DISQUS

I'm basically the social media go-to guy and we were given administrative rights to http://twitter.wikia.com/wiki/Twikipedia.

One thing I want to do with it is include a section to help people connect via Twitter locally. Sure, you can do a hash tag search, but you have to know about the hash tags and what ones to use. Wouldn't it be nice to have a few hubs to connect with initially?

So of course, I'd like to start with London since that's where we live. This is the long way around asking if you'd like to help shape the Twitter wikia.

I think you're dead on. Although think it will be possible for advertising revenue to be a primary income stream, but only if online advertising changes its tune. Online marketing needs to move away from trying to force people to click links. Instead of being invasive, it needs to be inviting.

Part of it will be on the shoulders of the person selling ad space. Instead of selling it to just anyone, the publication may be judged on who it sells advertising to. What if you never saw another irritating "free smileys" ad or "you're a winner" flashing banner ad again, because reputable publications refuse to sell advertising to them?

The online paper would become valuable if it only sold ad space to local businesses. Now suddenly there's real value in the local online paper because it's the place to go for what's going on around you -- from news, to specials, and what's hot locally. Taking it a step further, social media could become a valuable tool for immediate feedback on that local ad.

For example, I'm going to use real-life local coffee bean roaster, Has Beans, from the London Ontario market. They create an ad in the local online section, detailing what the weekly special is. As I'm a fan of their product, of course it catches my attention -- and I'd make a special trip for some of their blends. But for people who've never tried it, there's a space underneath with comments from various social media. So they can see what others think of the ad. The comments not only increase the trustworthiness of an ad's claims, but can also provide vital feedback to the business. I think this would be a perfectly viable primary source of income for a publication. What do you think?

Wow, that does sound like a refreshing view of things! Totally agree about both the media form and the advertising thing. Most of all, the stories DON'T end at publication. That's the great thing. Gonna have to check it out!

Excellent! I was just at the London Social Media Meet-Up and talked with Steve Groves of the LFP, and talked about a few similar points. Glad you're able to not only reach and educate people, but Twitter only helped to prove your point more. :)

I disagree with you because I find the real value of Social Media hasn't been as a broadcasting platform. Social Media is a wonderful way to stay in touch with your customers, clients, competitors, and industry news -- the trick is knowing who to be listening to.

The only time social media isn't right for a small business is if they people they need to listen to aren't using social media.

This can be looked at more from a whole media level rather than just newspapers. Classically, the money from media comes from advertising. When a marketing or advertising firm buys media, we do it in the hopes that the right people see the ad, and act on it so our clients make money.

The newspaper is just a medium for text and pictures. The 'net can do the same deal faster (although it's not as nice to read). As a marketer, what I hear is "web advertising doesn't work" but I think it's our fault; we're doing it wrong.

So maybe this is really the problem of advertising, because those of us involved have ve not figured out a way to handle web advertising in a way that everyone wins?

I'm with jreneau on this one -- that is indeed Exhibit A. I wish more companies would do that instead of firing up the legal outrage machine. As to cynicism... I wouldn't think any marketing department to be that clever, honestly.

It sounds like Csutoras must like spam or having more information than he could possibly use. I only use Twitter to follow people who A. I really do want to know what they're up to and B. Are active enough for Twitter to be useful. I don' t need Twitter for anyone else.

As to Gibbon's point -- I don't think Twitter is something you'd want to sign on to on its own. If you are person who already has followers -- and I don't mean on Twitter, I mean regular consumers of the media you produce -- then Twitter is a useful tool to offer them. So there shouldn't be a 'useless' period when used properly -- you should sign on because you have someone to follow or you have people following you already. If you're following too many people you're defeating the purpose of the tool again.

I could see Twitter being useful for normal people in the following capacities:
- Weather updates
- Sports updates (favourite teams only)
- Update notices for favourite websites that don't update on a regular schedule
- Celebrity updates (favourite celebs only)

This of course would also require the media producers to want to use Twitter appropriately. I don't want an update that it's going to be a bright sunny day on my phone, but "Severe Thunderstorm" or "Tornado Watch" most definitely. For sports, I actually wouldn't mind play-by-play tweets -- not to my phone, but Twitterfox; a little pop-up in the lower right corner to let me know what's going on. I don't care about celebrities but there are a few websites I enjoy that are updated sporadically -- but once again, not to my phone.

So I think it's just a matter of another tool not being used for the job it was meant for.

I think the copyright laws are a mess too, and hearing stuff like this is certainly bleak indeed. :(

I am only slightly embarrassed to find this post really interesting... but I'm going to blame my background in computer programming for that.

It's a coding habit to reuse things as much as possible so code is as efficient as possible -- that's probably Tim Berners-Lee's thinking. I know for myself, sometimes worrying about efficiency will get in the way of recognizing the elegance of giving elements their own tag.

My old C++ teacher used to remind us to get it working first, THEN make it sleek and efficient.

This sounds familiar to a discussion I've heard on Drunk Duck, a web comics hosting site (www.drunkduck.com) where the thing that was really repeated was "I love the DD community". So correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Yahoo's strength is in its community as well, and that's what they should be focusing on.

While satire does often go over people's heads, I think the context is difficult to pick up without the title. At the same time, why not stop to think about the situation -- would any reputable publisher post something that would be libel if were meant to be taken at face value on its cover?

Of course I realize we're talking about the modern social networking and communication. I can dream though, can't it?