Sponsored Tweets is a new ad platform enabling advertisers to sponsor influential twitter users. The platform tries to use language familiar to ad buyers such as “cost per thousand followers.” They offer several campaigns as examples of its power. Apparently there campaign for Armani was so successful it actually brought their website down (anecdotal / peer source). I’ve run a few promotions on their platform, primarily as a test for clients. I can see its usefulness especially helping brands get scale for a compelling offer.

An unintended result of Sponsored Tweets is creating new benchmarks for social media and pr specialists using Twitter for their clients. Once a monetary value for a tweet is established through Sponsored Tweets that same value can be applied to determining the value of those participating in campaigns on Twitter without a monetary incentive.

On Tuesday I invited Loren Feldman of 1938Media to speak to my social media class. Loren argued that Twitter is filled with self-promotion: “No where else do people walk up to you & say “look what I wrote and how good it is’” [loosely paraphrased]. In response to those who take issue with advertising on Twitter, Loren has created a new hashtag “#myad.”

Advertising on Twitter is worth testing, especially if your client has a good creative message.  It’s up to the individual Twitter user to know the tolerance of their audience to advertising and to respect their audience accordingly. Those who advertise too frequently to their audience will lose them—and their ads will be less effective. Ideally, they will strike a good balance between monetizing content without interfering with the meaningful relationships they are creating.

I’ve seen many influential Twitter users, who run social an pr firms, do this for their client. They’re getting paid. How is this different?

One thing does surprise me….that Twitter isn’t getting a big piece of the ad marketplace their service is creating.

When I served as an interactive media buyer and planner at an advertising agency, one of our clients wanted to target the gay and lesbian community. I developed the plan and started working with media sales people. They were unlike others media reps I worked with in the past. Their commitment to their audience was exceptional to the point of being willing to lose business if it did not meet their criteria.

Minutes into my conversation I found myself answering specific questions. “In what ways does your client support the gay and lesbian community,” and “what events have they attended that support this community last year.” These media sales reps communicated that their media was for sale contingent on my client’s sincere commitment to their audience. The reps knew their audience would not do business with those who astroturfed. And if their audience didn’t do business, they would have unhappy clients.

The same standards should be applied to social media. Some clients are not a fit for social media. They do not welcome collaboration or transparency, and their expectations are better suited for purchased media rather than earned media.

Then there are companies who are deeply aligned with social media. Shopping at WholeFoods yesterday I noticed two stickers on the door promoting their Twitter and Facebook presence. The importance of these stickers transcended a simple promotional significance. They are symbolic suggesting, “if you Tweet or FB us we’ll listen.” And although the meaning is different, I think they should be treated with as much significance as a business featuring a pink triangle.