Why This Digital Exec Thinks Google Should Buy Twitter

It Would Help Provide More Value to Marketers

Posted by David Berkowitz on 04.03.09 @ 12:05 PM

David Berkowitz

Let's put the "will it or won't it" debate on hold. If Google does acquire Twitter, what does this mean for all parties involved? We see it as the best possible scenario. Here's why:

Search first, talk later: While only a certain percentage of marketers and consumers will use Twitter to communicate, every marketer and business small and large can take advantage of Twitter Search.

Part of your recommended digital diet: Monitoring live conversations through Twitter Search (or, perhaps, another service that replaces it down the road) has the potential to be one of those staples for businesses, along the lines of updating their directory listings (YellowPages.com, Google Local, etc.) and making sure they have a decent domain name.

In Google we trust, this time: Twitter could be in good hands with Google. Google does have a mixed bag with communications start-ups -- see Jaiku and Dodgeball as examples of two promising start-ups that Google let languish. Yet Blogger has been a good fit, as Google largely let Blogger be Blogger. Go to Blogger.com -- you have to squint to see it's a Google service, with the only giveaways being the request to sign in with a Google Account and the Google copyright in the footer. Expect Twitter to have the same kind of hands off approach if Google acquires it.

The wisdom of crowdsourcing: Another advantage for Google and Twitter? Almost all of the best functionality on Twitter, Twitter Search included, has been developed by others (recall that Twitter acquired Twitter search engine Summize and made it Twitter Search). Twitter's biggest needs are a) servers to power it, and b) a revenue model, and that's exactly what Google can contribute. If Twitter stays running, its community of developers will do all the heavy lifting in making it even more usable.

Who else? Facebook has no track record of acquisitions to speak of and is too competitive with Twitter. Microsoft doesn't have the credibility to make an acquisition like this -- there'd be an uproar from users. Yahoo would be scary right now as it's so busy finding its own path and getting its house in order, plus they'd have the hardest time getting approval for buying something with no monetization. There could be a wild card like an AOL, which seemed to overpay $850 million for Bebo, although Bebo is finally fitting in with its lifestreaming plans (and, hey, AOL's now run by an ex-Googler). Google remains the most likely option with cash, relevant acquisition experience, and the missing pieces that Twitter needs.

Even if nothing happens between Google and Twitter, marketers should be aware of why these conversations would happen at all. Despite all the buzz that Twitter gets, it's still a blip on marketers' radars right now, and most marketers who are interested in it don't use it as well as they could for brand monitoring or communicating. That said, a Google acquisition might help Twitter provide more value to marketers (and maybe gain a revenue stream in the process) and would help steer marketers in the right direction with Twitter, as well.

~ ~ ~
David Berkowitz is director of emerging media for 360i. He blogs regularly at Inside the Marketer's Studio.

3 Comments

  By JACK | HERMOSA BEACH, CA April 3, 2009 02:59:28 pm:

Didn't have a chance to read the Kara Swisher piece, but maybe they are just meeting with Google to negotiate a favorable deal for paid listings in their search results? It's about time they monetized those results...

- Jack
http://weareorganizedchaos.com/index.php/2009/04/03/will-search-make-twitter-money/

Permalink

  By Paul | Tupelo, MS April 3, 2009 03:16:53 pm:

Bank on it, Google will acquire Twitter. There is too much precedent and logic for this to shake out otherwise. Read my blog for detail why I believe this: http://bit.ly/JvOF

Bottom line: Google is about search and, now, so it Twitter. And, Google is about advertising and, well, look at what's beginning to happen between the two entities.

Strategic partnership, fuhgetaboutit! We're talking acquisition here. Sooner or later, it will happen.

Of course, the real mystery is, who will acquire Facebook? That also has to happen. My vote, Microsoft. They're not winning at the search game, but they have won at the "operating systems" game, and with its 200+ million members and growing by leaps and bounds every day, what is Facebook becoming but the operating system of the new web. (That's a game that Google is certainly not winning.)

Google/Twitter, Microsoft/Facebook. AOL/Bebo. Only question left is who does Yahoo! acquire?

Permalink

  By nickkinports | Chicago, IL April 6, 2009 09:34:01 am:

David,

Let's look at the facts here:

1) Twitter's founders are ex-Googlers who were brought into the company when Google acquired Blogger, a software that they subsequently ran into the ground (I should know; I use Blogger and have an intimate understanding of how painful it is to use compared to WordPress) and has since never recovered.

2) Google discontinued Jaiku, a microblogging product Google acquired in 2007 similar to Twitter that, despite a solid user base, they were not able to monetize.

3) Google has yet to monetize YouTube; a wildly popular service acquired by Google due to it's ubiquitous popularity and huge traffic numbers. It is now known that YouTube is not growing at a pace that is in line with expectations while advertising on the service remains questionable at best.

Are you still sure a Google buyout - based on their track record - is the best thing for either company?

http://www.twitter.com/admaven

http://admaven.blogspot.com

Permalink

Comment:

Note: Comments submitted to AdAge.com are posted automatically and will include the user name with which you registered. Ad Age reserves the right to delete comments that are insulting or personal in nature. Comments may be used in the print edition at editorial discretion. Comments are restricted to 500 words or less.