There is a major difference in the service model between google search and twitter tweets.
In search, you are actively seeking something out - you enter a phrase, it returns a result. This meshes beautifully with ads - because in the ideal, an ad matches what you're looking for, except it may want you to buy the end result.
Tweets, totally different. With tweets - you are effectively either pushing information to a specific group (your followers) or you are accepting pushed information from those you follow.
This is much more intimate of a conversation as the tweets you're accepting by following come from real people, or entities/groups that you associate/identify with or are otherwise interested in their info; such as a news stream.
To interject ads into this communication is much more akin to you standing at the bus stop with your friend and you're talking about where to go for lunch and being approached by some random stranger saying "Hey I think you guys would really like Coke!"
You already KNOW what coke is, so this random person is not adding any value to the conversation that you're having with your friend.
Between google and twitter, we are looking at the age old problem with content relevance in push/pull context.
Hitch hiking on your observation, perhaps Twitter should start by monetizing search. When you search Twitter for tweets about the Japan Tsunami, maybe you do want to see ads for charities or radiation pills? Maybe when you search for Justin Bieber you are interested in concert tickets and music downloads?
The types of searches you mentioned don't even monetize well on Google. The reason Google search is a profit machine is because people search for stuff like "lowest credit card rates", "refinance mortgage", "best shoes for my wedding".
Searches for "Japan Tsunami" and "Justing Beiber" are not revenue generating searches. Twitter's searches are only marginally monetizable.
That would be really annoying if my friend and I weren't talking about Coke. But if we are talking about Coke, then I don't mind a stranger chiming in with "Hey, since you're talking about Coke, here's something you might like", as long as the stranger's message is highly relevant.
Twitter has got to find some way to monetize or they will die. Simple. I wouldn't mind a few highly relevant ads in my timeline if it means keeping the service free. They already know what I'm interested in. Or, others might value the service enough to pay a small fee to not be served ads. Either way, right now we're all getting something pretty great for free and it's not sustainable. I would rather get served a few ads for products that really interest me than see the service go away altogether.
That would be really annoying if my friend and I weren't talking about Coke. But if we are talking about Coke, then I don't mind a stranger chiming in with "Hey, since you're talking about Coke, here's something you might like", as long as the stranger's message is highly relevant.
Do you really believe this? Is the literal experience described, of a stranger injecting semi-relevant commercial comments into a conversation you were actually having, really something you, yourself, would find pleasant??
I feel as though there's a huge population of marketers who don't put themselves enough into the shoes of consumers to realize that this kind of things feels invasive, not helpful.
It's like marketers start with general point that relevant display ads work better than irrelevant display ads and assume that maximum customization of an makes it maximally appealing to the average person.
You don't realize that a person doesn't actually want any feedback from a company at random and that "personalizing" brand advertising just makes it creepy (as oppose to personalizing informational advertising, which makes it more useful).
I don't want my favorite company in the world injecting even relevant comment into my ordinary conversation. If I wanted to hear from them, I'd ask them. (and Facebook's right column just gets creepier).
No, it's not always pleasant. I admit that. But you know what's less pleasant? Twitter shutting down because they can't pay the server bills. The relevant economic concept here is opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of Twitter not showing ads is charging for their service. The next greatest opportunity cost is them not existing. So many people think the internet operates independently of the principles of economics. Well, it doesn't.
And I also don't feel the analogy is apt. To use the well-worn metaphor of Twitter as cocktail party, it's like having a conversation with your friend about, say, Arduino's, and having the host, whom you don't know, walk by and say "Oh yeah website X is having a great sale on those", and then they're off again to serve Jell-O shots. I chose to go to Twitter's party, so at least I'll nod politely to the host because they're the ones providing the free booze.
No, it's not always pleasant. I admit that. But you know what's less pleasant? Twitter shutting down because they can't pay the server bills.
Hey, I'm not against them monetizing.
But to monetize, they have to find an ad-format that works. And to find an ad format that works, they can't pretend targeting by itself will do what they need.
Realistically, for example, I think people would prefer a party where host have big "Bud" posters up to a party where the host interrupts individual conversations semi-relevant ads.
Twitter can monetize with plain, ordinary advertising.
The problem is this be admitting that Twitter's segment of the Internet is basically the relatively low-value part of the Internet and that Google's part is the higher-value part. That wouldn't make Twitter impossible, it would just take away from the huge valuation it has. And that could be a problem for a lot of people.
True, true, but you're not seeking something out when you watch television and there are commercials. or listen to the radio. Or listen to pandora, or many others.
People are ok with advertising in general. I think this has more to do with the implementation, not that people are opposed to ads on twitter in general.
TV and Radio - even Pandora is intrinsically passive.
So while we are "OK" with it in those mediums or activities - those are passive activities in which you basically view/listen to whatever content they choose to put on the stream.
Search is 100% active, where twitter is a hybrid - but the problem with ads in twitter is contextual relevance + value.
They will either clutter a conversation which you follow, or lack context and relevance thus just driving you mad.
Instead, I have suggested that Twitter needs to stop trying to monetize its current incarnation - but needs to build upon the platform and pivot a bit.
I sugggest that due to the fantastic job they have done in gaining both wide adoption but also mass appeal with celebrities and influencers, they need to expand the platform to provide more content from those users and then monetize with revenue sharing.
Basically, you would have tweets coming from Lady Gaga in the current form the do today - yet if she wanted to tweet about her new album, a link she could send would drive all the traffic to an exclusively announced twitter page with details of the album and the ability to buy it there. Additional ads could be placed on that expanded content page by twitter.
Album sales go to lady gaga - the ad money goes to twitter.
--
They need to build out a blogging platform that allows for deeper, richer content.
Tweets are great for high-level, hyper responsive communications and awareness driving, but the fact is that no matter what you think of tweets and their succinctness they are too small to convey 99.9999% of information people want to convey. Tweets ALREADY serve to make groups aware of something, then drive them to more/better resources for information about that event.
IMO - Twitter needs to acquire. Tumblr, posterous, whomever. Mate the products and provide ad-rev channels based on the two.
@Jack could oversee ensuring that the two properties welded together maintain a level of simplicity and elegance - but greater functionality is needed.
If twitter revolutionized the micrblog, expanded to miniblogs and allowed very simple, concise miniblogs and maintained a level of control over the presentation (ala facebook) They could be exceptional.
Of course, there is the outstanding issue with stability, but that will be fixed I am sure...
In search, you are actively seeking something out - you enter a phrase, it returns a result. This meshes beautifully with ads - because in the ideal, an ad matches what you're looking for, except it may want you to buy the end result.
Tweets, totally different. With tweets - you are effectively either pushing information to a specific group (your followers) or you are accepting pushed information from those you follow.
This is much more intimate of a conversation as the tweets you're accepting by following come from real people, or entities/groups that you associate/identify with or are otherwise interested in their info; such as a news stream.
To interject ads into this communication is much more akin to you standing at the bus stop with your friend and you're talking about where to go for lunch and being approached by some random stranger saying "Hey I think you guys would really like Coke!"
You already KNOW what coke is, so this random person is not adding any value to the conversation that you're having with your friend.
Between google and twitter, we are looking at the age old problem with content relevance in push/pull context.