Just noticed how often the Telegraph gets linked on the front page of Digg. I then had a look at the network of submitters and Diggers. It's definitely a systematic campaign.
I wonder if they pay someone full time for this or if they have other stuff to do? It's probably marginally worth the cash based on back of beer mat calculations.
AFTER NOT WRITING FOR A WHILE I MIGHT TAKE THIS A BIT MORE SERIOUSLY AND HAVE MOVED TO WWW.INSERTKEYWORDHERE.COM
Monday, June 09, 2008
Politics & the Internet
A few observations:
Obama works with a Facebook early stage employee:
So, what influence will the Internet have on the next UK election. Please tell me someone in the incumbent parties has been watching and knows that the hell they are doing (and this doesn't count).
Obama works with a Facebook early stage employee:
- raises a shit load of cash by going for the long tail of contributors
- engages with Twitter, Facebook et al
- owns the Digg front page
So, what influence will the Internet have on the next UK election. Please tell me someone in the incumbent parties has been watching and knows that the hell they are doing (and this doesn't count).
BView offers £10 Amazon voucher for every 20 reviews
We @ BView ran a competition where the reviewer with the most number of reviews during the April/May period won a trip to Barcelona and £500 in spending cash. It worked well and a competitive streak came out in a lot of our members.
Trouble was we could only have 1 winner so the people that missed out by a couple of reviews lost out a wee bit. So we've decided to trial rewarding every reviewer for every 20 reviews with a £10 voucher. You can roll them up and can earn up to £50/month.
Anyway, read more here.
Trouble was we could only have 1 winner so the people that missed out by a couple of reviews lost out a wee bit. So we've decided to trial rewarding every reviewer for every 20 reviews with a £10 voucher. You can roll them up and can earn up to £50/month.
Anyway, read more here.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Twitter: would you pay for it...no but they should (depending on who you are)
I read (and commented) on a post by Jason Calacanis who proposed that super Users of Twitter pay $20/month (or some other fee) or the use of the system.
My point was that the eventual end cost of most messaging utilities is zero and that if a charge was introduced then this would merely force a competitor with no uptime or scaling issues to enter and allow easy transfer of contacts.
A friend started me down a different track. His thinking is: Twitter needs it's top Users more than they need it:
In the last 7 days www.calacanis.com received about 5,000 visits/day. The site does not give feedburner stats and I am not sure if he is part of a RSS package which boosts subscribers. He has 27,000 followers on Twitter. What's hard to gauge is the traffic driving between the two.
My point here is: who needs who more? If you remove the top 50 Users from Twitter does Twitter not actually collapse? How many people joined/maintain their existence on the site because of a web personality (Calacanis/Scoble/Arrington)?
So, should Twitter be charging heavy Users for a clean cluster to support them or should Twitter be moving these Twittstars already and write it off as a marketing cost?
My point was that the eventual end cost of most messaging utilities is zero and that if a charge was introduced then this would merely force a competitor with no uptime or scaling issues to enter and allow easy transfer of contacts.
A friend started me down a different track. His thinking is: Twitter needs it's top Users more than they need it:
In the last 7 days www.calacanis.com received about 5,000 visits/day. The site does not give feedburner stats and I am not sure if he is part of a RSS package which boosts subscribers. He has 27,000 followers on Twitter. What's hard to gauge is the traffic driving between the two.
My point here is: who needs who more? If you remove the top 50 Users from Twitter does Twitter not actually collapse? How many people joined/maintain their existence on the site because of a web personality (Calacanis/Scoble/Arrington)?
So, should Twitter be charging heavy Users for a clean cluster to support them or should Twitter be moving these Twittstars already and write it off as a marketing cost?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)