Moonfruit, a. U.K. based online building tech company, recently launched a 10 day sweepstakes in which participants received an entry each time they sent a twitter containing the hashtag “#Moonfruit.” MacBook Pro computers were awarded as prizes and no limits were placed on how often Hashtag Twitter messages could be sent. Viral buzz was over the top, but Twitter pulled the plug on the seventh day after Moonfruit reached the top of the Twitter Trends list.  Linda Goldstein, Manatt partner, was asked what prompted Twitter’s action and what message does it send to other marketers who might find Twitter an effective vehicle to increase consumer awareness.

Editors:  What exactly did Moonfruit do that so annoyed Twitter?

Goldstein:  Twitter never explained, but user comments suggest that many – far too many – received multiple tweets and re-tweets until some thought they were victims of something akin to user generated spam. And Twitter apparently thought that the highly commercialized use of Twitter must be addressed when the viral activity it spawned threatened to replace most other topics of Twitter traffic. So it removed the Moonfruit tag from its Trends list and the search box that aids Twitter users to hunt for topics of interest.

Editors:  How did Moonfruit respond?

Goldstein:  Surprisingly well. It expressed surprise that its campaign was so successful and that it had no intention to dominate Twitter for 10 days or move aside important subjects like Iran from the agenda. In a candid reply by its marketing director, she admitted that the “campaign could set a dangerous precedent” and could lead to an “abuse by marketers.” She was, however, disappointed Twitter had summarily suppressed the Moonfruit tag without notice. Moonfruit would have gladly worked with Twitter to limit the promotion.

Editors:  Since the campaign was so successful, up to a point, do you think other marketers will follow suit?

Goldstein:  Maybe. Although Twitter could also respond to other commercial campaigns that “abused” the Twitter social network, a marketer could, at least for a while, get a massive viral response to a simple sweepstakes if the prizes were attractive enough. The Mac laptops cost, say $10,000, and for that Moonfruit reaped an astonishing 300 tweets per minute. That’s quite a viral response for comparatively little cost. I expect, however, that Twitter, will soon establish some checks to prevent any comparable highly commercial reoccurrence. 

Editors: What’s your takeaway from all this?

Goldstein: Twitter certainly has the right to edit hashtags to prevent smut and control user spam. After all, it’s a social network and not an advertising forum. And where, as in the Moonfruit game, unlimited entry translated into an abuse that transcended the sometime unspoken etiquette inherent in social communities, Twitter had to act to prevent marketers from “gaming” its system. On the other hand, it’s the Twitter users who actually propelled the campaign forward, so it's not the total responsibility of the marketer. I suspect that most established brands, however, will act cautiously and not risk a widespread user backlash by consumers who view Twitter as primarily a channel for social networking. In the meantime, Twitter might establish a policy that either embraces viral marketing campaigns or sets forth some guidelines as to what kind of marketing will be permissible going forward.