If the ad is bad people get turned off. That's 125 million potential viewers, so you just killed reach. But there's also a big potential payoff. I think it does pay off because you get a lot of traffic, a lot of free public relations(in media stories). It helps position themselves for the next round of financing.

Taking a close look at all technical options is the right thing for them (AOL and MSN) to be doing.

If you think you are in control, you're fooling yourself. As soon as you start listening, you realize you're not in control. And letting go will yield more and better results.

People often say to me, How come you don't want to be CEO of a company? And I tell them, I don't want to. I know I can do it, but I don't enjoy it. Why does that have to be the definition of success?

Some of the power has shifted from companies to people. Using social media tools (blogs, wikis, tagging, etc.) more individuals are creating semi-spontaneous 'groundswells' of opinions to which companies and other institutions are realizing they must respond. From marketing to consumers organizations are being pulled into engaging with individuals.

Then they show up at the door and the reality is that they are 5-foot-8, 240 pounds and have not run a mile in years. A background check is not going to help you with that.

It's the same reason why someone has a Web page or why people feel comfortable going on reality TV.

From the consumer point of view, there may be questions about whether you'll have to be an AOL subscriber to get Time magazine, ... That combination of media with the access is one through which you may be able to block access to your competitors' subscribers.

Twitter is not a technology. It's a conversation and it's happening with or without you.