Alright folks, BeTweeted is almost there. A grass-roots effort to begin a new trend of socially responsible advertising on Twitter--a sincere effort to see it monetized without spamming--now ranks number 12 on Google for the keyword "advertise on Twitter." This may seem like an unusual post, but I know so many of the readers are passionate about our mantra... we're asking for some link-juice.

That's right, linkbacks. I've watched with a bit of surprise as Twitter users openly tell their followers "I'm almost to 10,000 followers... can you help me" and loyalists jump right on board. But it's not just about us and our fame. Let me remind you what will happen when an ad service like BeTweeted suddenly finds itself on page 1 of search results:

Nearly 10x the traffic. That's the difference b/w page 1 and page 2. That means 10x more ads for you to tweet (if you're a twitterer). But more importantly, it also means 10x more advertisers getting the message that Twitter is not about SPAM!

So, what can you do? Link to BeTweeted from your own blog, website, facebook page, ning site, or linkedin profile. And, to be more specific, link a keyword-rich string like this: "Advertise on Twitter with BeTweeted."

In the quest to use Twitter for local marketing, many requests flooded in over the past month that we add the ability for local advertising. Of course, the only way to do this is to permit only those Twitter users within the vicinity of a given metro area to actually tweet the link. But, that now has raised a question: what level of certainty do we have that a Twitter user in Indianapolis, IN is being followed by other Indianapolisians?

So, with the initial launch of a very tediously-created local advertising feature, at the cost of much hair pulling and cursing Google Maps API, we delivered local ads. Now, I need to figure out if the yet-unsatisfied twitter advertisers from whom I have been contacted are indeed a loud minority--a squeaky wheel, if you will--or in fact presenting a concern worthy of more consideration. And I need your help...

Imagine that you needed to advertise locally... say it was a garage sale, a local restaurant, or real estate listing. Knowing what you know about Twitter, which of the following best describes what you see as a viable solution:

• I would be willing to pay for tweets from anyone in my area, realizing they may have followers outside the area, but that risk is acceptible.
• I would be willing to pay only for clicks where the IP address of the clicker could be geo-located from the area of my business.
• I would be willing to pay for national exposure, understanding that even those who don't live in my area might share the info with those who do.

Or, if you have any other relevant input, by all means do share.

After last week's taping (airing today) of Brandswag.tv, I've been thinking about a question asked on the show. "Who should advertise on Twitter using BeTweeted?" Great question. My quick-response, I'm confident, was still the correct response. Basically, it's any company that has a product which would play well in the social media arena. This can mean anything people readily share and talk about with their friends--movies, books, articles, news, etc.

But, I want to go deeper than that. Maybe you're not familiar with social media, or maybe you're not sure if your product is one people will talk about. There are several things to consider when thinking of advertising on Twitter.

1. First, do you intend to use Twitter yourself? If you're not going to join the conversation, forget it. People want to engage with you on Twitter. This is the chief flaw of all the "get rich quick" affiliate and MLM programs that get spammed to the hilt on Twitter. There's no personality. There's no relationship built that would warrant the kind of trust it requires for me to go into business with you.
2. Are you excited about your product/service? I know that seems like an odd question, but it's very true that many people just have a job, not a passion for their work. If your hocking a product without passion, you won't be able to keep up the high energy required to use Twitter effectively.
   
3. Are there a lot of people, even within niche markets, who would be willing to introduce your product? The premise of BeTweeted is that you're product is always introduced with @reply features that mean our twitterers are introducing you to their followers. We've seen several very unsuccessful Twitter ads because they were simply not the sort of product one would introduce to their following: adult content, questionable motives, personal products, etc. Be reasonable.
   

If you can say yes to these three questions, I believe you should be using Twitter advertising to grow your business. Learn how BeTweeted can help you advertise on Twitter.

I'm gushing. I can't lie. Today I have two announcements that are the most exciting announcements since the launch of BeTweeted back in April. The first, of course, was a prerequisite for the second, but it's been a long time coming anyway. What is it, you're wondering. Well, if the title didn't give it away, here goes:

First, Twitter advertisers now have the opportunity to localize their ads. This means that new ads can be location restricted and only Twitterers with accounts in the required area can tweet the link. Some of our earliest advertisers wanted so badly for localized targeting, but we just weren't able to deliver it yet. Well, the technology has come together and it's awesome!

Second, (drum roll please) TwitterMLS.com. TwitterMLS is a new service targeted directly for Real Estate agents who want to share their listing son Twitter. Now, of course, you can see why localization was such a priority. Agents can post a link to their online listing or virtual tour website, tell us the city/state where the listing is at, and then have other Twitterers in that same area tweet the listing to their followers.

These developments are just the beginning of an all-out effort to lead the way in innovative Twitter advertising services. You can help. The development task list is written by none other than you yourselves. What do you want to see next?

In a random email this morning, subject line "No question, just comment," Morgan writes:

Just wanted to write and say I think you guys are doing the whole "advertising on twitter" thing right. It's not about spam bots - it's about blogs and other sites paying tweeters and retweeters for doing what they're already doing. Hopefully we can see, through services like yours, a shift from the random spamming on twitter, and annoying banner ads, to really personalized advertising - personalized and personal, unlike Phorm's "personal" ads.

So... yeah. Didn't really have a question, but just kudos.

Well, Morgan, we thank you!

Ok, we did it. We listened to all the rants about blocking spammers, unfollowing, #spam tags, and all sorts of mass hysteria over the concept of advertising on Twitter. But, we didn't believe you. So, we decided to prove you wrong. And we did it.

What am I talking about? BeTweeted tracked the average follower count of it's advertisers for 3-weeks. We wanted to see if unfollows, #spam hashtags, user blocking, and the like was actually damaging the Advertiser's follower count negatively. And sure enough, nope!

The full release can be found here: Statistics Show Advertising on Twitter has Positive Impact on Follower Counts.

So what does this mean? Is it a license to go spamming away. Not at all. In fact, though the limited statistics we have can't support this, I believe that the reason our advertisers saw such a positive impact is in fact our anti-spam approach. Socially responsible advertising on Twitter is a method that, while seems restrictive, generates higher responses than spam ever could. Try it out. Advertise on Twitter with BeTweeted.

So, I won't lie, I found this post through keyword searching on Twitter. On June 3rd, Elizabeth Arlaune (or @JoLoPe) posted a blog article about an informal survey conducted. Intrigued by the Tweet that she used to promote it (irony intended) I indeed clicked the link (a lesson to you betweeted advertisers). Although unscientific, her findings were nonetheless contrary to outspoken opinion and definitely worthy of discussion. You can find the entire blog entry here.

First, the responses to her questions led to some interesting conclusions. First, 90% of her respondents said it was OK to advertise/promote on Twitter. That sure doesn't sound like the tune we've heard louder and louder from social media purists over the past few months. Not only that, but 66% are actually guilty of promotion themselves. Now, this does beg the question, where did she find her sample population? I'm not sure. But, even if slightly skewed, I can't imagine a factor of correction that could negate these stats.

I would, however, have to disagree with one observation made. In considering the data, Elizabeth makes the statement, "EVERYTHING is about promotion." Wait. Stop. Hold the phone. Is that what this data means?

I disagree. I think that it is one thing to say that advertising on Twitter is permissible, even encouraged. However, it's an entirely different matter to say that Twitter is only about advertising. It should be no secret, I use Twitter for promotion. But, I also use it for customer service and response, building relationship with our users, collecting feedback, etc.

No matter how much advertising gets in the mix, Twitter will never be about anything other than relationships. The grievous error, then, is in thinking that relationships cannot exist in the midst of advertising.

I was watching the Tonight Show last night and was captivated by a commercial. Now, I know there's this unspoken tradition of hatred toward Microsoft among many computer gurus, but I have to admit I don't jump on that bandwagon very easily. And, to make the point that Microsoft isn't out of great ideas, I would like to introduce you to Bing.

If you haven't heard of it, Bing is a new search engine. That's right, they have the audacity to think they can play in Google's back yard. But guess what? I think they just might be onto something here. And, no, I'm not just saying that because I get higher page ranking for my keyword on bing than Google: "Advertise on Twitter."

The basic premise is that, as people change the way they use the internet, search has to change with it. What is this major change that they think search needs to react to. The fact that they claim 4.5 new websites are created every second. So, how much of that do you think is crap? How much is designed just for SEO with no content in mind? Bing thinks it's becoming an issue.

What's more, the site search functions that so many have come to enjoy have become even more prevalent and easier to use on Bing. For example, search Bing for "twitter" and the first result includes a site search field. Google doesn't offer that. Try the same for eBay, Amazon, even Google itself (ironically).

As for advertising, their revenue model looks strikingly familiar. Sponsored links occupy most of the right column, and of course, the top spot in search results. Nothing new there.

But, what I do find a helpful advantage over Google is the offering of related searches in the left column.

What are you thoughts? Try it out. See if it might replace your home page. It has mine.

Jeff Bertolucci published an article on PC World yesterday about Twitter Spam and it's proliferation through technologies as well as the general emphatuation that the world shares with Twitter. I found it to be an interesting and well-written article. If you're interested, you can find it here: Fed Up With Twitter Spam? It’s Going to Get Worse.

In his article, Jeff even cited another source which estimates spam to total about 10% of all the current tweets. The problem is, as Jeff described it, what constitutes spam? You see, everything on Twitter is technically "opt-in." There is no way to send someone a message if they haven't decided to follow you. Perhaps the issue is not with the content, but with the following practices. Auto-followers find themselves, more than anyone else, subject to spam.

What constitutes spam? Is a keyword-targeted @reply considered "spam?" But, in theory, I'm interested in meeting new people on Twitter who are interested in the same topics I am. Is it spam to auto-tweet one's blog articles via RSS reprocessing? But, if I've followed you, why can't you share your blog post with me?

The bottom line is this: it's not the technology used, or even the intent behind tweeting that makes something spam. It's the content and it's relevance to your following. If you're socially responsible--understanding that you tweet your mind--that cannot be spam.

Now, I don't want to diminish this accolade, but I do tend to like shiny things. My friends can't take me fishing anymore because I get very distracted by the spinner baits. I have a new favorite app every week.

But, yesterday I was introduced to a new Twitter application called Twibes. It's a very simple concept based on aggregation. However, it builds a social network on top of a social network. I can no join a "twibe" for, let's say, marketing. There, if I post any tweets with the hashtag marketing to my ow Twitter stream, it will display in the Marketing twibe stream. There's no extra action taken.

It's more than that, though. No doubt, many people will jump right in beleiving the value is in the broadcast... it's not. This is the ability to search for people and build new relationships based on interest. If you're looking for a group of Twitterers to tweet with who are interested in Jack Russel Terriers, you can find them... you can follow them.

My current twibes are Marketing, Advertising, and of course, Hunting. What's your twibe?