If an advertiser is paying “upwards of $100,000″ with this approach, he or she is getting an outrageous amount of exposure. In my experimenting with Promoted Tweets on behalf of a client, I can safely say we couldn’t even find ways to spend $100,000 at this point. We’re seeing tremendous returns — loads of impressions and clicks, and a far higher engagement rate than most Web ads — but there’s neither enough competition (the program is only open to select brands) nor search traffic to rack up costs that quickly. [...]

Twitter has been rather tight-lipped about its advertising options, especially the costs associated with using them. The company seems to only discuss those matters with the digital marketers within the brands who’ve been lucky enough to experiment with the program in its early stages. But by not weighing in to clarify this matter (please, correct me if I’m missing something), Twitter is potentially turning off future advertisers who will write off these promotional opportunities as too little bang for too much buck.

Read the rest of this article as it was originally published on the Fast Horse blog, Idea Peepshow.

For those unaware, when you’re buying ads online, especially with professional media outlets, they’ll basically sell you anything you can dream up. In this case, the “clean coal is a joke” camp bought ad space on the “page not found” pages on WashingtonPost.com.

You can click over to see it for yourself, but the text on the “not found” page reads: “This page does not exist. Kind of like clean coal.”

The article expresses Pamela’s disgust for product placement and the overall sad state (commercialized) entertainment. It’s a brilliant, funny piece that mirrors many complaints I’ve made, in speech and in writing, at various times. Well done, Pamela. Well done.