Yes
Matt Conner, Client services director, Stephens Francis Whitson
I am absolutely sure of it. It's a new channel to explore and in marketing 2.0 we all need a distraction while we're watching terrestrial broadcasting figures slide, response rates slip and search terms go through the roof.
Logically, it also gives an excellent route to targeting an affluent, trend-loving and (previously) free-spending group of consumers. But the real question is how will it actually perform?
The explosion in popularity of Google, Facebook and now Twitter has been fuelled by a consumer desire to be in an environment where they can avoid the sales messages of the corporate world.
Admittedly, Google seems to have it cracked, to the tune of $20bn or so last year. But the challenge for Twitter is to turn chat into a source of revenue, and that is going to be tough - particularly with an audience who will move on to the next big thing as soon as they feel their fun has become a commercial.
No
Jonathan Harman, EMEA president, Carlson Marketing
Twitter is an innovative way to communicate with customers, but, as a paid-for communications vehicle, the returns are untested. Many other proven digital channels would take priority in a brand's marketing budget.
Twitter's dilemma is creating a business model and beginning to repay its initial $20m venture capital investment. To start by charging brands a subscription seems counter-intuitive. There's the whole area of enforcement - how would brand involvement be policed? - and will enough brands get involved to make it sustainable?
Twittering takes a bigger investment than the subscription cost - there's the continual demand for content creation, and reaction to 'Tweets' that have a direct cost for brands.
A better approach would be to monetise its site traffic through online advertising, or search, in a similar way to Facebook. Then it could allow brands that want to Tweet to continue their involvement, and prove Twitter's effectiveness as its user base grows. It seems wiser to introduce payments once the brand case has been made.
Yes
Gareth Helm, Founding partner, Brand Chat
I know Twitter sounds a little strange to some, but I really like it and believe brands will pay to be involved. It needs to be affordable, but if it is a simple way to get to your key audience then it must be considered.
Clearly this won't be for most brands, because there are very few that can credibly live in this space now. Twitter also seems to appeal to a narrow type of person at present, but I am sure it will become more widely adopted and relevant to more brands. I was, for instance, surprised recently when an elderly aunt raved about Twitter - she used it to keep in daily contact with her family on an ad hoc basis. Simple and brilliant.
Twitter just needs to ensure any commercialisation doesn't dilute the simplicity and na•vety of the interaction. It could become so clumsy and the bubble so easily burst if a Unilever or Procter & Gamble used money to get people involved. Instead, I hope Twitter sets some clear filters to protect its integrity.
Maybe
Brendan Tansey, Chief executive, Wunderman
Twitter is the latest in a line of tempting media routes to consumers.
Brands paying-to-play on Twitter will gain if they shape exclusive content for Twitter addicts. This could include personalised discounts, or added-value content. It can be used to generate sales and strengthen consumer loyalty.
Dell claims $1m worth of sales via exclusive discounts using this medium. However, if Twitter gets too greedy, bombarding its users with messages, they will abandon it for the next new thing. Clever marketers will be part of the consensual group conversation.
The site can also destroy reputations. In web 2.0, the consumer is king. The marketer requires tacit approval to enter personal digital space. This con-sent will be given only to the genuinely useful and uniquely entertaining communication. Twitter is a tabloid cousin of Facebook and the recipient must become a sub-editor supreme.
Eventually, overkill will drive the Twitterers to move on.