This is not a paywall.

Register for free to continue reading.

The news sucks. But your reading experience doesn't have to. Help us improve that for you by registering for free.

Please create a password or click to receive a login link.

Please enter your password or get a login link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for registering.

First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Sponsored tweets: is Huffpost for real?

Business Maverick

Business Maverick, Media

Sponsored tweets: is Huffpost for real?

Would you pay for the privilege of tweeting about your company’s products? Would you pay for a post in the comment section? The chief revenue officer of Huffington Post thinks you might.

Either it’s getting desperate, or weird, or desperately weird, or we don’t understand what’s going on. The Huffington Post, according to the Wall Street Journal, is “selling advertising space to marketers who weigh in on articles via comments and tweets.” The sentence needs to be re-read a couple of times, and even then it isn’t entirely clear what’s up. Like, does posting a whack of comments to the Huffington Post website get an advertiser first dibs on a banner ad? Does a marketer who dedicates his days to re-tweeting Huffpost articles get a freebie after, say, a thousand tweets?

Unfortunately, if we’re getting this at all, it’s a bit more distressing than that. There’s a clue in the second paragraph of the WSJ piece. “[Huffington Post] have said that no advertisers have signed on yet and that it would help them figure out how to best inject their messages into relevant parts of the site.”

Yup, it’s an “injection”. Of comments and tweets. Paid for by advertisers. In amongst all the free comments and tweets.

The reason Huffpost is doing it seems simple enough. President and chief revenue officer Greg Coleman, a former Yahoo and AOL executive who was brought in last year, has promised to finally make some serious profits out of the site’s prodigious stats (in September last year, according to Nielsen Media Matrix, Huffpost overtook Washingtonpost.com, raking in just under 9.5-million unique visitors).

Coleman, whose job description obviously has the word “target” all over it, intends to double revenue over the next year, and increase it by six-fold over the next three years. He’s stated as much on-the-record a number of times. So we can’t help but wonder who he’s trying to convince with the following statement:

“This kind of program could be used by any advertiser across the board. If you think of advertisers that want to sponsor the Super Bowl or the Academy Awards or even a discussion of Obama’s State of the Union speech, the opportunities are there. I could see fashion advertisers sponsoring a thread on the red carpet for the Oscars. A beer advertiser could sponsor a theme around a sports event. These are topics that people will be talking about and they’ll be engaged. And that’s where advertisers ultimately want to be.”

The quote, appropriately enough, was made during a conversation with a writer for paidContent.org. Neither the writer nor Coleman acknowledged (never mind answered) the obvious question: why would anyone want to read sponsored tweets or comments?

Never mind. At the bottom of both the paidContent and WSJ articles on the matter, the first comment – written by the same person, with the same wording – appeared to favour the idea. “I believe that paid messages DO have a place in online journals and blogs; after all, marketers are members of the community and want to have their opinion heard.”

Of course they do. Especially if, like the commenter above, they own a company that has recently launched a platform for sponsored comments.

By Kevin Bloom

Read more: paidContent.org, Wall Street Journal


Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted