So, it looks like Twitter is making its own food videos now

Is Twitter taking a cue from Tasty and tapping into the food market?  Australian celebrity chef Adam Liaw shared two videos of himself from Twitter’s Sydney headquarters.  In one, he shows viewers how to debone a chicken and in the other, he shows viewers how to butterfly prawns.  Both videos are heavily branded with Twitter’s logo and contain a nod to @TwitterFood and Twitter’s food channel.

The videos deviate from Tasty’s model in that the chef (a celebrity chef, no less) is seen on camera talking directly to the audience and the videos are several minutes long.  Additionally, unlike Tasty’s posts that include a link to the full recipe, the tweets do not contain links to the full instructions.  While Liaw’s videos are not exactly recipes, they are exploring a topic that Tasty has proved interests an audience.


  1.  Why do you think Twitter is entering the food video game?
  2.  Do you think they can compete with Tasty?
  3.  Is this model more or less attractive to the advertising community?



Google Starts Including AMP Content in Mobile Search Results

Google’s “Accelerated Mobile Pages” (AMP) allows Internet users to load content faster – an average of four times faster – on their mobile devices.  These AMP articles are now being included in Google’s search results.  In fact, AMP pages will show up in the “Top Stories” section at the top of search result pages.  The question on everyone’s mind is how AMP will impact the traffic, engagement and revenue of the publishers.

Over 5,800 developers are involved in the AMP project.  And it’s not just publishers.  Online advertising and publishing technology companies are also engaging with the initiative.  In fact, Google is making it a priority to monetize these pages well.  However, at this time, AMP pages do not support some ad formats, such as interstitials.  Other companies, such as content recommendation services (i.e. Taboola) and online analytics tool (i.e. Chartbeat) are also compatible with Google Amp.

The difference between Google AMP and Facebook Instant Articles is a big one.  Instant Articles live on Facebook.  Google AMP content is hosted on the publisher’s server.  In other words, the publisher is not only benefiting from the traffic, it also has the opportunity to keep users on their site, unlike with Facebook Instant Articles.


  1. It almost seems too good to be true.  Can you identify any pitfalls of publishers utilizing Google AMP?
  2. Will Google’s AMP project put pressure on Facebook to have Instant Articles live on the publisher’s site?
  3. What does this mean for search engine optimization?