When I first read Josh Catone’s Video Comments? No Thanks - 5 Reasons They Don’t Work re: Seesmic on TechCrunch, I got annoyed - but then again, I am easily annoyed, and I also think everything sucks. Although I found it unnecessary to so quickly discount what is nascent functionality admittedly implemented by a primary competitor, the tone was constructive, and raised some valid points. However, although after a second read my reaction is more understanding, I remain very concerned.

What is there to be “concerned” about? The lack of interest in the inherent value of the human form in digital media. The frivolous relationships that are pursued, formed and maintained via social networking applications, and elsewhere. The physical, psychological and emotional disconnections that negatively impact, if not entirely negate the interest in, any empathy and compassion for our fellow man. Users prefer an anonymous digital existence masked by pseudonyms and fabricated, idealistic profiles. Flames can so easily replace conversations, avatars our faces, and characters our voices. We all know the drill.

Not only do we fabricate our personas, we give away our “friendship” to anyone who “requests” it, to then never further enable or extend the “relationship”. Human relationships have become fast food - easily found, never analyzed, rapidly purchased, consumed anywhere, and rarely truly enjoyed. Life has become a “stream” of pics, tags, quips, links, widgets, emoticons, polls and jokes. We all know the drill.

There are many ways to combat the dehumanization of the medium, most of which are internal to the user. Self-respect, integrity, ethics, honesty, sincerity, interest, empathy, compassion, attention - all of the things that contribute to the quality of our individual lives, and to the mutually-dependent communities and societies in which we co-exist. Although I am concerned for the quality and happiness of an individual’s and the World’s existence, there is little I can do to assist it here. Or perhaps I can…

What I can do is compel Josh Catone and others to encourage the use of video - an external aid - not to discourage it. The technology and its supporting functionality is imperfect, and sure, embedded hotlinks would help to improve a video comment, as would voice recognition and transcription to enable moderation and captioning. It will get there - we all know the drill.

In the meantime, we all need to encourage the use of any media - such as video - that enables an individual’s presence, voice and human form. We are not digital entities - we are flesh & blood & smiles & stammers. Our comments are not to be skimmed, for each of us brings value to the conversation in our own way. It might not be ideal, well-informed, or perfectly formed, but it is human. Go ahead and “scan” what I say, discount me for having not “provided any links”, and discourage the inclusion of my physical, full-motion, voice-enabled image because “the load times takes longer”. Truth is, I’m not here to make the world a convenient place for you, or to fit into your idea of importance & relevance.

However, show me you care about more than my pic, text and links and I might care about you, too. Take the time to listen, not just to read - to watch, not just to view. Practice a little selflessness, and perhaps I will, too. Ultimately we begin to know each other, to like each other, and to perpetuate each other. Strange to think that digital video - and video comments - could help to bring us together, and to make the world a better place to live, but you never know until you give it a try. Well, for longer than an hour, that is.

Update: I am trying to install Seesmic video comments, but am having difficulty given my use of the Tarski custom theme.

Hank Williams of Why Does Everything Suck? gets it, and with brutal honesty. He’s right on so many fronts, including the fact that everything sucks - everything. Every time I get caught in a phone tree, or look at gas prices, I think of Hank telling the truth.

Hank’s recent posts “Chris Anderson’s Voodoo Economics of Free” and “Free is Killing Us. Blame the VCs” caught my eye given statements like these:

“Venture capital has totally distorted the market. VCs are investing billions of dollars in companies with instructions to get big fast and to worry about advertising revenue later. As a result the competition is for users and not paying customers.”

and

“The good news is at some point VCs will indeed realize how dumb all of this is and stop giving away everything of value on the Internet. This will all stop when the average VC can’t get any of his/her companies to scale because there is just too much VC sponsored free stuff out there. Then and only then will this crazy eyeballs business model redux finally be put to bed.”

and

“We are indeed in a crazy time. But after a bit of equilibrium returns to the markets and people begin to get used to the idea that everything digital can’t be free, everything we have learned about economics, and I don’t mean Chris Anderson’s voodoo economics, will take hold and everything will be OK.”

The point I will try to make here is that these are not only true statements, but that it is also time to STOP THE MADNESS.

But First a Word About Marketing-Types
Before I make my primary point, I think it is about time that someone acknowledged that, until Internet companies begin to acknowledge the value of the sales & marketing function (and people!), that their code- and design-centric focus will continue to keep them pandering to VCs. Let’s just admit that coders, and perhaps even designers and others who believe that they “do the real work”, think sales & marketing are unnecessary, easy functions, and that the persons who occupy them lack knowledge & skills needed by any company, let alone an Internet computing-centric one. This “battle of the value-adders” has been waged forever in all companies in all industries, and it is not only boring, it is inaccurate, limiting and financially dangerous, for in the case of the Internet industry, it adversely affects the viability of the startups that are already suffocating on empty bottom lines given egomaniacal delusions of grandeur.

As a Marketing-type, I’ll admit that I often wish I was a coder, designer, psychiatrist, bricklayer or anyone with truly concrete trade skills. I made some short-sighted choices, and as a result have a softer, more abstract skill set along the lines of business/revenue strategy, product/market positioning and other perceived “fluff” such as actually trying to sell something to someone who hopefully needs, not just wants it.

However, regardless of fluffiness, it would seem that these skills are lost on the doers, for sales & marketing is not only frowned upon, it is wholly avoided, resulting in little-to-no effort on these fronts, which manifests in little-to-no strategy, planning, differentiation, process - and revenue. As long as these airs of superiority are maintained, and technology-side functions believe themselves and the products they produce to be self-sustaining and invaluable, then not only will those of us who CARE about value propositions, channel strategies and customer needs be alienated, but the coiffures will remain emptier, and perhaps completely so.

The Power of “Please”
Having vented regarding the lack of respect, cohesion and market focus within so many Internet startups (and its people!), let me make a radical observation: NOBODY EVEN TRIES TO MAKE MONEY, preferring instead YET ANOTHER “me too” strategy of offering copycat products for free, promoted via SEM, and until a “mass user base” is gathered. Well, of course a target customer base is a necessary prerequisite for making a sale, but so is the actual effort to ask for a payment!

The “Freemium” model is always the pitch. Go ahead, use it, and perhaps you will have grand success. However, let me propose another strategy: ask for donations against a specific revenue goal. Radical as it might sound, the “hi, we’re trying to raise $100 this week from generous folks like you” has worked for a very, very long time. It is not begging - it is business. It is not a Tip Jar - it is a transparent statement of clearly articulated need coupled with a request for those who garner value to return the favor. But ultimately, something is better than nothing, which to Hank’s point, has become an accepted norm. Insanity, at best. Cowardly, too?

Wikipedia recently raised lots ‘o cash for itself by 1) providing value, and 2) asking users for donations. Public radio does it repeatedly. Although it is not an ideal model or means, it is much better than the ever present “Going Out of Business” strategy. Moreover, raising money through the “pledge”, “volunteer” or however-you-want-to-spin-it method provides additional benefits, including but not limited to:

• Establishes Goals: goals based on breakeven and P&L analysis
• Validates Value: what does any multiple of $0 revenues equal?
• Market Research: if you can’t generate revenues, you’re doing something wrong and need to improve your marketing-focus
• Increases Valuations: prove you can make money and you’ve proven you can probably make more money
• Funds Projects: revenues tend of offset deficit spending
• Establishes Customer Dialogue: donations can help to answer the question “Do your customers like you?” If “Yes”, why and how much? If “No”, why and what now?
• Establishes Competitive Barriers: in Marketing there is thing thing called “Switching Cost”. If a customer donates to you, it is likely they will use your offering more, and will not donate to your competition.
• Keeps the Lights On: although they should be turned off when you leave the office at night.

I’m not inclined to expound on the need to have a high-quality, differentiated digital product/service that has perceived value to a customer. That is Business 101, and I would hope that if you have raised VC cash, or otherwise are simply in business, that you have done and continue to obsessively do that homework. However, if you are simply a me-too property without any true product roadmap (tech AND marketing!), then you have more work to do to validate differentiated value, raise the competitive barriers, and all that other marketing mumbo jumbo that has left you in an indefensible position in an increasingly crowded, and easy-to-enter at very low cost industry.

This is as much about doing something - something that actively combats the “digital goods need to be free” recipe for disaster - as it is about a company asking the tough questions about its products, its strategy, its market and all the other stuff that generally does not get into the 20-slide VC pitch. Ultimately, if you cannot simply ask your customers to help you achieve your revenue goals by reciprocating value on even some modest scale, then you need to tell your wife, to increase your savings rate, and to otherwise rethink what it means to be of value - and to be heard - above the ever increasing noise that is this unsustainably overcrowded, and overly VC funded Web.

Prompted by @Scobleizer, I recently explored the idea of Twitter sharing advertising revenues with its users, and proposed that it create an affiliate marketing program instead. Here I explore the assumption that Twitter will launch advertising, and what strategy and implementation it might consider pursuing.

As an extension of a previous brief exchange, I recently proposed to @Scobleizer that he sell the background image on his Twitter profile to an advertiser. His mass market of highly targeted Followers, when combined with his high-volume tweetstream would, I expect, allow him to make a pretty penny while also providing positive results for an advertiser interested in a branding campaign.

This off-the-cuff idea is worth exploring both for high-value/volume Twitter users, but also for the company as it explores revenue strategies. Rather than pursuing traditional formats, or emerging invasive text ads within SMS, IM and client messages, Twitter might seriously consider a more sponsorship- and branding-centric strategy that has been pursued by other popular services such as Pandora.

A background image-based sponsorship strategy has monetary implications for both users and for Twitter, but it could also help to enable a premium subscription- and usage-based revenue model, too. First, here are some points relating to the background image-based sponsorship strategy:

• Non-Invasive: Twitter should not follow-the-pack and implement obvious, in-your-face advertising formats. Tweets are already somewhat invasive depending on value and volume.
• Relationships: Users are already voluntarily (and involuntarily?) forging relationships with Brands that become Followers, and therefore inclination to click any advertisement is perhaps even lower on Twitter.com than it would be elsewhere.
• Relevance: people already don’t click on traditional format ads to “learn more”. Make a brand-centric impression on the conscious and subconscious of the User, and leave it to them to volunteer to learn more, resulting in better qualification.
• Targeting: Twitter can sell background sponsorships along targeting criteria including email domain, time zone, geography and bio. Equates to higher rates.
• Incentives: allowing users to set/sell their own background image (in compliance with ToS) provides incentives to promote themselves (and Twitter), and to be cognizant of the value and appropriateness of tweets while making $$$.
• More? Discuss.

As for #2 above, I think it is intuitive that Twitter will eventually halt the practice of giving companies unregulated access to its users. The addition of an “Individual/Company” user-type form element during registration, combined with an “Allow/Disallow” prompt before a Company becomes a Follower can be expected, in my opinion. Monetization of all Company access to Individuals is also predictable.

Now, let’s explore what implications that a background-image sponsorship strategy has for any subscription-based one:

1. Free Users: limited customization options, limits on Follower scale and tweet volume.
2. Premium Subscribers: modest subscription fee, robust page customization options, higher limits on Follower scale and tweet volume.
3. Sponsored Subscribers: highest subscription fee, robust page customization options, higher limits on Follower scale and tweet volume, background-image sponsorship management, tracking & reporting tools.
4. Usage-Based Fees: variable based on overall Profile traffic. This is of particular interest in those instances, such as for someone of @Scobleizer’s scale, where it is more prudent to strike a “partnership” with a user, and to arrange for fee structures inline with both the scale of usage, and sponsorship revenue.

This is certainly not intended as an exhaustive discussion of the issue, merely an initiation of the idea that Twitter is in a unique position to enable its users with monetary rewards for its usage of the service (and referrals), all while enabling a non-invasive, flexible, multi-channel revenue stream for Twitter both in advertising and premium services.