Through initiatives such as classified ads and promote your post for $7, it creates local communities within a massive global platform.
Families. Friends. Games.
That's Facebook, and that's powerful.
While Twitter can do some of most of the above, that's not its bag.
You can build a brand on Twitter, no doubt, but it delivers immediacy.
It's a much simpler and straightforward platform. Twitter really is the modern-day newspaper. It's a daily habit. It's the place a growing number of people go when news breaks.
Twitter, in association with advertisers, has only begun to scratch the surface on how to take advantage of this instantaneity, this relevancy.
When salespeople sit down with clients, they need to bring solutions.
It's so much easier to close a deal when you can tell a
Proctor & Gamble
, "Hey, listen, you're going to sell and market maxi pads differently than you do
batteries and we have multiple options across Twitter and Facebook to put a smart and comprehensive package together."
There's no sense in having the Twitter people in one day, the Facebook people in the next, making a choice between the two or, worse yet, buying both in what ends up a disjunctive ad campaign.
I doubt they will, but Twitter and Facebook best serve themselves and one another by uniting on the advertising front. If it doesn't happen via merger, maybe a sales and marketing partnership makes more sense.
Don't worry about federal regulators.
How can they possibly stop a move between the two firms?
Mobile advertising is in its infancy. Beyond less than a dozen early adopters, we don't even know what other key players will rise in the space over the next several years.
can run roughshod over search, how can anybody, particularly horribly inconsistent regulators, balk at Twitter and Facebook making social ad buys more convenient and effective for companies in the Fortune 100 through small business?
A Twitter-Facebook union almost makes too much sense.
At the time of publication, the author had a position in FB