Twitter gets Greedy

Kompressor · 05-25-2010, 09:54 PM

They might be your tweets, but the money is all Twitter's: The microblogging service must now get a cut of any advertising sold against Twitter content, even your own content. Nice racket.

Here's how the Twitter business now works: Millions of people, including elected officials, Hollywood celebrities, you name it, supply the San Francisco startup with a huge quantity of free content. Twitter publishes this content, gets the right to sell ads against it and—here's the new part—gets a cut of any ads sold against the content when republished elsewhere, according to new terms of service noted by Peter Kafka of All Things D:

In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale, we require you to compensate us (recoupable against any fees payable to Twitter for data licensing).
This means, for example, that the Huffington Post must give Twitter a cut of any money it makes selling ads against one of its Twitter editions, which syndicate tweets from a wide array of writers. HuffPo would get paid, Twitter would get paid, and the writers who created the actual tweet content would make nothing.

So let's say one of Twitter's more popular writers decides to republish his tweets to his own website, so that he might sell some ads and profit off his own work. Well, it looks like Twitter is entitled to a cut of that money too. Under the Twitter terms of service, "you have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce" tweets, and using the API subjects you to the previously-quoted requirement to cut Twitter in on any ad money, a requirement that would seem to override Twitter's vague statement that "you retain your rights to any Content you submit."

Twitter also must be cut in if someone goes around to, say, 15 different tweeters and makes a deal with them to syndicate their content.

And what's scary is that it's Twitter that gets to decide how much of a cut is fair. Since the accounts live on its servers, Twitter hold all the cards. So there's not going to be any negotiating. They might be your tweets nominally, but any money you make belongs to Twitter. You keep some of it entirely at the company's discretion.

Now get out there and make Twitter some more money. The journey to $1 billion market cap starts with just 140 characters.

**Mafoo** · 05-25-2010, 10:04 PM

such greed. i also read some unsettling stuff about the guy who founded facebook. this seems worse though. can you help me understand what it means by "sell ads against"

crookedhatinator45 · 05-25-2010, 10:09 PM

what he means by 'sell ads against' is like when you start a blog or a web page and sell ads on the side of your page to make money.

**Mafoo** · 05-25-2010, 10:11 PM

so if you tweet something and then respost it somewhere that you are advertising they can potentially sue you for a cut of your ad space?

Kompressor · 05-25-2010, 10:15 PM

^ yea, if you republish your tweets you're supposed to use twitter's API and give them a cut of your profit and/or fees, depending on how they work it out.

So, say Crtl+Alt+Del, a popular webcomic which publishes its tweets on it's own website, will now have to pay twitter for anything it promotes.

**Mafoo** · 05-25-2010, 10:17 PM

im not sure but this makes me feel strange. i cant tell if its greed or intelligent business and

the-who? · 05-25-2010, 10:25 PM

i've never even been to twitter because twitter fucking sucks. seriously, I know what it the general idea of twitter is.. but I couldn't possibly give a shit less about twitter.

crookedhatinator45 · 05-25-2010, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kompressor

^ yea, if you republish your tweets you're supposed to use twitter's API and give them a cut of your profit and/or fees, depending on how they work it out.

So, say Crtl+Alt+Del, a popular webcomic which publishes its tweets on it's own website, will now have to pay twitter for anything it promotes.

hahah-- it's soo scrazy eh? like, every major tv network, record label, publishers, fucking EVERYONE uses twitter and has a feed on their website as part of their IMC activities..

i'm curious as to what the implications are with regards to adverts on the site by/for the actual owners of said sites.. like, say the NFL puts some of it's own ads for stuff on nfl.com kind of thing/.

Kompressor · 05-25-2010, 11:22 PM

I don't think they'd have to give twitter anything if they're using their own ads on their own site.

The new system is for tweets. If you tweet an ad or a tinyurl then prepare to be shaken down.

Grieves · 05-26-2010, 12:40 AM

Facebook is too close to stream of conscience for me, i don't know how people deal with all the chatter of the constant flow of twitter...Call me old or out of it, but to me all twitter is is a bunch of @@@@@@@@@ hyperlink lulz timestamp...

Sir-Ex · 05-26-2010, 11:59 AM

twitter is retarded. people that somehow care about using it are retarded. fuck twitter. fuck you if you use it.

cantSEEme · 05-26-2010, 01:54 PM

lol @ glitter, gaybook, gayspace and all that other garbage.

they all the same.

Sir-Ex · 05-26-2010, 02:02 PM

at least facebook can be good at organising a large number of people and make certain things easier and theres no character limit and shit. facebook can have it's uses - just wish you could turn off all that other bullshit.

Perhaps you can, but I dont use the book that often.

05-25-2010, 09:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kompressor Voice of Reason Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Illinois Posts: 8,361 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3,069 Times in 1,634 Posts	Twitter gets Greedy Twitter Gets Greedy With Your Tweets They might be your tweets, but the money is all Twitter's: The microblogging service must now get a cut of any advertising sold against Twitter content, even your own content. Nice racket. Here's how the Twitter business now works: Millions of people, including elected officials, Hollywood celebrities, you name it, supply the San Francisco startup with a huge quantity of free content. Twitter publishes this content, gets the right to sell ads against it and—here's the new part—gets a cut of any ads sold against the content when republished elsewhere, according to new terms of service noted by Peter Kafka of All Things D: In cases where Twitter content is the basis (in whole or in part) of the advertising sale, we require you to compensate us (recoupable against any fees payable to Twitter for data licensing). This means, for example, that the Huffington Post must give Twitter a cut of any money it makes selling ads against one of its Twitter editions, which syndicate tweets from a wide array of writers. HuffPo would get paid, Twitter would get paid, and the writers who created the actual tweet content would make nothing. So let's say one of Twitter's more popular writers decides to republish his tweets to his own website, so that he might sell some ads and profit off his own work. Well, it looks like Twitter is entitled to a cut of that money too. Under the Twitter terms of service, "you have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce" tweets, and using the API subjects you to the previously-quoted requirement to cut Twitter in on any ad money, a requirement that would seem to override Twitter's vague statement that "you retain your rights to any Content you submit." Twitter also must be cut in if someone goes around to, say, 15 different tweeters and makes a deal with them to syndicate their content. And what's scary is that it's Twitter that gets to decide how much of a cut is fair. Since the accounts live on its servers, Twitter hold all the cards. So there's not going to be any negotiating. They might be your tweets nominally, but any money you make belongs to Twitter. You keep some of it entirely at the company's discretion. Now get out there and make Twitter some more money. The journey to $1 billion market cap starts with just 140 characters. __________________ Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

05-25-2010, 10:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mafoo nice daze Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: the anguish of anticipated transformation Posts: 5,975 Thanks: 3,776 Thanked 2,652 Times in 1,698 Posts	such greed. i also read some unsettling stuff about the guy who founded facebook. this seems worse though. can you help me understand what it means by "sell ads against" __________________ PLUR For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

05-25-2010, 10:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mafoo nice daze Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: the anguish of anticipated transformation Posts: 5,975 Thanks: 3,776 Thanked 2,652 Times in 1,698 Posts	so if you tweet something and then respost it somewhere that you are advertising they can potentially sue you for a cut of your ad space? __________________ PLUR For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

05-25-2010, 10:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
Kompressor Voice of Reason Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Illinois Posts: 8,361 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3,069 Times in 1,634 Posts	^ yea, if you republish your tweets you're supposed to use twitter's API and give them a cut of your profit and/or fees, depending on how they work it out. So, say Crtl+Alt+Del, a popular webcomic which publishes its tweets on it's own website, will now have to pay twitter for anything it promotes. __________________ Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

05-25-2010, 10:17 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mafoo nice daze Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: the anguish of anticipated transformation Posts: 5,975 Thanks: 3,776 Thanked 2,652 Times in 1,698 Posts	im not sure but this makes me feel strange. i cant tell if its greed or intelligent business and __________________ PLUR For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

05-25-2010, 10:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
the-who? watching adultswim Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 982 Thanks: 16 Thanked 183 Times in 133 Posts	i've never even been to twitter because twitter fucking sucks. seriously, I know what it the general idea of twitter is.. but I couldn't possibly give a shit less about twitter. __________________ Please, aint nobody fucking after her. I'm outta here soon as I fix the flux capacitor.

05-25-2010, 11:22 PM	#9 (permalink)
Kompressor Voice of Reason Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Illinois Posts: 8,361 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3,069 Times in 1,634 Posts	I don't think they'd have to give twitter anything if they're using their own ads on their own site. The new system is for tweets. If you tweet an ad or a tinyurl then prepare to be shaken down. __________________ Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

05-26-2010, 12:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
Grieves The Worst Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Interstate 8 Posts: 12,108 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 2,580 Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,722 Posts	Facebook is too close to stream of conscience for me, i don't know how people deal with all the chatter of the constant flow of twitter...Call me old or out of it, but to me all twitter is is a bunch of @@@@@@@@@ hyperlink lulz timestamp... __________________ "And no matter what they said dollar is not your friend and it's the feelings that are hard to know are the feelings that all come slow No matter what they said dollar is not your friend and these feelings that so hard to know are the feelings that wont let go No don't let go, till you find a home World Unite and I'll love you forever"

05-26-2010, 11:59 AM	#11 (permalink)
Sir-Ex Learner Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Posts: 11,416 Thanks: 1,726 Thanked 3,821 Times in 2,258 Posts	twitter is retarded. people that somehow care about using it are retarded. fuck twitter. fuck you if you use it. __________________ Smile Ditch the cigs!!!!!!

05-26-2010, 01:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
cantSEEme Cold School Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,019 Thanks: 152 Thanked 127 Times in 457 Posts	lol @ glitter, gaybook, gayspace and all that other garbage. they all the same.

05-26-2010, 02:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
Sir-Ex Learner Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Posts: 11,416 Thanks: 1,726 Thanked 3,821 Times in 2,258 Posts	at least facebook can be good at organising a large number of people and make certain things easier and theres no character limit and shit. facebook can have it's uses - just wish you could turn off all that other bullshit. Perhaps you can, but I dont use the book that often. __________________ Smile Ditch the cigs!!!!!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: