer. That was the theory.

Except, advertising was invented so someone could foot the bill for good content consumed by consumers. When my assistant received a check for $25 from All Advantage for one week of viewing, I knew then that they were onto something, but not what they thought they were onto. They were onto how to bankrupt a company in the shortest period of time. And, they did that successfully!

My account-services director had relocated to San Francisco for the head of marketing job. He called me and said, “This place is amazing. We have a new building on the 101 and we’re hiring 700 people.” Seven hundred people! I asked him to explain how the company was going to make money. And I still couldn’t understand. Less than eight months later, he called to say they were shutting it down and he was moving back to New York.

I feel like I am having deja vu all over again. When venture execs start making statements like, “We’re not concerned about revenue,” you know that we’re going off the rails on a crazy train. The internet is about innovation and creating new business models or accelerating old ones, but inherent in innovation is something called a business model. And inherent in creating a business model is something called revenue. There are businesses that are before their time in generating revenue. YouTube is one. It will ultimately succeed and luckily it’s owned by one of, if not, the deepest-pocketed company in the world.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m a friend of the Twitter trend. I have Tweetdeck and my team Twitters, but as I said at the outset, I must be a twit, because I’m missing how this company will ever live up to the hype of what it has become. Times like these are the breeding grounds for innovation. The Great Depression was the catalyst for growth and innovation with companies like Disney (NYSE: DIS), IBM and United Technologies emerging as leaders on the backside of the economic disaster. But these companies had a key element to their foundation: revenue and a business model.

Plato said, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” With Twitter, I’m seeing the invention; but I’m missing the necessity.



At first it was blogs, and then people got lazy. Too much writing. Then it became about myspacing and facebook. Again, too much writing. Now twitter puts a 140 character cap on what we can put in, so it's the next thing. Even that's going to be too much effort soon. When someone releases a site where we can just click a different smiley face to tell the world about our day, then that will be the next big thing.


Agreed with previous commentor – this guy has an ego problem. Looks like he's still bitter about losing his employees to All Advantage seven years ago. Please get off your high horse.

Conor Neu

The way I see it is that Twitter serves two purposes.
1) A method of communication between people
2) A search engine as a marketing tool for businesses

As long as #1 works, it is monetizable via #2.

#1 is slowly proving to work. As Mr. Mandelkern mentioned, the communication tool is growing because of the "Social Proof" scenario. If this continues, and it becomes a mainstream communication tool, which I think is possible, #1 will succeed. One reason I think it is possible is that it is the easiest, safest, quickest way to communicate with a complete stranger regarding simple, basic information. Much easier than a chat board, Yahoo Answers, etc.

#2 is already working. Small businesses are able to find customers faster than ever with this tool. Why do they need to advertise on the side of a Twitter page? They can just respond to the person directly who talks about their product. That search value is worth a lot to businesses. We use it every day to find new customers.

In reality, Google probably needs to buy Twitter. Twitter needs better search algorithms and speed, faster and more stable systems, and greater innovation with tools. Either way, the eventual revenue will come from businesses (the same way Google's ad revenue comes from businesses), it just may not be in the form of ads. It could be charging for a better search tool, or for other forms of marketing power, but the business demand is now there, at least for the few businesses who realize it.


is your twitter handle "fishwassong" so we can all follow you and see how long this lasts?

Glenn Mandelkern

I must say there's something to Twitter if you believe and practice the Robert Cialdini school concept of "Social Proof." First, so many people are using it now that you feel if you don't, you're missing on something. Second, the people who follow your tweets are providing you a kind of social proof too, people who can become your customers or lead you to them.

Money is not evil. Money makes things a lot easier to negotiate. I think the real potential for Twitter is for marketers/promoters to use its technology tastefully in 140 characters or less. They could charge something for that in a cost effective manner, especially in this trying economy.

Don Bowey

Re: "We always answer our text messages"

No, not all do. They are usually such a waste of time, I had my cellular service provider disable texting. Too many twits twittter on, and on, and…..

Jayson Ambrose

I think the first step in monetizing Twitter is to build the audience. Until there is an audience, ads have no value. You can presumably grow your audience faster if the interface is cleaner and "friendlier", no ads.

Now they have a critical mass audience. Done. Time to hire a biz dev guy. Done.

The two most likely scenarios I see (in my limited wisdom) are:

1. Selling premium "recommendation" spots to brands and celebs. Done.
2. Monetize the "Real-time Web" search on search.twitter.com with ads
3. Sell the company, audience and search results to Google for them to monetize along with their current search technology.

I have a Greasemonkey plugin that places Twitter results at the top of my Google results page. Once I saw that, it was easy to imagine where Twitter is going with this. Get it here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/43451

Ida Byrd-Hill

Twitter could make money if it allowed access to the millions of people on its network and people could send ads to the cellphone. It could explode. We always answer our text messages

G Hawk

I have discovered that there are Twitter people and Facebook people, and they don't see eye to eye.

Facebook people seem to want more 360-degree interaction with their friends. Twitter people are content to have drive-by relationships.

I have never understood why Twitter doesn't just put content-sensitive ads on user pages like Google does with Gmail. It's the Twitter founders' utopian, ad-free mentality that keeps them from monetizing, not the medium.

Sharon Beasley

Good way of describing Twitter people – having drive-by relationships.  I got a Twitter account and quickly said to heck wtih it as I like a little more content than Twitter allows – or at least more characters that might lead to some decent content.   I don’t exactly find Facebook as wonderful as I hoped as I think there is a lot of drive-by going on with it also.  I am ready to just form a local “let’s communicate” club.

Woody Noless

"Twitter, or something like it, will be around a long time."

What's THAT supposed to mean? That's like saying "sure the 'swine flu' days may be numbered, but viruses that kill people are here to stay".

fedex, ups and ashton kutcher are brand names already and they may use twitter to extend/functional-ize their brands, but your pizza joint in Podunk, Wisconsin will remain an unknown pizza joint in Wisconsin regardless of how many tweets they twat.

correct me if i'm wrong, but the question the author posed wasn't "do humans need to communicate?" it was "how is twitter going to make any money?"


Yes, you are 100% right!
Projects like Twitter have never had a business plan.

What they had was a speculative, – and incredibly adventurous! – desire to sell the absolutely useless for a solid business thing, – big number of users!


Questioning Twitter is the new sport. It's safe, logical, even humorous. What fails to make it into the copy are reports of pizza places putting up billboards with their Twitter handles, companies like FedEx and UPS using Twitter to offer tracking services, etc. It's like asking, why do people want to write letters or talk? The business model is coming. My personal favorite, having been a Cisco solutions architect during the golden age of extranet enterprise apps, is the B2B Twitter web (won't call it a network). Bash away while it makes good copy. Twitter, or something like it, will be around a long time.


You are dead right! When we look back we will probably put Twitter in the same pile with Broadcast.com, Friendster and Geocities. Flashy, popular and useless.

Comments are closed.