Back + 1

Hello dear faithful reader. Firstly, sorry for the lack of posts on this blog recently. You see, I've been swamped by life and busy welcoming the new addition to my family - Elizabeth Lian.

Yes, I'm a dad now. It feels great; except when I'm awake at 3:30 a.m. still carrying her and she's wide awake.

Some of you might already have heard of her on Twitter or seen some pics of her. In case you haven't I've put together the Picasa album below for you to have a peek. Enjoy!

PS. Regular service to this blog resumes (hopefully) next week. I'll be moving to a Wordpress hosted blog (finally) and am planning to tighten content as well. Stay tuned.

No money go camp? (TVXQ / Wondergirls spoof)

The first Advertorial ever on my blog! And I get no money for it.

Do you think these guys have some talent?

Meet them at my church - Petra Gospel Centre. And join us for Camp Transformation 2010 from 11 - 15 June 2010. At Perting Valley, Janda Baik.

Because it matters to you

Had a chat with someone the other day about the purity of blogging.

"We used to blog what we felt," she said. "Blogging was a way to make friends, and express ourselves." Now, it seems like all we ever blog about are products and events.

The statement struck a chord with me. In no small way, I'm pretty much involved in "engaging" the social media for companies and most of these engagements are marketing driven. Clients love to see blog posts about their events, reviews about their products and generally nice comments about their company.

But somewhere along the way, in the rush to engage social media to sell the next product or market our brands, perhaps we're forgetting what made (personal) blogging such a lovely thing in the first place. To be sure, I'm not talking about news blogs (my friend at MyTechNews.info is a fine example), who's existence is to cover news about a certain industry or theme. No, I'm talking about those blogs that started out as a personal conduit for expression.

Like this one.

And I realise, you may read me for some of my personal views on social media or technology, and in the coming month, you might be shocked to suddenly see I've transformed into a "Daddy blog." Because that is what matters to me in the coming months.

I've included this picture of Lydia preparing for motherhood. Because it matters. From davidlian says...

But if you're looking for a social media lesson here. Don't fret. There is one. In our rush to get products, services and brands "covered" and "exposed" on social media, don't forget the driving force of what makes "social" social is because we blog about what matters to us.

How do you make whatever it is you're communicating, matter to the social?

Google. Being transparent. For real [?]

Was just watching CNN and just caught the breaking news that Google had just launched its "government requests" tool.

Google's own explanation of the tool:

These numbers represent the number of requests we received from government entities for the removal of content or the disclosure of user data from July 1, 2009-December 31, 2009. There are limits to what this data can tell us. Some requests seek the removal of multiple pieces of content, or seek data for more than one account. There may also be multiple requests that ask for the removal of the same piece of content, or data for the same account. Because of the complexity of these requests, the numbers we are sharing do not reflect the total amount of content that we are asked to remove, nor the total number of accounts subject to data disclosure requests by governmental agencies. Also, this initial report doesn’t indicate whether Google complied with or challenged any request for user information, although we do provide percentages about our compliance with requests to remove content. We haven’t yet found a way to provide more detail about our compliance with user data requests in a useful way, but we plan to in the future.

I guess the move is refreshing after the recent, increasing paranoia about what Google might know about our lives (which in my case, a LOT!) Quite cleverly, this gesture helps position Google as more closely aligned with us (the consumers) against the other antagoniser of Internet freedom - your own government.

By throwing us this gesture to show us "we're on the same side!", Google manages to get kudos for being transparent, without actually revealing or promising us anything about what its doing with our data. [Okay, I may be over-reading this here. But hey, you never know what's going on in Google's mind]

But can we actually trust these numbers? Google's explanation seems to indicate that we'll have to take them with a pinch of salt inasmuch as these are the best numbers it's able to release. Like @kBoey shouted on Twitter, there's no admission of Google having complied with the censorship requests for GutterUncensored which is hosted by its Blogger service. Rather, as the screenshot above shows, Google's "transparency" tool tells us that less than 10 requests have been made by the Malaysian government and none of them have been complied with (how else do you read "0% compliance"?)

So, good move by Google, if its a genuine move. But I'm going to have to take any data presented here with a huge pinch of salt.

Who's job is it to serve the customer anyway?

An astute colleague asked me recently: "How long before social media becomes customer service? Will we have to keep dealing with customer queries all day?" She had a point.

Once you get to the nitty gritty of it, social media work looks very much like a customer service job. Once someone tweets you: "Hey, my XXX just crashed on me! Help!" If you're the social media person representing the company, you'd better bet you'll need to respond with a "Sure, let us help you with this. Could you provide this information..."

And yet, would you entrust a regular customer service person to handle your social media aliases?

There's much to be said about the blurring lines between communications, marketing and customer service. In a perfect world, they shouldn't be separate entities. Unfortunately, that's not the way most companies are organised.

So today's social media practitioner finds him/herself on the firing line of customer service. Of course, there are ways to manage the flow of enquiries and information. Setting up a separate alias to handle customer service, and having that managed by the customer service folks is one. But customers still see whatever presence you have online as an official channel of communication with your brand.

And that means, your messages and tone need to be consistent.

And that the customer comes first.

And that it's not a good idea to piss of the customer by not responding, or responding in a generally unhelpful manner.

Unfortunately for us working on Social Media, this means we will HAVE to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty. At least every once in a while.

As if we've not already got not enough time...

The latest earthquake in Chile has cut our day down by another 1.26 millionth of a second.

image courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory

According to a report on National Geographic, the impact of the earthquake rocked the earth so hard that it shifted slightly on its axis, causing the shortening of the day.

I'm not a scientist, so I won't bother with the calculations. What bothers me is that the days are getting shorter. Time to focus on the most important things!

I think Google Buzz may finally be IT.

The buzz today is about Buzz. Google's, that is. The last greatly-hyped about Google experiment - Google Wave - didn't quite get the raving response we'd have expected and past social networking experiments - Orkut and the Open Social project - didn't quite scale up to the heights of Facebook and Twitter.

But check out Buzz...

...I think it's got it all. Here's why:

Gmail user base:

An old news story from the Financial Times I found puts Gmail's user base to be "more than 100 million". By comparison, Facebook's official page (as of time of writing) has its userbase at 400 million. But, I'd like to point out that having 100 million users (possibly) turned on in a very short period of time is miles ahead of having to grow organically one user at a time and presents a very real (instant) threat to Facebook.

The other point about having the Gmail user base is that Buzz intelligently identifies connections you've made (by looking at who you've emailed) and takes away the most painful part of setting up a social networking account - finding friends! In fact, if you've already been regularly emailing your friends, you'll soon be buzzing them too, I presume.

Mobile Apps:

Clearly, the next wave of social networking is going to be mobile. Apps that let you share where you are, update while standing in queue and generally be as little of a nuisance as possible while giving you meaningful connections with the people you love is what mobile is about. Checking-in on foursquare or posting a quick picture on Facebook via your mobile device means you won't forget to do it when you get home or be faced with the tedious task of uploading dozens of photos and organising them when you get home.

What's interesting is how Google has launched Buzz simultaneously into its mobile Google Maps app and taken advantage of the GPS feature on most phones to make geo-locating buzz(s?) something easy and contextual.

Simple and Natural

The third reason why I think Buzz will be a success is because of how elegant the system is. People have compared it to Twitter & FriendFeed - calling Buzz out on some very similar features. But there's nothing wrong with a little copying here and there, I say, especially if the system works.

And yet, the best thing is that Google's services help build a self-contained environment for all your content needs. Need photo uploading? Yes, Flickr will work, but so will Picasa. Video? Youtube then. BUt at the same time, it adopts open standards (thanks @paullmf for pointing out) so 3rd party developers get to use it in different ways.

Services built by others expand on Twitter's usability, but Buzz starts with them already - so that's one problem out of the way.

This is why I am not a social media guru...

... I'm a PR consultant.

Resolve to blog.

No, your eyes aren't playing tricks on you. Yes, if you say a new post popping up on your RSS reader, it's real. I'm going to make a comeback on this blog.

All because KY personally challenged me.



Stay tuned!

Sorry sir, we don't spin.

I guess it takes silly statements from government officials to rouse this blog from its comatose slumber.

Our Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim today said that our country needs better "Spin Doctors."

The Star says: "He also proposed that local public relations practitioners use blogs to compete with local bloggers who spin stories on all sorts of issues."

Alright, what does our dear Minister know about Public Relations? Our job is to compete with bloggers?

I'm sorry sir, you've got the whole point of having a public relations department all wrong. It's about being transparent and truthful. It's about authenticity and genuineness. If you think PR is spin-doctoring, and you're representative of our whole government's mentality, then it's no wonder the government is the way it is. Flash not substance, perception not reality.

PR's job is to correct misconceptions, not create wrong perceptions that deceive people. Sadly, yes, there are those who get this the other way around. They think PR is a tool to cover-up their mistakes, hype their shoddy products and misinform the public. Those people aren't PR practitioners.

Another quote that really riled me was:

“The more influential they are, the higher their paychecks. It’s time for Malaysia to have public relations practitioners who are well trained and knowledgable.”

Well, sir, actually we do. I've met people who are really good, skillful PR people. They know how to bring up issues, and correct misconceptions with some really brilliant communications campaigns. They know how to change sentiments and build communities.

Oh, did you mean "political" lobbyists? Err...which kind were you referring to? The kind that (does whatever it takes) to push through a favourable resolution for the client?

PM improving on Twitter. Okay, just a little.

Perhaps we've been cruel in laughing at our PM's twitter account. Arguably, it's justified. Following only one twitter account. Not engaging people. Tweeting his schedule and generally nonsensical stuff no one's interested in listening to.

Today, I'm pleased to say he's improving. At least he's started replying people.

At the risk of becoming a daddy blog...

May I present you with the second ultrasound picture of The Kid:

(Click on picture to see it bigger.)

Yes, it's two posts about The Kid in a row. Yes, I know, we need to get back technology, social media and some snarky social commentary at some point. But if you were in my shoes today, you'd understand too.

So let me give you the run-down of the report:

Head. Checked - it's that large oval thing. Little feet and hands. Well, you can't actually see them. Normal spine - the doc did something interesting that X-rayed the kid, and showed us the spine. And yes, a brain too.

Kid, if you're reading this sometime in the future, congratulate yourself. Your dad has a sense of humor.

The post where I announce...

...that I'm a dad-to-be.

The news broke over Twitter a while a go and I made an announcement so at least "some" people can hear it first-hand for the first time.

So the vital facts are as follows:

• The kid is about 10 - 12 weeks now.
• Expected to be delivered in May. If we can hit May 22, then s/he'll share my birthday.
• Names? We kinda like Josiah for a boy. I wanted to give some bimbo name like Tiffany if its a girl, but the wife violently objects.
• Some people have been suggesting names though. Percival, Bambi, Optimus - and other wierd un-nameables coming up.
• What if I just named he/she "Ah". Full name on passport? Ah Lian.

I've also started thinking up some goals for my kid. Serving God in church is a given, but here are some other goals / ideals all parents surely come up with:

• If he's a boy, I'll introduce him to his first space marine when he's 6. By 7, we'll be playing chess with space marines and orks and he'll learn to hold a paint brush. I promise not to laugh at his pink space marines.
  
• If she's a girl, I'll introduce her to her first space marine when she's 6. By 7, we'll be playing chess with space marines and orks and she'll learn to hold a paint brush. I promise not to laugh at her pink space marines.

Yeah, I have very varied goals for my kid.

Welcome Windows 7

That's right. That's a brand new shiny install of Windows 7 on my desktop. I got a copy of Windows 7 64-bit in advance from a source that wishes to remain unnamed (and so shall he be.) Let's just say its amazing how friends from 20 years past can become a valuable tech resource.

That said, I am excited to get my grubby hands on this latest version of Windows and you can expect a bit of a review and thoughts of Win 7 on my blog soon. First impressions are that it boots up amazingly fast compared to XP or Vista and even Ubuntu. I didn't do a timer test and am too lazy to reboot now, but suffice to say, it felt superfast.

In any case, look out for a review in coming days. Oh, there are also a couple of contests running for people who want to get Windows 7 eventually. Check out http://www.win7.com.my as well as The Star In.Tech who will soon be giving away 5 copies of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition.

Pimp my broadband - an actual idea!

Disclosure: I have previously worked on projects with DiGi prior to this, including the launch of DiGi Broadband earlier this year. They are not currently a client at the time of this writing.

So, then why am I writing this? Because a good friend of mine asked me if I'd share an opinion about how I think broadband can be improved and submit it for this contest. And I actually have a pretty good idea (so I think). Also, I AM extremely tempted by the prizes offered in the pimpmybroadband contest, so... consider this an entry!

In case you don't get it, what I'd like to have to pimp out my broadband is ONE service that covers both my mobile broadband needs and desktop / laptop broadband needs. So, I don't have to pay for one service to get the convenience of the dongle, and one more for my mobile. If you really want to do broadband right, give us this option (soon, I hope!)

Would you like a service like this too? Vote for me! :)

Maxis & Rapidshare: Communications in the thick of real-time

In case you've not been keeping up, there was some (nearly) major drama that ensued with Maxis 3G / Broadband over the last 36 hours.

It all started with MyTechNewsInfo's post on Twitter:



And he continued to substantiate the claim with a couple more posts: here, here and here. In a matter of moments, the twitter-sphere exploded with @khawchiahui, @derekw, @ben_israel, @andrewkjs, @icednyior, myself and others starting to comment.

For those of you not in the know, rapidshare is a popular file-sharing site where users can post up big files for friends to download. It is also a popular way to distribute (for example) free maps from malfreemaps (ed: thanks MyTechNewsInfo). The common theory (for lack of a direct explanation) was that Maxis had started blocking Rapidshare downloads as the traffic was getting too heavy and starting to strain bandwidth.

The main sticking point was censorship. What right did Maxis have to censor the internet, regardless of whichever site it is? (In my own opinion, if they do want to block traffic-heavy sites, they should clearly state up-front in their Terms-of-Service and let the customer decide.)

Naturally, we netizens don't take kindly to censorship and Maxis had a mini-mob in their hands. Crisis-time.

At least four of us sent notes to Maxis' official presence on Twitter @maxiscomms asking for an explanation:



The first response was less than inspiring. Instead of taking the issue head-on with the main complainants, @maxiscomms posted a general tweet about Maxis Broadband's fair usage policy! Two mistakes here: 1. @maxiscomms did not address the issue to the concerned audience (in this case, @mytechnewsinfo et al). 2. @maxiscomms posted an irrelevant response. What does a Fair Usage Policy have to do with the simple question "are you or are you not censoring Rapidshare?"



People obviously weren't too impressed by the response:





In the following hours, @maxiscomms then adopted a different tact - getting people to DM (direct message) itself directly instead of putting it out in the open. This is a legitimate tactic, and at least addresses some of the concerns above, of ignoring the audience and broadcasting an irrelevant message:



So I DM'ed @maxiscomms a simple complaint: "Maxis broadband users can't download files from www.rapidshare.com, is maxis blocking the site? Answer appreciated. Thanks." It was 10pm that night already so I didn't expect an answer till the next day.

And as you would have it, the next morning, @maxiscomms got back to me with a simple message acknowledging the complaint and saying they would get back to me. Another couple of hours later, I was sent a direct message:


So I tested Rapidshare and, sure enough, it worked. This news deserved to be spread and so, a quick tweet out:



Was greeted with testing from @mytechnewsinfo and others, who found the same to be true. The conversation turned for the better (for Maxis) and the earlier audience that complained now went back to telling @maxiscomms "Good job".

I thought to share this case as its reflective of the communications (and I don't just mean advertising) industry today. There are a couple of things I'd have done differently from @maxiscomms:
1. I'd have avoided posting the first post in the first place - it just drew more ire from Netizens.
2. When asking people to DM directly, I would have DM'ed them directly first.
3. I'd actually preferred to follow-through with a proper explanation and clarification as to why Rapidshare was blocked in the first place (technical mistake, or policy mistake?)

To their credit, @maxiscomms kept a cool head and avoided hostile remarks and responses that would have drawn further anger from the Twitter-verse.

But the one question that's keeping me thinking now is the expectation of response time and what communications departments / agencies and even the entire company needs to consider as we shift into the world of constant-internet. Consider this summation from @mytechnewsinfo:



I'd argue to cut @maxiscomms some slack as most of the most scathing discussions took place after work-hours. Complaints actually flowed in at about 6 pm on 3rd December. My DM to them was sent around 10 pm. And, understanding the communications process, I'm quite certain @maxiscomms ended up needing to put in some extra hours after work to get responses approved and to get to the bottom of the issue.

He / she probably needed to wait a while for someone who knew the actual situation (policy maker in Maxis / technicians) to brief him / her and then to work out how to communicate and what steps should be taken to rectify. This is a time-consuming process - but the internet keeps on clamouring as you're working it out.

So maybe the process isn't good enough. In the age where mass communication is more real-time than ever, and more important than ever, companies need to rethink the entire communications flow to match the age we live in.

Arguably, the process should have begun before the crisis started. I'm not sure how the process took place, but if an internet-savvy communications person at Maxis was told about the decision to block Rapidshare and asked for his / her opinion before any action was taken, I'm sure the crises would have been averted - simply by Maxis NOT blocking Rapidshare.

Communications people should now be part of business decisions at the earliest possible stage and before any concrete action is taken - especially when those decisions affect customers. Why? Because communication is real-time. It gives you a chance to avoid a communications mistake before you make it. Because you'll face an up-hill battle trying to clean-up after.

In the aftermath of Rapidshare-gate, I'm sure some of us will be sympathetic to @maxiscomms, but the question surely lingers on - why did Maxis try to censor Rapidshare in the first place? And, was it a legal move?

Update: Corrected Malfreemaps example on downloading from Rapidshare. @derekw twittered a response that while whether blocking sites at ISP level is legal is up for discussion, it certainly contravenes the MSC's Bill of Guarantees.

"Social media is just another channel"

Okay guys, tell me, how many times have you heard PR consultants tell you this? Or seen this statement in a slide? Deep down inside - somewhere - I cringe everytime I hear a PR consultant waving off social media saying: "Social media is just another channel."

Social media is the channel - right. The message is still what matters - right. But wait a minute - don't you think it lends a bit of credence to say that the way you deliver your message (or even your message itself!) changes when your channel changes?

Just a couple of random thoughts I had when I was sulking in the corner and thinking a bit more on the subject:

Does a change in "channel" represent a societal change?
Someone needs to help me back this up with historical data, but we've often credited the Reformation to the invention of the printing press. Also, not too few civil revolutions. The written form of languages have evolved thanks to the printed press (Simplified Chinese anyone?) You also don't have to be too much of a sociologist or historian to observe major changes in the values and acceptable norms in our society over these couple of years.

So, if society is changing, shouldn't messages change also to resonate more / be more relevant to the audience? The channel is just indicative of a wider societal change. If anything, internet culture is a good indicator of how society is changing / modernising.

Just another stray thought here: it's really difficult to say if technology is impacting the way society evolves or if society is evolving independent of technology, but is being made much more apparent thanks to technology. It is, however, clear that both are closely-linked; as-if con-joined at the hip.

I'll just close off this post with three key things I think communicators need to note about their audience:

Your audience wants things straight.Cut the willy-nilly small talk and get right to the point. Positioning should happen in five words or don't bother. Too many tagged-on adjectives and superlatives spoil the broth. Sadly, this is easy to observe and say, but very hard to practice.

Your audience wants more than you can give. I think since the advent of the internet, companies have started getting more questions than they care to answer. There's never a product announcement from a major tech company that doesn't attract open questions / discussion on the internet. Which GPS chipset do you use? What are your margins? Do you plan to support this product the next 5 years? It's the age of the specialist-highly-detailed question. Do you have an answer?

Your audience wants to talk back, so listen! This was one of the first lessons I learned about using today's "channel". Feedback is an incredibly component. More so, oftentimes, than "messaging". The fact you listen is an incredible message in itself. Today's audience pay attention to those who listen first. Useful thought, no?

Slowly slipping to communism totalitarianism

I'm reading with concern the The Malaysian Insider's report on plans for a "Malaysian Green Dam". Apparently, there are plans to implement an internet filter in Malaysia. Tender documents seen by The Malaysian Insider say tenders are:

• to evaluate the readiness and feasibility for the implementation of Internet filter at Internet gateway level, through assessments on the existing infrastructure and existing products in the market.
• to evaluate and estimate costs for the implementation.
• to study the existing legal framework in addressing content filtering and no censorship issue, including the impacts that are caused by the implementation to Internet users and the Malaysian economy.

Sounds like gibberish? Here's the Cliff's Notes version: The Malaysian government is planning how it can best censor the internet.

As @derekw points out, this is in direct contradiction with the MSC's Bill of Guarantees which promise "no internet censorship."

Now, the discussion can easily devolve into politics and speculation on what the government is actually trying to block. But even before that, the fundamental questions is: "should censorship come from our government?"

Sure, the excuse could be to "block undesirable elements" from our society. But the government should govern, not play the parent. The key difference being parents are given the uni-lateral right to decide what's right for their children while the government decides according to the people's will.

And I hardly see any people's will decrying the "harmful elements" of the internet. And if there are, isn't it the responsibility of the parents to block it? Isn't it your responsibility to surf only to the clean sites? Isn't it your responsibility to sift thru the lies and get the truth?

If the government dictates what we can or cannot see, are we slowly slipping to communism totalitarianism? Are the communists totalitarians winning after all, after all these years?

*Note: Edits made to this post after useful and sound feedback from StefStefStef and Jia-Yi. See the comments for more info. Thanks guys.

Was that your "publishing" voice or "conversation" voice?

Perhaps plugging nicely to the post just below, Mashable posted a story about a woman getting sued for $50,000 for a tweet. The Twitterer was Abonnen and she had 22 followers.

The offense? She was tweeting to a friend:

"@JessB123 You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay."

Sounds like a tweet you could have written? Yeah, me too. Apparently, though, Horizon Realty thinks this was tantamount to defamation. Is it? That depends on the context of the word "moldy" and what Abonnen meant by saying "Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

It's like me telling my colleague: "You sure you want my moldy old sandwich in the fridge?" when factually, there really isn't any mold on the sandwich and "old" refers to the sandwich having been in existence for the past 5 hours.

What I'm alluding to is the tone and manner by which we converse on Twitter. Do we think of what we write in a "publishing" voice (the same way we might in a blog or an article) or do we write in a "conversational" voice, like how we'd talk to a friend and insert contextual quips.

You don't talk to your friends the same way you would write a press release. And often, sarcasm and exaggeration comes into play too. Twitter, being the social network it is, means people are often talking in their "conversation" voice. We're talking to like-minded people who understand the things we say and the way we speak.

Should we now carefully vet every 140 characters we post to ensure in no way can it be taken out of context and be construed as libelous? I wonder how this suit will change the face of tweeting.

Should we be afraid, very afraid, of #streamyxsucks?

Can you purchase conversation?

So Nuffnang's launched a new service called - appropriately - ChurpChurp. The proposition is simple: create a way for advertisers to easily propogate "word-of-mouth" campaigns whilst allowing top tweeters (not twitterers ok?) to make a pretty penny. But the question is: "will it work?"

I'm not the first to analyse this (heavy work day and all), so you should check out these posts by Shaolintiger's and Bytebot's for additional viewpoints. What I'm really interested in is the dynamic of introducing in-stream advertising into a medium such as Twitter.

Advertising on the web isn't new and it isn't bad. Websites and blogs cost money to host. And let's face it, a good blogger deserves to make some money from his content. But I've always maintained that there's a right way to advertise and then there's the wrong way. Google's probably the best example: Adsense is genius! And Nuffnang themselves are quite the revelation in our Malaysian market (You'll notice the Nuffnang banner ad at the top of my blog.)

But banner advertising, large-rectangle advertising, text advertising have always been tolerable because they are clear and distinct from the actual content of the blog / website. And the best kind are non-intrusive - large enough that you'll notice it, but small enough that you aren't irritated by it.

Then there's the other kind of advertising. Paid for advertorials, not unlike the kind you'd find in print. The modus operandi is simple: the blogger is paid a certain sum for writing an article. And the article is added to the site's content stream (blogposts, stories whatever). Properly disclosed, the occasional advertorial can be informative, and even useful. But here's the twist: Twitter isn't a blog.

Imagine: if half your friends whom you've been having awesome conversations with on Twitter suddenly joined ChurpChurp. Then suddenly, an advertiser purchases an ad campaign where half of them get included in the automated tweet list. And your Twitter stream gets filled with 20 of the exact same tweet from 20 of your pals.

The ideal situation (for the company that paid for the ad, at least) is you get all excited about these "tweets" you're seeing and you go and do whatever the tweets tell you. Or start a conversation.

The reality, I suspect, is much uglier. You'll get irritated, annoyed by the in-flux of ads and seriously have your respect for the offending tweeter damaged.

"Just unfollow them!" I heard you say?

Well, I've thought about it. But I still love having conversations and being connected to those friends.

"Use another platform? What about Facebook?"

Well, those 20 friends don't often chat on Facebook. The action takes place on Twitter.

"Well, why don't you just tell them you don't like that their allowing in-stream advertising?"

That's probably the most sane approach. But as I hope you'll start to see, it isn't about to be so cut and dried. And if they simply refuse, well... it's become a tough decision for you.

How would you feel about the advertiser that got 20 of your friends to post tweets about their latest products or upcoming event? I doubt there'd be much positivity. Not only do those tweet-ads irritate you, they also push you to making the tough decision to follow/unfollow some of those people you may have been enjoying a great deal of interaction with. Which makes me really question the value of advertising thru these means.

If you're a brand that's looking to reach out, Twitter seems to be the perfect place to facilitate two-way conversation between brands and customers or other interested parties. It's a great place to get a great story (or a quirky one) spread around thru re-tweets too. But instead of just buying tweet-ads, these tactics call for investing into a long-term plan to maintain a company / brand presence on Twitter. Dell's a great success story. And locally, there's MAS, AirAsia and P1WiMax too.

Conversations can't be purchased. Getting 20, 100 or even 10,000 people to re-tweet your ad isn't going to generate the kind of good-will, interaction and stickiness (marketeers love this word) that creating your own free Twitter account and actually interacting with people will.