Planned Parenthood paying $100,000 for each promoted “tweet” on Twitter
Last week I reported Planned Parenthood was reduced to paying people to follow it on Twitter, at a cost of $10-70/per.
Now Planned Parenthood is paying Twitter to promote its “tweets,” or 140-character messages. And according to the Wall Street Journal, those tweets cost $100,000 apiece, probably now a low figure since that article is 9 mos. old.
So on June 13 alone, Planned Parenthood paid $200,000 to promote 2 tweets. That’s $715 per character…
And all those Republicans who inexplicably support Planned Parenthood should note Planned Parenthood thanks you by stabbing you in your politically obtuse back.
Planned Parenthood is freed up to spend money backing pro-abortion Democrats only because politicians, including some foolish Republicans, subsidize its income elsewhere. Don’t forget that in the 2010 elections, Planned Parenthood Action endorsed 226 Democrats and 0 Republicans for Congress.
Anyway, the next time Planned Parenthood complains that a reduction or zeroing out of taxpayer funding will adversely affect poor women seeking its services, tell Planned Parenthood to tell it to Twitter.
[HT: David Schmidt at LiveAction.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Got credible sources for that? Nah, didn’t think so…
If any woman inexplicably dies because she couldn’t get a free condom, we’ll be sure to point out the $200,000 wasted that could have “saaaaaaved her liiiiife”!
You know, I’ve never once walked into a PP (tax subsidized or not) and somehow I’ve yet to die….. weird :p
The Republican-led house voted today to cut food aid and education support for the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program by $868 million, or 13%.
Pro-life? Just asking. Of course, I fully expect that this comment, just like my others, will be “moderated” because, you know, they just don’t fit your “facts.”
I wonder if Twitter is giving PP a discounted rate…
Makes sense mp, with food stamp beneficiaries up 49% and benefits up too.
I used to receive WIC and food stamps. I only qualified for WIC because I received food stamps. So if my food stamps had gone up (like everyone’s has under this president) I wouldn’t need the WIC checks because the cost of milk and cheese would be covered by the additional FS income. So….. 13% less WIC, about ONE gal. of milk less on my checks, would not hurt me at all.
The Bush deficits were bad enough, but this president has more than quadrupled them in less than 2yrs! These are desperate times and we have yet to pull our belts as tight as Greece or other “progressive” equally broke nations.
Don’t worry, mp. CPC’s and their Christian supporters will pick up the slack lovingly and without judgement….. as long as the anti-LIFE pro-abort zealots can stop passing ridiculous bans and regulations or flat out DESTROYING them like in NY. “pro-woman, pro-choice”? Just asking.
If PP is so concerned about losing government funding for their “services” then it would behoove them to save the money they spend on Tweets and put it towards those “services”.
@Brandon “Got credible sources for that?”
Jill quoted the Wall Street Journal on the pricing. I think that counts.
Robert-
She quoted the pricing, which does not mean that Planned Parenthood paid that much. As a non-profit, they may have been offered a discounted rate
@Jane: You have absolutely no way of knowing that. A “non-profit discount” is pure speculation on your part and you don’t even have a link to support it with.
“The Bush deficits were bad enough, but this president has more than quadrupled them in less than 2yrs!”
It was just a near-total economic collapse, that’s all.
Expect more to come.
Yeah, PP really needs tax money. They are desperate!
Alice, you don’t have a link to support the contrary either! That’s what Jane was saying. You have no credible sources saying how much, if anything, PP paid Twitter for promoted tweets.
I believe the article said “upwards of 100K” – this headline says paid $100K. Is that an assumption, or was there a link of proof missing?
@derrr: Read Jane’s post again. By Jane’s own admission Jill has indeed posted a link to the WSJ that does actually say that promoted tweets cost $100,000. Here it is again, just in case you missed it. I’ll even give you the relevant quote: “Now, Twitter is selling Promoted Tweets for upwards of $100,000.” Which means that PP may have actually paid more. $100K is least expensive price for promoted tweets on Twitter. That’s what they cost, so there’s no reason to suppose that is not what PP paid.
Reading comprehension. Get you some.
They also might have paid $5 a tweet for a total of $10 overall.
Of course, I fully expect that this comment, just like my others, will be “moderated”
This is really interesting, since I find about…oh, SIX out of over 150 of your comments that have actually been “moderated.” Care to retract this statement?
“paying people to follow it on Twitter, at a cost of $10-70/per.” – when this was first posted I looked into the background article and found that it is most likely they paid somewhat less than $10 per tweet, maybe $2. The $10-$70 reference was in regard to auto advertising or something from memory.
@Robert – the fact that Twitter “is selling promoted Tweets for upwards of $100,000” has nothing to do with the claim by the author of this article.
The assertion that Planned Parenthood “paid $200,000 to promote 2 tweets” is not based on fact.
It’s, rather, an attempt to skew facts.