Irrespective of how Twitter does it, there is a great value in sharing ad revenue with the consumers who are helping generate those revenues. We watched the Decameron movie recently and it was on a channel that is ad-supported - something I am not used to these days on Netflix or Prime. The ad choices were quite bewildering to me - one specific car-maker, one specific Italian designer, a range of frozen meals from one brand and then with unrelenting regularity a vitamin pill ad. Taken together the whole set of ads made no sense for me. I do not do frozen meals - so that data point is missing or dead wrong. The car-brand choice is interesting but also one I have not shown any inclination for - personally or as a family. The vitamin pills seem to be an antidote to the processed food that was being promoted - there is no other way to explain the juxtaposition.
It is like if I take action and start eating copious amounts of processed food then I will need vitamins to go along with such diet. Then the designer perfume - that made sense given its an Italian brand. The only ad that appeared and just once was for an Italian cruise - that was the most relevant thing to show up in the entire time and it featured just once. All but one ad was completely wasted on me. Now if I was promised a revenue sharing model that would appear in the form of a discount on purchasing any of the items that were presented to me, I would be way more interested and I would ask to be shown things in my categories of interest that I may not be aware of. There is no sense is sharing revenue with a consumer who is absolutely not going to push the buy button related to the ads they were shown.
Comments