subscribe

I’m always asked about how I feel about Twitter. I feel it’s appropriate to explore and finally jot my opinions about the amorous relationship that some have with Twitter (hey, it’s Valentine’s day!) Let’s discuss the twittersphere, that thing that has found its way into every conversation over the last year within communication and marketing teams (and I’m sure your conversations, as well).

I’m still trying to build an opinion of my own. The process of determining if I love or hate Twitter has already taken 3 years, and will undoubtedly continue. I don’t see an end in sight – at least until more people start using it or until Facebook buys Twitter. I’ve known about the zen of tweeting since the platform’s launch, but it took me up until last year to even get an account (@jeremyriel). From its humble beginnings, my interpretation of the early Twitter was a place for marketers to showcase their wares as well as some early organizations (kudos @starbucks) that adopted the channel to communicate their programs and services to the public. It was just another channel among the many Web 2.0 startups that came about from 2006 to 2008.

Someone decided it was cool. More internet people showed up and we were off to the races. Businesses discovered their competitors tweeting. Friends encouraged others to join. It got adopted, and at incredible rates. Membership exploded in 2008-2009 with people answering that simple question, “what’s happening?” I immediately saw the potential from the beginning, especially with the RSS capability, the open programming interface, and the ability to view many user’s streams all at once. I also feared information overload, frustration, or boredom, hearing everything and anything about everyone’s personal lives.

Most people, that is people who actually worked for a living and had no time for tweeting, had no idea about Twitter, even when its membership was exploding. Those who did usually described the rampant exhibitionism for which Twitter was well-known. With a channel where everyone’s only talking about themselves, one can naturally expect a deluge of self-centered remarks and comments, with each user hoping the world was listening. I’m guilty of it. Every twitterer is. I saw this video early last year and couldn’t stop laughing – the veracity of the narcissism claim struck home:

“Who are they talking to?”

“Noone, and everyone.”

Those in the twittersphere combat the hostility from the outside world with claims such as “you just don’t get it,” “we share information and give value,” and my favorite, “you just need to adopt the new stuff, it’s where the future is. Don’t get left behind.” While I am a firm believer in embracing technology to allow it to improve our lives and relationships, I don’t subscribe to the mantra of the techie fear monger. This isn’t common of the twitter people (or tweeps, or tweeple, or any other crazy word derivation used to describe the community). Conversation is always on how people don’t get it and that the “tweeple” get it. I beg to differ, at least on the point that Twitter is the superior network. It isn’t yet. Look, the numbers speak for themselves. While Facebook has grown to over 300 million users, Twitter is still somewhere in the double digits, being around almost as long publicly (not counting Facebook’s college-exclusive years). Facebook figured it out – provide value and give people a chance to richly share. We love Facebook because it’s a central location, it’s easy to disseminate information, and it’s where most, if not all of our friends play, not to mention the photos, videos, notes, tagging, and status updates (which has been around longer than Twitter).

Twitterers argue the network’s value, with which I don’t disagree. It’s just a different type of value. I draw much from Twitter daily. While not a major contributor to the Twitter largesse, I check TweetDeck 3-4 times a day, digesting news from the organizations, agencies, and companies that I follow. I grab the latest from Mashable or others whose full-time job is to research social media and marketing trends and providing results right to my desktop. I’m grateful for them. See, there is some value in Twitter, but you have to know exactly what you’re looking for. Twitter is rich with conversation about new media and modern communications.

To combat the claims of narcissism, the twitterverse has adopted an unwritten code of conduct where, in part, you provide value to others in order to gain twitter nirvana. Every book you pick up on the topic today suggests the same thing: don’t exclusively talk about yourself, but instead talk about others and promote your value, be it in study, research, observations, findings, or just fun stuff to get others through the day. It’s great info – I wholeheartedly agree. I try to remain valuable on the network. I try to share my stuff when I have it. What I don’t have, however, is 10,000 tweets worth of self-promoting tropes. Despite the value on the network, the rules are the same as in real life. Be a friend. Do unto others. Don’t be that guy that nobody likes. This isn’t anything new, but it’s gained an almost cult-like following.

However, the base goal here is still to be important, to be placed on that pedestal in the Twitter hall of heroes, or even better, to get that blue badge of honor, the “Verified User,” especially if you’re not known outside of the twittersphere (i.e. someone who is actually important). But I can see through the baloney most of the time. Creating reports, making a top-ten list of how to be awesome on Twitter, publishing the Internet’s millionth “best Twitter practices” manual; it all has the same goal to gain influence and importance. I will venture to guess that most of the personal high-activity accounts follow this model.

I’ve frequently heard that Twitter is the “Mecca of Spam,” highlighting the free for all to be heard, mostly composed of marketers and organizations trying to sell you something (influence, news, ideas, products, etc.). In the end, it’s all about getting attention and communicating business interests.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? A world of Billy Mays, Matthew Lesko (that man that looks eerily like the riddler on TV who wants to give you government money), and the Sham-Wow guy. Don’t forget to buy your Snuggie too. Yeah, I see a bit of that when I open TweetDeck in the morning. It’s inevitable with a technology built around self-promotion.

That is why I have been laughing every time I consider what has happened this week with Google’s latest product launch (which actually prompted me to finally jot my thoughts on Twitter).

Earlier this week, Google rolled out Google Buzz, their new microblogging platform that integrates directly with Gmail and appears to be linked directly to the search engine. High powered stuff. I’ve also noticed GPS capability and combination with Google Maps for geoinformation capability. I can search buzzes coming from anywhere in my proximity, even from just a block away. Cool stuff. High potential here – just has to get adopted.
That’s the key though – Google has a large network, arguably larger than Twitter. It’s integrated in my Gmail, allowing me to check and sort new buzzes as they arrive, as often as I check my email. No searching a separate site. No separate app needed. I can’t even say the same about my Wave account which I frequently neglect.

That’s what I like. I don’t have to log on yet another app or website – it’s already in my email. And that’s coming from the web dude. I think that’s been key to Twitter adoption – yet another website to check regularly for it to be of value. There are too many things to keep track of!

But enough about this cool new gadget. I want to talk about the Twitter people’s hating on Buzz. My first buzz was “The Googles are trying to make The Twitter. It’s on now.” I saw the potential shift right away. Buzz stuff was popular conversation for a while. But when looking at Twitter as a whole, the trending topics were showing a majority disliking, distrusting, or any other dis-word out there. Mashable even caught a glimpse of what was being said about Buzz, creating a dandy graph for the occasion. They show that over the last week, over 50% of Tweets on Buzz were outright in opposition or dislike of Google’s new baby. Why the instant repulsion? Why not even give it a try, especially with all of the cool features and possibility for wider adoption? Seriously, isn’t that what this whole status-update, microblogging thing is all about?

While the Mashable quick-study doesn’t show who were preaching against the Buzz, it may be driven by a true wish to see Buzz fail, despite the possibilities of awesomeness. This also comes on the heels of Google buying Aardvark, another social networking site. Why the fail blessing? Maybe it’s because they’re in denial.

The powerful Twitter personalities declare their love for the network and proclaim the doom of those who fail to adopt. Each day, you see countless tweets on how awesome Twitter is, how everyone who isn’t on doesn’t get it, and how we draw our lifeforce from the network. What they fail to say is that Twitter has given these web celebrities their fame. A new technology is always a threat to disruption. A new network means the possibility of a wider adoption, an audience that may flock to another user with different interests. Or maybe even just their closer friends and family.

Why prematurely blast the infant Buzz network? Just because “it’s bad?” I don’t buy that. The very argument to which the Twitter people subscribe is based in logic that “if you’re not on Twitter, you just don’t get it. You’re afraid or can’t handle change.” Under the same logic, wouldn’t one assume that Twitter people at least try Buzz before bashing it? It could very well be the next big thing. Everything I’ve seen shows some potential, especially if the programming interface is open enough to play around. We could see a groundswell of apps and sites dedicated to making the engine more efficient, to make it more valuable to more than the comparatively few Twitter zealots and feed browsers. It’s best not to knock it – the logic on justifying a presence on Twitter is based on theory of value from adoption of new social technologies.

Let’s give Buzz a try. It may or may not be a valuable tool that helps us communicate. Maybe it’s going to work well with some specific audiences? Just give it a try. Don’t sign it off right away. Talk about it. Share your stories and experiences. Let’s find ways to make our networks better and share our stories.

I’m not a Twitter-hater – I love reading my TweetDeck and finding the latest info on everything in which I’m interested. I’m just patiently waiting for the next best microblogging platform, one that better integrates friends, colleagues, and potential contacts. One that you can use due to its practicality and wide adoption. Sorry, Twitter, you still don’t have enough people. And most of those whom you have say they don’t tweet often because 1) they don’t have time, 2) they forget, 3) they have too many social network channels open to pay attention, or 4) their friends aren’t on there.

It’s a waste of time if nobody is truly listening. The same could be said of my blog here, but I have a specific group to which I write and hopefully others stumble upon it and find some value. I’m not looking for the self-promotion, Twitter prestige, or influence. The real-world implications of a large network are great, but it’s a medium in which I have not yet been convinced that an individual can have high chances of success. You have to be loud, maybe even obnoxious to grab some attention. You must have value, to be sure, but in competition with whom? How many top-ten lists can be created before the world calls it off?

Here’s my final point and the takeaway for organizations: Twitter, I’m still loyal and I’m not going anywhere. I’m just thinking there’s always room for an upgrade; we can always improve. Buzz tries to address shortcomings with which Twitter falls short. And Twitter tries to improve in ways where Facebook can’t hit the mark. However, Twitter for most is just another website they have to check. Most nonprofits and schools can definitely broadcast a message and even start a discussion, but there have to be people on the network. For some organizations, Twitter is great and they have a highly connected audience. On the other hand, some organizations speak into a void on Twitter.

In short, something new has to come along for Twitter to really become viable. Maybe it’s Buzz, maybe Facebook will buy Twitter someday and do something new with it, but until people adopt Twitter like they do Facebook, it will always be the hot startup with many non-adopters. Those “haters” may have a point, though. They haven’t yet found value, haven’t found the right argument to check yet another website 8 times a day as they are told they need to. Give them and their friends a reason to come. Odds are it just hasn’t been found yet.

If Twitter only had FarmVille, the people would come running.

Categories: Government Agencies, Ideas and Breakthroughs, Nonprofit Organizations, Social Media and Web 2.0, Successful Messaging, Web Strategies

Follow comments to this article through the RSS feed.
You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.