DISQUS

FYI, you can check out our page for HBO's EASTBOUND & DOWN here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kenny-Powers-of-E...

and my post on it here: http://www.ianschafer.com/2009/03/the-status-of...

FYI, you can check out our page for HBO's EASTBOUND & DOWN here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kenny-Powers-of-E...

and my post on it here: http://www.ianschafer.com/2009/03/the-status-of...

You Can't Make This Stuff Up.
Advertising News For the Jaded.
Advertising News Without Pity.
Putting the F-U in Advertising.
Advertising news on the DL.
Blowing Advertising's Whistle Since 1973.
Too busy breaking ad news to write a tagline.
The toilet paper hanging out of advertising's pants.
The Ad Industry's Scooter Libby.
We're the ones with the cubicle sex video.

In theory, Facebook is Twitter, plus. Plus all the things we want Twitter to be. And that's why Facebook didn't go the full monty in its bid to acquire Facebook (as the fable goes).

Twitter's blessing and curse is the more open nature of the dialogue. Anyone can listen in. Anyone can comment. Facebook's closed environment (although you wouldn't think it was that closed if you looked at my friends list) keeps conversations contained. That could be a very good thing for many looking to filter conversations (I hear that complaint often on Twitter).

The fact is, we're still figuring all this out. You could argue that we're shaping Twitter as much as Ev & Biz are. The same can't necessarily be said about Facebook.

So yeah, I'm glad both exist. It feels so, so, democratic.

I think this is, unfortunately, a way too simplified roadmap.

In order to survive, you must maximize distribution, attract consumers, attract advertisers, integrate advertising well, deliver results, and do it all without giving away too much to investors. Doesn't sound so easy, does it.

Success stories, up until now, can be counted on one hand. More proof of how difficult it is.

Here's some background on why Chris is asking you to do this...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10130566-83.html

Ummm...how about a little acknowledgment that someone (me) did this first?

http://www.ianschafer.com/2008/05/28/sponsor-my...

Not that I'm bitter (I'm certainly not), but it would be a good idea to acknowledge this, especially when it was the head of an advertising agency that might be your potential client, that did it.

- IS

Called it here a ways back too, after returning from SXSW.

http://www.ianschafer.com/2008/03/09/from-sxsw-...

Good points, Ev. All of them.

As a matter of fact, I'm not actually just trying to draw attention to monetizing twitter (I trust you have that under control), but social media in general.

It's kind of a follow up to a column I wrote here: http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=12...

But I love having this conversation...

Just to clarify...

There will be no impact on the text of my tweets (a la @scobleizer). That's annoying. Instead, what's up for grabs is the skin on my profile, and the replacement of my avatar/icon with the high bidder's logo.

As for the cost, I figured it had to start somewhere, and given the high value of some of my followers (take a look at the list, you'll recognize many of them: http://twitter.com/ischafer/followers), I figured it carried a B2B premium, yet still wouldn't impact the tone or content of my tweets. Heck, I thought 400 bucks was a bargain.

And any money generated is being donated to charity (The David Wright Foundation).

Again, this is being done to make a point and start a conversation.

I'll be blogging the process (and the coverage of it) after the auction is over.

Thanks for joining the conversation (as @jaffefuice would say)!

I appreciate the commentary. The context of the question was missing, though...

The question was, 'what is the future of the upfront?'

And to paraphrase, what I said was that the upfronts will, in the future, cater more to advertisers looking to buy against content and culture -- not audience. Buying against specific audiences will instead be done via addressability and other forms of technological targeting that will be rolled out over the next few years. But those budgets will need to be flexible and nimble, and therefore will likely not be part of an upfront 'upfront' commitment.

Hope that makes sense now.

Cheers!

I appreciate the commentary. The context of the question was missing, though...

The question was, 'what is the future of the upfront?'

And to paraphrase, what I said was that the upfronts will, in the future, cater more to advertisers looking to buy against content and culture -- not audience. Buying against specific audiences will instead be done via addressability and other forms of technological targeting that will be rolled out over the next few years. But those budgets will need to be flexible and nimble, and therefore will likely not be part of an upfront 'upfront' commitment.

Hope that makes sense now.

Cheers!

Dude. This should so be in NYC. I'll be there in spirit. Or maybe in ASCII art. I'll send over an 8x10.