Twitter’s search feature is no threat to Google when it comes to informational searches.  People looking for information on the “perricone diet” (#2 “Hot Trend” today on Google Trends) are not going to use Twitter search for that information.

But informational searches aren’t where Google makes it’s living.  Google makes money from charging advertisers to display tiny text ads on commercial searches.

Take me as an example.  I’m the cofounder of a furniture store.  Of course, I advertise on Google Adwords.  But, like all other forms of advertising, I cast a wide net, cross my fingers and hope to catch something.

Advertising on Twitter will be much more targeted.  This morning, I woke up and did a Twitter search for “buy furniture.”  Had I performed that search on Google, more than likely, I’d be looking to purchase furniture.  On Twitter, I’m looking for people interested in buying furniture.

As I type this, the top result is @phooz: “This means I’ll have to look for a place, decide where I want to live, and have to buy furniture and stuff. Ikea anyone?”

Right now, it would be free for me to reply to @phooz and tell him: “Hey, before you check out Ikea, here’s a 15% discount to shop at nikkoSHOPS.com.”

How can Twitter monetize this?  Before it can do so, Twitter has to first allow DM (direct messages) from people who you do not follow, something which they currently do not allow.  (Currently, you can reply to someone you don’t follow but there is no guarantee that that person will read it.) Second, they have to charge for those DM’s.

Of course, this could quickly get out of control.  Twitter users would obviously have to opt in to this feature.  I’d be motivated to opt in if my mention of “buy furniture” prompted a coupon from a vendor.

Another issue is would users want to be barraged by 15-20 advertisers with DMs?  One way to stop this would be to make these DMs expensive.  Whereas I may bid $1 for the term “furniture” on Google AdWords, I’d have to bid ten or twenty times that for a Twitter lead, which would be much more likely to convert.

Why would a Twitter lead be much more likely to convert?  Because, I as an advertiser, would prequalify that lead before bidding.  I’d visit that Twitter profile, browse previous tweets to try to determine age, income and so on, all the metrics we marketers love to stare at.

Of course, there would be those advertisers that would have a bot that would automatically bid and respond.  Not only would would that result in high costs and a very poor ROI (a bot can’t prequalify a lead**) but Twitter could institute its own version of Google’s quality score, blocking advertisers based on poor CTR, message relevance and even Twitter community votes.

For those wondering if Twitter will ever monetize on all of those eyeballs, wonder no more.

**Side Note: If I could code, I’d be developing the tool that could prequalify Twitter leads based on the sentiment of the twit and the demographic of the user.

• Client: We want to do social media.  Let’s put a banner on Facebook.
• Me: That’s not really social media marketing.  Social media is participatory, you can’t take old advertising models and try to apply them to social media.  It won’t work.
• Client: Ok, then.  Let’s make a viral Facebook application.

Whereas before, the client was tried to transpose traditional advertising to the social media realm, now they are trying to do so with non-traditional, guerilla methods.  I’m not sure I would call that much of an improvement.

Social media marketing is much more than marketing on a social venue.  Even if a viral campaign on a social venue were to be successful, that would only serve one possible purpose of a social media campaign, building awareness.

An all-encompassing social media campaign should also involve branding, brand monitoring, connecting and engaging with customers, providing support, etc.

Let’s not confuse viral with social media marketing.  Likewise, let’s not confuse tactics with strategy.

By trade, I specialize in search engine marketing.  About four years ago, when I entered the field, search engine optimization was the marketing buzzphrase.  If you were good enough at it, you could get paid thousands of dollars for very little work.  I know because I did.

Below are the searches for “search engine optimization” (red line) from 2004-2008.  As you can see, interest in the subject has fallen year over year.

But for every marketing buzzword that dies a slow death, there are a dozen more ready to take its place.  At the moment, that seems to be “social media marketing” (blue line).

As someone recently told me, internet years are like dog years.  Online display advertising is on its last legs, search engine optimization, in demand only four years ago, is now a commodity, and not far behind it’s display cousin.

It took roughly two decades for the internet to kill newspapers.  How long before new delivery mechanisms kill old models and leave all of those unwilling to adapt out in the rain?

Photo credit: renatotarga