Posted September 29, 2010 6:54 pm by with 0 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

There’s a story on ClickZ today that states that Twitter is not going to allow politicians to buy promoted tweets. An internet consultant working on a campaign inquired and was told that Twitter wasn’t accepting this type of ad at this time.

At first, it seems like this was big news. A company turning away business? And turning away a topic that is trending at that moment? Why? Is it because Twitter is afraid of looking politically biased? But what about promoted tweets from alcohol companies or cigarette companies or bad movies. Couldn’t a promoted tweet be seen as an endorsement from Twitter?

My years of watching West Wing had me thinking constitutional rights and freedom of speech and bipartisan tweeting! Then I read the rest of the article and realized that maybe it’s not Twitter but the consultant who got it wrong.

Unless you’re talking about the Presidential elections, politics is very area specific. Look at California’s current race for governor.  People all over the US may have a passing interest in what’s happening, but it doesn’t make sense to pay for an ad that tells Texans to vote for one or the other. Twitter simply isn’t equipped to handle geo-targeting on even a national level, let alone by state, city or neighborhood. Because of that, is it really the best tool for political advertising?

This whole situation seems to be a case of jumping on the social media bandwagon just because it’s the trendy thing to do.

What do you think? Is there something to this story?