How does Twitter compare to Facebook and LinkedIn?
by David Lavenda
04 January 2012
Facebook and LinkedIn create 'meaningful' relationships, but Twitter sometimes feels just like following a news feed
Twitter recently decided to change its user interface and, at the same time, introduce a host of new features. These changes were meant to make it more compelling as a social networking platform and, at the same time, make it more intuitive for the un-initiated to grasp. But, there are rumblings that the facelift has left many feeling a little disconnected.
So, why did Twitter deem it necessary to make these changes? While there has been a great deal of commotion around the hundreds of millions of Twitter users, in truth a more realistic assessment of its actual usage paints a very different picture. A recent post quoted Twitter's chief executive officer in June 2011 saying that "100 million people use Twitter each day, even though 40 per cent of account owners have not logged into their accounts in the past 30 days". A more frank post by Business Insider deputy editor Nicholas Carlson revealed that there are "only" 56 million Twitter users following eight or more accounts and just 21 million users following 30 or more accounts. Reading between the lines, it is fairly safe to assume that the other users may not be that active.
Further statistics are also fairly condemning. A 2010 Nielsen study found that 67 per cent of United Kingdom Twitter users spent less than five minutes on the site per month, accounting for just 4 per cent of total traffic. On the other hand, 7 per cent of heavy users - over 60 minutes per month - accounted for 79 per cent of traffic. In a similar vein, a December 2010 report from Sysomos found that 80 per cent of users have made fewer than 500 tweets and 22 per cent of users are responsible for 90 per cent of all tweets.
Don't misunderstand me; this isn't a Twitter-bashing article, as what they have accomplished is quite remarkable. It is a powerful network, used by millions of people and thousands of brands. But what I read into these numbers is that Twitter has an influential following among the early adopter-connector types. And while these people are extremely effective in sharing information, creating trends and selling products, Twitter seems to be struggling to reach the mass market of social networkers.
Why is that? Twitter's challenge is that it offers a revolutionary way to communicate, requiring a radical change in user behaviour. In the past, people did not trumpet 140 character messages to the ether, not knowing where the messages would fall. In fact, many heavy users still have not figured out how this is supposed to work – blasting out way too many 'another-morning-with-cold-coffee' messages to interest even the most ardent of followers.
Contrast this to Facebook in the consumer world or LinkedIn in the business-to-business world. Both use a connection-oriented approach that creates a relationship between the two participants and I think this makes all the difference. Following someone, who may not care you exist does not create a meaningful bond. A case in point being that @SpongeBob has almost 310,000 followers. Twitter is more like subscribing to a news feed than actually connecting people, which is unnatural. Social connections are mutual, so offering mutual relationships online is a smoother transition than creating a whole new pattern for communicating. In the Twitter world, direct messages seem to be the most social part of the site and I suspect they represent only a tiny fraction of all tweets.
The revolutionary versus evolutionary battle for social networking is also playing out in the enterprise world as well, inside companies. Companies are looking to take advantage of what social networking can bring to business, but getting workers to join the conversation is really tough. Some companies are taking the Twitter approach, requiring workers to adopt a new way of working - eschewing email and documents for wikis, micro-blogging, ideation engines and similar new social tools. Others are taking a more evolutionary approach, using existing communication patterns to ease people into the adoption of social tools. We are seeing growing evidence of a social business groundswell. I have got my money on this being the biggest trend since Y2K. I have also got my money on the evolutionary approach winning - hands down. And let's face it, the stakes are pretty high.
David Lavenda works with IT firm harmon.ie, but writes here in a personal capacity
Twitter recently decided to change its user interface and, at the same time, introduce a host of new features. These changes were meant to make it more compelling as a social networking platform and, at the same time, make it more intuitive for the un-initiated to grasp. But, there are rumblings that the facelift has left many feeling a little disconnected.
So, why did Twitter deem it necessary to make these changes? While there has been a great deal of commotion around the hundreds of millions of Twitter users, in truth a more realistic assessment of its actual usage paints a very different picture. A recent post quoted Twitter's chief executive officer in June 2011 saying that "100 million people use Twitter each day, even though 40 per cent of account owners have not logged into their accounts in the past 30 days". A more frank post by Business Insider deputy editor Nicholas Carlson revealed that there are "only" 56 million Twitter users following eight or more accounts and just 21 million users following 30 or more accounts. Reading between the lines, it is fairly safe to assume that the other users may not be that active.
Further statistics are also fairly condemning. A 2010 Nielsen study found that 67 per cent of United Kingdom Twitter users spent less than five minutes on the site per month, accounting for just 4 per cent of total traffic. On the other hand, 7 per cent of heavy users - over 60 minutes per month - accounted for 79 per cent of traffic. In a similar vein, a December 2010 report from Sysomos found that 80 per cent of users have made fewer than 500 tweets and 22 per cent of users are responsible for 90 per cent of all tweets.
Don't misunderstand me; this isn't a Twitter-bashing article, as what they have accomplished is quite remarkable. It is a powerful network, used by millions of people and thousands of brands. But what I read into these numbers is that Twitter has an influential following among the early adopter-connector types. And while these people are extremely effective in sharing information, creating trends and selling products, Twitter seems to be struggling to reach the mass market of social networkers.
Why is that? Twitter's challenge is that it offers a revolutionary way to communicate, requiring a radical change in user behaviour. In the past, people did not trumpet 140 character messages to the ether, not knowing where the messages would fall. In fact, many heavy users still have not figured out how this is supposed to work – blasting out way too many 'another-morning-with-cold-coffee' messages to interest even the most ardent of followers.
Contrast this to Facebook in the consumer world or LinkedIn in the business-to-business world. Both use a connection-oriented approach that creates a relationship between the two participants and I think this makes all the difference. Following someone, who may not care you exist does not create a meaningful bond. A case in point being that @SpongeBob has almost 310,000 followers. Twitter is more like subscribing to a news feed than actually connecting people, which is unnatural. Social connections are mutual, so offering mutual relationships online is a smoother transition than creating a whole new pattern for communicating. In the Twitter world, direct messages seem to be the most social part of the site and I suspect they represent only a tiny fraction of all tweets.
The revolutionary versus evolutionary battle for social networking is also playing out in the enterprise world as well, inside companies. Companies are looking to take advantage of what social networking can bring to business, but getting workers to join the conversation is really tough. Some companies are taking the Twitter approach, requiring workers to adopt a new way of working - eschewing email and documents for wikis, micro-blogging, ideation engines and similar new social tools. Others are taking a more evolutionary approach, using existing communication patterns to ease people into the adoption of social tools. We are seeing growing evidence of a social business groundswell. I have got my money on this being the biggest trend since Y2K. I have also got my money on the evolutionary approach winning - hands down. And let's face it, the stakes are pretty high.
David Lavenda works with IT firm harmon.ie, but writes here in a personal capacity
RELATED CONTENT
The EU Twitterati: behind the curtain of the Brussels press room
Twitter is disrupting the European Commission's attempt to manage news in Brussels as the unfolding events in Cyprus this week proved, writes Justin Stares
Twitter is disrupting the European Commission's attempt to manage news in Brussels as the unfolding events in Cyprus this week proved, writes Justin Stares
COMMENTS
This is no help.
tyjuan carter - indianapolis indiana
