Twitter Needs New Leadership(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
Twitter Needs New Leadership
https://stratechery.com/2015/twitter-needs-new-leadership/
20 comments
I think you're totally correct to harp on design and functionality. I'm sure it's a business problem, too, but it's also the fact they keep screwing with the app with no real improvement. I continue to think removing Discover and Activity were big mistakes, and, no, Search does not replace them at all. Tweetdeck is similarly embarrassing.
Your post is interesting.
Your first three points are about photos, and then the third point says anybody who wants to post photos is already on Instagram. This is ironic considering most of the people I follow post their Instagram photos - on Twitter.
I do agree however on the embedded tweets. In a world where apps go to great lengths to minimize the amount of clicks people have to make to get to their content, it seems Twitter is incredibly behind the times in this regard.
As for longer tweets, I've read several interviews with the founders and they said they will steadfastly defend a limit on the amount of characters for posts. They say this is what separates Twitter from other social media platforms. As a user, if I have something I need to write about, I never do it on Twitter, there are an abundant other options to do this.
I do agree they need new leadership. As other social media platforms have morphed to keep pace with the changes their users want, Twitter has effectively done nothing to help make their platform any better than when I joined almost five years ago.
Your first three points are about photos, and then the third point says anybody who wants to post photos is already on Instagram. This is ironic considering most of the people I follow post their Instagram photos - on Twitter.
I do agree however on the embedded tweets. In a world where apps go to great lengths to minimize the amount of clicks people have to make to get to their content, it seems Twitter is incredibly behind the times in this regard.
As for longer tweets, I've read several interviews with the founders and they said they will steadfastly defend a limit on the amount of characters for posts. They say this is what separates Twitter from other social media platforms. As a user, if I have something I need to write about, I never do it on Twitter, there are an abundant other options to do this.
I do agree they need new leadership. As other social media platforms have morphed to keep pace with the changes their users want, Twitter has effectively done nothing to help make their platform any better than when I joined almost five years ago.
I don't even bother with the Twitter website anymore, I only check twitter on my phone.
The bigger problem with Twitter is how damn hard it is to use the service well. Twitter's value increases or decreases along with one's ability to curate his or her feed.
It seriously took me years of careful tweaking to get my feed (and lists) where I want them. Now Twitter is absolutely incredible; Twitter lets you be in a room with anybody in the world you want to. That's really, really cool. For me, that's startup legends and tech geniuses. I not only get to see what they're saying, but often what they're reading and thinking about. Because of that I wanted to see the feeds of some of the top tech investors look like, so I created them in lists. They're fascinating to watch (lists are here http://theireyes.austenallred.com/pages/viewlist)
But I look at so many of my friends who don't use it, or who have an account and don't log in, and it's almost always because they haven't taken the time to follow the right people. That's hard to do. Facebook is easy - my grandma knows me so she'll accept my friend request. Twitter, by its nature, forces you to be proactive in creating and culling that list. That's an action that most people don't take.
So Twitter is trying something new - what if we put together lists of what people want and had those available as the logged-out homepage, letting people quickly get involved? It's an admirable effort, but look at the categories available: It recommends I search for stuff like #NationalDayOfPrayer or #BadBloodMusicVideo. The top categories right now are literally politicians, high-end fashion designers, nascar drivers, and hotels/travel agents. I get that they're trying to show you variety, but talk about shots in the dark.
I don't know what the solution is. But I think Twitter's biggest problem is that it simply takes too much work before anyone gains value from Twitter. There are a lot of people on this planet who will never put that much work in before expecting something of value back out of a service.
It seriously took me years of careful tweaking to get my feed (and lists) where I want them. Now Twitter is absolutely incredible; Twitter lets you be in a room with anybody in the world you want to. That's really, really cool. For me, that's startup legends and tech geniuses. I not only get to see what they're saying, but often what they're reading and thinking about. Because of that I wanted to see the feeds of some of the top tech investors look like, so I created them in lists. They're fascinating to watch (lists are here http://theireyes.austenallred.com/pages/viewlist)
But I look at so many of my friends who don't use it, or who have an account and don't log in, and it's almost always because they haven't taken the time to follow the right people. That's hard to do. Facebook is easy - my grandma knows me so she'll accept my friend request. Twitter, by its nature, forces you to be proactive in creating and culling that list. That's an action that most people don't take.
So Twitter is trying something new - what if we put together lists of what people want and had those available as the logged-out homepage, letting people quickly get involved? It's an admirable effort, but look at the categories available: It recommends I search for stuff like #NationalDayOfPrayer or #BadBloodMusicVideo. The top categories right now are literally politicians, high-end fashion designers, nascar drivers, and hotels/travel agents. I get that they're trying to show you variety, but talk about shots in the dark.
I don't know what the solution is. But I think Twitter's biggest problem is that it simply takes too much work before anyone gains value from Twitter. There are a lot of people on this planet who will never put that much work in before expecting something of value back out of a service.
It boggles my mind that Twitter still does not provide a built-in way to follow a hashtag.
Considering the problems Twitter had in its earlier days just trying the basics performing well (which is a very hard problem, so not making a dig here) I'd imagine live hashtag filters for everyone would really slow down the service.
It seems too much of a no-brainer feature to have so there has to be a technical reason why they haven't.
It seems too much of a no-brainer feature to have so there has to be a technical reason why they haven't.
The day they implement that is the day that hashtags stop being useful.
"JOIN OUR SWEEPSTAKES TWEET US FOR A FREE IPHONE #apple #gameofthrones #facebook #mylittlepony #android #sex"
That already happens now when the only incentive is to hit some random searcher. When you're guaranteed millions of eyeballs instantly? Twitter's spam-detection services are not up to the task, and that's not even counting the non-spam but over-eager users.
"JOIN OUR SWEEPSTAKES TWEET US FOR A FREE IPHONE #apple #gameofthrones #facebook #mylittlepony #android #sex"
That already happens now when the only incentive is to hit some random searcher. When you're guaranteed millions of eyeballs instantly? Twitter's spam-detection services are not up to the task, and that's not even counting the non-spam but over-eager users.
Twitter actually recognizes this as a problem, and is working to ensure that people who haven't done this get more value from their feed, and people who have get less.
I recently created a new twitter account (in addition to the one I've had since 2007), and the onboarding process is over-the-top frustrating. It almost forces you to choose celebrities, etc. that you're interested in, it nags you constantly to add more people, it even e-mails you about it. If I didn't know what Twitter was or why I wanted it, it would drive me away within the hour.
Plus, they're showing favourites in your feed now, as if they were retweets, which means that your feed is getting cluttered with things that people didn't mean to share to you, that you may not want to see, whether you like it or not. Then if you visit someone's page on Twitter, it's no longer a simple list of tweets. There are older tweets that Twitter's algorithm likes more, then their more recent tweets, and they're all different sizes to draw your attention to the tweet Twitter thinks you should read, rather than whatever you might want to read.
All in all, it reminds me of Facebook's non-chronological timeline. I look at my feed on FB, and I see a post from last week, then yesterday, then an hour ago, then two weeks ago, then last Tuesday, etc. It's a mess. I once refreshed my feed and saw two posts, back-to-back, from the same company. One talking about their livestream 'tomorrow' from the day before (i.e. the livestream was today), and one talking about how their hour-long livestream was starting in 'ten minutes' (from two hours ago). These were two items that were highly relevant and time-sensitive, and which didn't show up in my feed until after it was too late to do anything about them.
On top of that, it often fails to show me content from people I care about (e.g. my wife) but shows me lots of 'someone-you-know commented on someone you've-never-heard-of's selfie'. It shows me three things that someone, whose posts I've never interacted with, posted today, but nothing my wife, whose posts I comment on, like, share, etc. all the time, posted today. Then, out of the blue, it 'surfaces' content from last week back to the top of my feed again.
And this is what Twitter seems to be trying to do: figure out what we 'should' be looking at to 'drive engagement'. Because they can't create a sane onboarding procedure that accomplishes any of this, they're just going to start doing it to everyone, even non-logged-in users, in the hopes that the users they attract will be of higher value than the users they drive away.
I recently created a new twitter account (in addition to the one I've had since 2007), and the onboarding process is over-the-top frustrating. It almost forces you to choose celebrities, etc. that you're interested in, it nags you constantly to add more people, it even e-mails you about it. If I didn't know what Twitter was or why I wanted it, it would drive me away within the hour.
Plus, they're showing favourites in your feed now, as if they were retweets, which means that your feed is getting cluttered with things that people didn't mean to share to you, that you may not want to see, whether you like it or not. Then if you visit someone's page on Twitter, it's no longer a simple list of tweets. There are older tweets that Twitter's algorithm likes more, then their more recent tweets, and they're all different sizes to draw your attention to the tweet Twitter thinks you should read, rather than whatever you might want to read.
All in all, it reminds me of Facebook's non-chronological timeline. I look at my feed on FB, and I see a post from last week, then yesterday, then an hour ago, then two weeks ago, then last Tuesday, etc. It's a mess. I once refreshed my feed and saw two posts, back-to-back, from the same company. One talking about their livestream 'tomorrow' from the day before (i.e. the livestream was today), and one talking about how their hour-long livestream was starting in 'ten minutes' (from two hours ago). These were two items that were highly relevant and time-sensitive, and which didn't show up in my feed until after it was too late to do anything about them.
On top of that, it often fails to show me content from people I care about (e.g. my wife) but shows me lots of 'someone-you-know commented on someone you've-never-heard-of's selfie'. It shows me three things that someone, whose posts I've never interacted with, posted today, but nothing my wife, whose posts I comment on, like, share, etc. all the time, posted today. Then, out of the blue, it 'surfaces' content from last week back to the top of my feed again.
And this is what Twitter seems to be trying to do: figure out what we 'should' be looking at to 'drive engagement'. Because they can't create a sane onboarding procedure that accomplishes any of this, they're just going to start doing it to everyone, even non-logged-in users, in the hopes that the users they attract will be of higher value than the users they drive away.
Meanwhile the almost-banned 3rd party app I use on my phone - Tweetbot - shows me a clean, linear timeline. Exactly what I want. Exactly what keeps me coming back.
They're driving their own service in to the ground. It's really sad.
They're driving their own service in to the ground. It's really sad.
Yes. If not for Talon, I would've given up on Twitter ages ago.
Hell, I still don't check Twitter that often. Too much upsetting drama.
Hell, I still don't check Twitter that often. Too much upsetting drama.
Personally I find Facebook much more complicated to use than Twitter. Ever since I started using Twitter I use it all the time and I can go days without checking my Facebook account.
Having said that, I do agree with your statement regarding friends having accounts that don't use them. I have a hard time convincing people to create a Twitter account.
Having said that, I do agree with your statement regarding friends having accounts that don't use them. I have a hard time convincing people to create a Twitter account.
Anecdotal but related...
My dad (60+) and my sister (30+) both recently signed up for Twitter, and despite following less than 10 people each immediately found value. Their first follows were someone they knew, or wanted to follow for a specific reason.
Not sure how many sign up without any intent - but I thought I'd share this counterpoint.
My dad (60+) and my sister (30+) both recently signed up for Twitter, and despite following less than 10 people each immediately found value. Their first follows were someone they knew, or wanted to follow for a specific reason.
Not sure how many sign up without any intent - but I thought I'd share this counterpoint.
I agree with you completely, I wrote this almost a year ago: http://erikaugust.com/thoughts/twitter/
Twitter really is what you make it. A self-curated news/information source. That being said, Twitter just needs to make that user experience as easy as possible - during the on-boarding process.
It could be as simple as figuring out your actual interests and recommending lists.
Instead, Twitter asks me to follow Taylor Swift. They also do some geolocation stuff - asking me to follow the City of Colorado Springs. That is slightly better.
But, what if, the "quickstart" prompted me to enter my interests? I would just type "#coding" - and @DHH, Carmack, and some others came up available as a list of Code Giants? I would be ensnared, instantly.
Twitter really is what you make it. A self-curated news/information source. That being said, Twitter just needs to make that user experience as easy as possible - during the on-boarding process.
It could be as simple as figuring out your actual interests and recommending lists.
Instead, Twitter asks me to follow Taylor Swift. They also do some geolocation stuff - asking me to follow the City of Colorado Springs. That is slightly better.
But, what if, the "quickstart" prompted me to enter my interests? I would just type "#coding" - and @DHH, Carmack, and some others came up available as a list of Code Giants? I would be ensnared, instantly.
Three things about Twitter's advertising:
F-Secure's Mikko Hypponen explains data mining and Twitter's ad targeting at re:publica 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbF0sVdOjRw&t=12m42s
Here are two recent ads ("promoted tweets") on Twitter:
weev tells white people they need to stand up and defend yada yada. White supremacy is apparently a-ok with Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ReginaSmall/status/595211478648651776
Apple has an ad in Swedish. It's gibberish. Here is my best shot at translating it (if it makes no sense, my translation is good):
"the good news is for the inhabitants of Sweden now can get iphone 6 set price at 10 kr, beatings not until late"
https://twitter.com/ehsanfadakar/status/596304927724548098
Let me just say I'm not surprised if it doesn't work out for Twitter financially, 'cause if they have all that data Mikko is talking about, and they can't do better than spreading nazism and basically 419 scams, they deserve bankruptcy, so as to make room for someone who can do it right. That's how, I understand it, capitalism is supposed to work.
F-Secure's Mikko Hypponen explains data mining and Twitter's ad targeting at re:publica 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbF0sVdOjRw&t=12m42s
Here are two recent ads ("promoted tweets") on Twitter:
weev tells white people they need to stand up and defend yada yada. White supremacy is apparently a-ok with Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ReginaSmall/status/595211478648651776
Apple has an ad in Swedish. It's gibberish. Here is my best shot at translating it (if it makes no sense, my translation is good):
"the good news is for the inhabitants of Sweden now can get iphone 6 set price at 10 kr, beatings not until late"
https://twitter.com/ehsanfadakar/status/596304927724548098
Let me just say I'm not surprised if it doesn't work out for Twitter financially, 'cause if they have all that data Mikko is talking about, and they can't do better than spreading nazism and basically 419 scams, they deserve bankruptcy, so as to make room for someone who can do it right. That's how, I understand it, capitalism is supposed to work.
weev got banned from Twitter Ads after his little stunt. Apparently the messages were considered unwelcome by the people who saw them (no surprise - that's what he was aiming for).
You realise that's not a real Apple ad don't you.
Sorry, yeah, it's obvious to you and me. That's part of the problem, of course. Why do they take money for actual spam? They're dragging both Apple's and their own brand in the dirt.
At some point I think people will start to realize that there is no "investment" in social media. It's too fad-driven. And internet speed has greatly accelerated the pace at which fads rise and fade. Nearly by the time something appears to be getting popular, the new users are already looking at the next thing.
Twitter is slowing because it's just not "the thing" anymore. Facebook also, though both services have millions of users, they're not attracting the younger users anymore. They've already moved on. I predict that in less than 10 years, both services will be seated at the "MySpace" table in internet history.
There's only so many ways you can create interest in a proprietary package around "sending notes and pictures to friends" which is all these services really offer the average user as a value proposition. As soon as it becomes too heavy, too bloated, too ad-infested, or "what my parents use" then the next batch of users moves on.
The "value of the graph" which is what these services claim is the true value, is meaningless to the average user. They don't give a shit about the graph, beyond their own little piece of it. And if the users go elsewhere, the graph ceases to have any value beyond academic.
Twitter is slowing because it's just not "the thing" anymore. Facebook also, though both services have millions of users, they're not attracting the younger users anymore. They've already moved on. I predict that in less than 10 years, both services will be seated at the "MySpace" table in internet history.
There's only so many ways you can create interest in a proprietary package around "sending notes and pictures to friends" which is all these services really offer the average user as a value proposition. As soon as it becomes too heavy, too bloated, too ad-infested, or "what my parents use" then the next batch of users moves on.
The "value of the graph" which is what these services claim is the true value, is meaningless to the average user. They don't give a shit about the graph, beyond their own little piece of it. And if the users go elsewhere, the graph ceases to have any value beyond academic.
Yes. Social media adoption is (high school) generational. The more successful the current round of social media is, the less the next round of high school students will want to be any where near its inhabitants.
What I think should be even more concerning for any future social media startups is that most users will be mobile users. And mobile users already have a social graph that they can take anywhere they want: Their address book. Thanks to it any new startup can theoretically create a disruptive community within days.
That's why Facebook has bought Instagram and Whatsapp, and tried to buy Snapchat - to make sure they're riding the wave. What has Twitter bought? Vine and Periscope are good, but seem like features to their existing network. Will they bring in a new audience?
I would bet that in 20 years time many other social networks will not be standing yet Twitter will.
Maybe it makes less money and grows slowly, but I check Twitter every day and can't see myself stopping. On the other hand, Facebook is a ghost town. Many social networks explode into the scene but most burn out quickly.
It's nice to find a way to make a quick buck, but I think they should be thinking of the long-term, too.
Maybe it makes less money and grows slowly, but I check Twitter every day and can't see myself stopping. On the other hand, Facebook is a ghost town. Many social networks explode into the scene but most burn out quickly.
It's nice to find a way to make a quick buck, but I think they should be thinking of the long-term, too.
I hope they'll be around in 20 years. It's the internet's watercooler, and we'd be worse off without it.
But that's the fear—that they'll mess up too much right now, and kill their 20 year prospects.
But that's the fear—that they'll mess up too much right now, and kill their 20 year prospects.
Twitter restricts choice of clients and filters some @mentions from your notifications with no option to disable filtering.
As soon as a reasonable competitor comes along, I'll gladly jump ship.
As soon as a reasonable competitor comes along, I'll gladly jump ship.
Not saying you're wrong (am a heavy twitter user myself), but we should consider that taste is a fickle thing. Only a few years ago many people checked myspace, friendster, orkut, etc everyday. Now they don't. As quickly as social networks grow they can also collapse.
Have you stopped to consider that for most other people the opposite might be the case?
I'll bite. I've tried to use Twitter for something for years, yet the best I've gotten out of it are shortened links to content I'm already aware of through other channels (like HN, reddit, etc.).
My Facebook feed on the other hand is full of more information on family, friends and my local neighborhood than I can reasonably process in a day.
My Facebook feed on the other hand is full of more information on family, friends and my local neighborhood than I can reasonably process in a day.
My experience is completely the opposite to yours. My Facebook feed is full of information I really don't care about: what people had for dinner, where they are, invitations to play games, ugly pictures, etc. My Twitter feed on the other hand is full of nuggets that keep me informed on things I'm "really" interested in. My advice to you is that you just need to follow the right people.
> My advice to you is that you just need to follow the right people.
That advice works both ways doesn't it?
That advice works both ways doesn't it?
No it doesn't. Many of the people I follow on Twitter don't have Facebook accounts and for some that do have Facebook accounts I don't really want to be their friend -- just listen to what they say. I don't think you really understand how Twitter works. Twitter != Facebook. They are not even close.
[deleted]
At the end of the day, the quality of your facebook feed depends on who you are friends with. If you want a better facebook feed cull out the ones who post uninteresting things.
Sorry but I don't unfriend friends. Reason: they are really my friends and it would be rude -- not to mention hurt their feelings. That is just one example of where Twitter excels above Facebook: you can unfollow or mute a feed. Most of the people I follow are not my friends -- just interesting people that have interesting things to share.
http://gizmodo.com/5876654/ignore-your-annoying-facebook-bud...
Just saying. I do understand your point though.
Just saying. I do understand your point though.
But on Twitter it's perfectly acceptable to not follow your close friends. It's not expected that you do.
On Facebook, the opposite. Hence why I'm an avid Twitter user, but don't have a Facebook account.
On Facebook, the opposite. Hence why I'm an avid Twitter user, but don't have a Facebook account.
I assure you, Facebook absolutely isn't a ghost town. It is transitioning into something very different than it used to be, though. Back in the college days it was a cool service that people were passionate about. These days it's practically a utility - some social glue that helps to hold your life together. That's no bad thing - I certainly don't expect Facebook to go anywhere anytime soon.
Aside from anything else, I value the past content I have on Facebook - photos, mainly. By contrast, Twitter content is almost all ephemeral.
Aside from anything else, I value the past content I have on Facebook - photos, mainly. By contrast, Twitter content is almost all ephemeral.
I think at this point everyone has already heard the "social utility" description and it dire straits add much to the conversation, particularly because phone books were a social utility too.
Amen to that. Twitter is a great thing and business, it just doesn't print as much money as management told everyone they would. As such, the stock is continually under pressure.
The stock being mispriced has nothing to do with the "value" or viability of the business, just the lifespan of the current management team.
The stock being mispriced has nothing to do with the "value" or viability of the business, just the lifespan of the current management team.
Don't know (and I don't think anybody knows) if Twitter will be around in 20 years but I do check my Twitter account constantly. Twitter helps me stay up-to-date with things that are important to me. I prefer Twitter over any other "social media" sites (and I subscribe to most).
Per Facebook as of March 2015, 936M people use the service every day, 798M using their phone. I love Twitter too, but with 13% of the world using it every day, it's no ghost town.
I'll bet that Facebook will have more active users in 20 years than Twitter does. Anywhere up to $200. Up to you.
I doubt it. If twitter is nothing but a feed, then the notification feed on your phone could do a much much much better job. What Twitter did to RSS, a nice notification app could do to Twitter.
Reading this, I can't help but think how much of Twitter's job has shifted from doing the work to tap-dancing about the work. So much of this is about failure to meet "expectations", failure to meet possibly-arbitrary comparisons to possibly-relevant things.
I also hate, hate, hate the cult-of-the-CEO viewpoint here. It could be that Twitter's CEO role is so central that a) all the issues trace back to its current occupant,and b) all problems can be solved by installing a new occupant. But if that's really the case, then I'd call that a very badly designed system. In what software would replacing 1/4000th of the code solve all the performance and user interface problems? It seems like the model is less, "creative, involved, self-directed workforce" and more "3rd-world cult-of-personality banana republic".
I also hate, hate, hate the cult-of-the-CEO viewpoint here. It could be that Twitter's CEO role is so central that a) all the issues trace back to its current occupant,and b) all problems can be solved by installing a new occupant. But if that's really the case, then I'd call that a very badly designed system. In what software would replacing 1/4000th of the code solve all the performance and user interface problems? It seems like the model is less, "creative, involved, self-directed workforce" and more "3rd-world cult-of-personality banana republic".
The assumption is that a good CEO will review his employees' performance, and ability to execute his vision, and either develop them or let them go and bring in the right people. The CEO is the person who dives into the organization to find and fix its broken pieces; he starts with his direct reports, who then audit and fix their organizations, and so on, until the company gets where it needs to be. He doesn't do it all personally, and can rely on divide-and-conquer, but the CEO is the one leading change in the company.
Yes, and I think that top-down paradigm is fundamentally ridiculous at this scale. That we are expecting one person to do all that is a sign of a problem.
This might have made sense in a 1950s corporation, where the work was relatively stable and manual, where you needed armies of people to perform repetitive actions. But most of Twitter's people are engaged in what is essentially creative work.
When I talk to friends at large software companies, I hear a lot about top-down reorgs and other central-planning issues. Given that primates are always looking for dominance hierarchies, maybe we really can't do much better than organizations where replacing the CEO is the main way to solve problems. But I hope for something better.
This might have made sense in a 1950s corporation, where the work was relatively stable and manual, where you needed armies of people to perform repetitive actions. But most of Twitter's people are engaged in what is essentially creative work.
When I talk to friends at large software companies, I hear a lot about top-down reorgs and other central-planning issues. Given that primates are always looking for dominance hierarchies, maybe we really can't do much better than organizations where replacing the CEO is the main way to solve problems. But I hope for something better.
I think you're underestimating the power of leadership. Of course, replacing one person in a large organization isn't going to make a huge difference statistically, but it makes an enormous difference if that person is directing all of the other people. If there are 4,000 people towing a ship, a change in the captain could change which way they're rowing.
Or, to use a real-world example, does it matter who is President of the United States? The federal government employs 4 million people, and the President has far less control over them than a CEO has over their employees.
If we were towing ships, that would make sense to me: the task is simple enough that one person can understand what's going on, and the 4000 people might as well be 4000 chimps or 4000 engines. But that's not Twitter's situation.
Note also that there's an enormous difference between leadership and direction. MLK for example led many people but directed few of them. I think the former is important but rarely happens precisely because CEOs can just direct people and get apparent compliance.
Note also that there's an enormous difference between leadership and direction. MLK for example led many people but directed few of them. I think the former is important but rarely happens precisely because CEOs can just direct people and get apparent compliance.
Can someone explain the value of Twitter to me? I certainly can see its value for advertisers, or even to get breaking news, but I have a Twitter account and don't use it at all.
What do you guys use it for? What's the target market for this exactly? I certainly don't expect people to follow me, some random guy on the internet, so there's no incentive for me to tweet myself. Besides news articles, what interesting things do you read from tweets?
What do you guys use it for? What's the target market for this exactly? I certainly don't expect people to follow me, some random guy on the internet, so there's no incentive for me to tweet myself. Besides news articles, what interesting things do you read from tweets?
There is absolutely no faster medium for discovering information. Twitter is so fast that it beat an earthquake from DC to NY.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/tweets-mov...
So, I follow a bunch of breaking news accounts and stuff like my power utility, my hosting providers' status accounts, etc.
Prior to Twitter, the fastest medium for newsy information was web forums; Fark.com in particular was always very fast with breaking news. Twitter is faster.
The other value is all the folks you can follow. It's good for entertainment--I highly recommend the @pinboard account for amazing tech industry satire.
But it's also a great way to learn. I want to learn more about data visualization, so I started following accounts related to that. I started with Mike Bostock (D3.js author), and then looked at who he was retweeting, etc. And Twitter is not bad at suggesting accounts to follow once you move into a new area.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/tweets-mov...
So, I follow a bunch of breaking news accounts and stuff like my power utility, my hosting providers' status accounts, etc.
Prior to Twitter, the fastest medium for newsy information was web forums; Fark.com in particular was always very fast with breaking news. Twitter is faster.
The other value is all the folks you can follow. It's good for entertainment--I highly recommend the @pinboard account for amazing tech industry satire.
But it's also a great way to learn. I want to learn more about data visualization, so I started following accounts related to that. I started with Mike Bostock (D3.js author), and then looked at who he was retweeting, etc. And Twitter is not bad at suggesting accounts to follow once you move into a new area.
I find it to be a good medium for customer support, especially during an outage.
It's also a good way to get news from very high quality sources. Lots of domain experts and freelance journalists tweet, and their feeds can be far more informative and timely than regular media coverage.
It's also a good way to get news from very high quality sources. Lots of domain experts and freelance journalists tweet, and their feeds can be far more informative and timely than regular media coverage.
can you give an example of this?
Not the OP, but for instance:
Peter Nickeas at the Trib does real-time crime reporting from the South Side of Chicago; @peternickeas
I get a pretty constant feed of Middle East stuff that I don't see elsewhere from Laura Rozen (though I'm uncertain of her ideological tilt, she pulls in lots of random other sources); @lrozen
There are a couple court reporters in Chicago that I've picked up.
Saved You A Click does a pretty good job of condensing most of modern journalism into a short Twitter feed; @SavedYouAClick
M&A/corpdev comings and goings in the Valley, startupland's "Weddings Section", that's @pinboard.
Of course, there's @scotusblog.
There are lots of kinds of news that Twitter is just a lot better at delivering than websites or (gag) RSS. Since it's so easy to compose twerps, especially once you get the hang of it, it seems like it draws a lot of reporters in who would not do real-time reporting so aggressively in a different medium, but will do it so long as the expectation is set that they only have to tap out 140 characters an hour.
This is also an advantage Twitter has over Facebook.
Peter Nickeas at the Trib does real-time crime reporting from the South Side of Chicago; @peternickeas
I get a pretty constant feed of Middle East stuff that I don't see elsewhere from Laura Rozen (though I'm uncertain of her ideological tilt, she pulls in lots of random other sources); @lrozen
There are a couple court reporters in Chicago that I've picked up.
Saved You A Click does a pretty good job of condensing most of modern journalism into a short Twitter feed; @SavedYouAClick
M&A/corpdev comings and goings in the Valley, startupland's "Weddings Section", that's @pinboard.
Of course, there's @scotusblog.
There are lots of kinds of news that Twitter is just a lot better at delivering than websites or (gag) RSS. Since it's so easy to compose twerps, especially once you get the hang of it, it seems like it draws a lot of reporters in who would not do real-time reporting so aggressively in a different medium, but will do it so long as the expectation is set that they only have to tap out 140 characters an hour.
This is also an advantage Twitter has over Facebook.
@ionacraig for the latest on what's happening in Yemen; @jonostrower for aviation and aerospace. The former is a freelance journalist who writes for the BBC a lot; the latter is a beat reporter for the WSJ.
There's a lot of parody accounts that keep me entertained. @nihilist_arbys, @iamdevloper. Also It's interesting following @neiltyson and @ID_AA_Carmack
Imagine if you could be a fly on the wall at a party. You could invite anyone in the world to that party, and they'd come. Your heroes, the smartest people in the world, the best people in your field, your friends, the funniest people you know, etc. You get them all in a room and get to listen to everything they're saying, thinking about, reading, etc.
That's Twitter.
That's Twitter.
Being an early Twitter user, I'd say that the value of Twitter is in who you follow, not who's following you.
When Twitter started it was a geek medium and dominated by nerd types. Back in 2007 it was almost a guarantee that I could follow any one and find interesting (to me) conversations and topics. For someone with poor social skills and living in a part of the world with no tech scene, it was an amazing opportunity to meet people and be part of a nascent community.
I'm pretty sure that if I have a career in tech today is in part due to my early involvement in Twitter.
With time, as its usage broadened, it became more and more difficult to find who to follow. Twitter seemingly tried very hard to divorce itself from the nerd community and became pop culture. Once it became Obama's and Justin Biever's medium it was pretty much ruined.
Today, it's still possible to find interesting communities buried within the nonsense but it's getting more and more difficult to do so.
(Non native speaker, sorry if something does not make sense)
When Twitter started it was a geek medium and dominated by nerd types. Back in 2007 it was almost a guarantee that I could follow any one and find interesting (to me) conversations and topics. For someone with poor social skills and living in a part of the world with no tech scene, it was an amazing opportunity to meet people and be part of a nascent community.
I'm pretty sure that if I have a career in tech today is in part due to my early involvement in Twitter.
With time, as its usage broadened, it became more and more difficult to find who to follow. Twitter seemingly tried very hard to divorce itself from the nerd community and became pop culture. Once it became Obama's and Justin Biever's medium it was pretty much ruined.
Today, it's still possible to find interesting communities buried within the nonsense but it's getting more and more difficult to do so.
(Non native speaker, sorry if something does not make sense)
I have found it useful since moving to a new city. Most of the time you are either overwhelmed with tweets or miss things because you weren't watching at the right time.
But these people curate a retweeting session which I find interesting :
https://twitter.com/HuddersfieldBiz : Use #HuddersfieldHour every Thurs 8-9 PM to discuss #Huddersfield, Promote your business & find out what's going on!
I have also found value in connecting with other community groups in the locale.
So, for me, it offers geographically related content which I don't seem to find elsewhere
But these people curate a retweeting session which I find interesting :
https://twitter.com/HuddersfieldBiz : Use #HuddersfieldHour every Thurs 8-9 PM to discuss #Huddersfield, Promote your business & find out what's going on!
I have also found value in connecting with other community groups in the locale.
So, for me, it offers geographically related content which I don't seem to find elsewhere
Twitter has become the definitive source for breaking news, rumors and off the cough analysis in Sports. Scoops always appear on Twitter considerably faster than ESPN, etc. During free agency periods, all of the rumors and news breaks on Twitter first because all of the top traditional journalists and bloggers use Twitter as their primary distribution channel. If I were running ESPN, I would have tried my hardest to head this off years ago, perhaps by emulating the StockTwits strategy or something, but at this point, Twitter is the breaking source for Sports information, not ESPN. And that's why I use it multiple times per day on the web.
On the flip side of all of this, I think its important to recognize that Twitter has - of most of the large social media platforms - been the best with regard to resistance to censorship and propaganda initiatives. Twitter will take down specific accounts, but as far as I can tell this is the state of the art for them - they do not have automated reasoning that 'accidentally' prevents spreading unwelcome news articles and leaked documents, etc. This of course makes Twitter a viable target for propaganda efforts by AQAP, ISIL, Russia, Israel, the US and others - but it also frees the service from being controlled by any particular group (I suppose either is bad).
It is likely that with a change in leadership these policies will also change and Twitter will become another Facebook/Reddit.
It is likely that with a change in leadership these policies will also change and Twitter will become another Facebook/Reddit.
Twitter's principal prob is information overload that users experience inevitably on as they dedicate or spend more time on the platform due to the reality of its non filtered laissez-faire stream of tweets[0].
The second most nagging prob for Twitter is the blurring line between its FB page-like accounts and real/personal ones. Both unfortunatey stand on an equal footing in the platform unlike the situation on Facebook where everything is distinct and clear and the line is drawn quite obviously between groups, pages, personal accounts ...etc
([0]: I like that it way as I am not in favor of FB's authoritarian policy of curating/dictating what content should I consume. I'm very OK with rationing and having full control of my TW time the way I see fit)
The second most nagging prob for Twitter is the blurring line between its FB page-like accounts and real/personal ones. Both unfortunatey stand on an equal footing in the platform unlike the situation on Facebook where everything is distinct and clear and the line is drawn quite obviously between groups, pages, personal accounts ...etc
([0]: I like that it way as I am not in favor of FB's authoritarian policy of curating/dictating what content should I consume. I'm very OK with rationing and having full control of my TW time the way I see fit)
I have decided to make a small list of posts out that talk about Twitter in recent times. Some are more cogent and authoritative than others.
- http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2015/04/30/twitters-multi-b...
- http://john.do/twitter-quit/
- http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/22/twitters-dilemma
- https://alexgaynor.net/2014/oct/30/i-hope-twitter-goes-away/
- http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/why-twitters-engage...
- http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-eulo...
- http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2015/04/30/twitters-multi-b...
- http://john.do/twitter-quit/
- http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/22/twitters-dilemma
- https://alexgaynor.net/2014/oct/30/i-hope-twitter-goes-away/
- http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/why-twitters-engage...
- http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-eulo...
I'd love if there was a universal way for me to pay a central distributor e.g. 10€ a month and then distributes the money to the websites I visit, with the same financial result for the website operators.
Like an optout for ads, because let's face it I won't be buying a Porsche because of an Instagram photo or a tweet. Ads are just fucking annoying, and it sorta works for pay tv.
Like an optout for ads, because let's face it I won't be buying a Porsche because of an Instagram photo or a tweet. Ads are just fucking annoying, and it sorta works for pay tv.
I had a discussion with Ben Thompson (author of the article) about exactly this point.
TL;DR: because you're willing to pay the ten bucks, you're worth far more than ten bucks. It'll never happen.
TL;DR: because you're willing to pay the ten bucks, you're worth far more than ten bucks. It'll never happen.
That's not how those ads work. Repetition in the right amounts breeds familiarity and comfort so that when you're out there looking for a new car, you're primed to consider a Porsche. It itself is not the trigger that'll make you hit a button and buy it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_frequency
Something like this: https://www.google.com/contributor ?
I hope that this takes off but unfortunately it'll only be for Google ads which aren't obtrusive like layerads or youtube video ads...
> I won't be buying a Porsche because of an Instagram photo or a tweet
I thought fancy car ads weren't supposed to net new customers so much as comfort those who have just shelled out money for one. The ROI comes in the form of reduced returns / resells not increased sales.
I thought fancy car ads weren't supposed to net new customers so much as comfort those who have just shelled out money for one. The ROI comes in the form of reduced returns / resells not increased sales.
Have you heard of Flattr[0] ? I don't have the feeling there are that successful, but the original idea is neat.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr
It's inconvenient and especially it doesn't get me rid of the ads (and I think this is part of its problems).
the ad-based business model is as toxic for quality as being a public company dependend on quarterly results. if you have no other fallback revenue, you get pushed in a very specific, user-hostile direction.
google search as case in point, banner ads, etc., all broken promises.
why not do what linkedin does? offer paid premium accounts. the 'verified' badge is already much coveted, so mark affluent users. re-sell short, unused twitter handles. cap the number of followers at say 500, above needs to be premium. want to persist your tweets longer than x months? premium. want to connect an official 3rd party app? premium. remove fucking ads? guess...
and i am not talking about making this expensive, it does not need to be. earn enough money to keep the lights on with premium users.
twitter has the best content on the net, so they're like HBO - but trying to make money like network TV.
tl,dr: build a premium and 3rd party connector paid system, a mix of LinkedIn and Slack's models.
don't like my idea? discuss.
google search as case in point, banner ads, etc., all broken promises.
why not do what linkedin does? offer paid premium accounts. the 'verified' badge is already much coveted, so mark affluent users. re-sell short, unused twitter handles. cap the number of followers at say 500, above needs to be premium. want to persist your tweets longer than x months? premium. want to connect an official 3rd party app? premium. remove fucking ads? guess...
and i am not talking about making this expensive, it does not need to be. earn enough money to keep the lights on with premium users.
twitter has the best content on the net, so they're like HBO - but trying to make money like network TV.
tl,dr: build a premium and 3rd party connector paid system, a mix of LinkedIn and Slack's models.
don't like my idea? discuss.
I generally agree with you on the issues of advertising. The value of an eyeball or a click has been dropping for 20 years. The point of most advertising is to distract, which puts it in direct opposition to the point of most content.
But I think search-related ads are a different thing. When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads.
I think premium accounts could be great, but it's a tricky thing to get right. Part of the value of Twitter is audience, so anything that might reduce the audience is dangerous. You list several premium features that might have worked from the beginning, but now would be perceived as a loss by non-premium users, surely driving some from the platform and creating a wave of negative comment.
But I think search-related ads are a different thing. When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads.
I think premium accounts could be great, but it's a tricky thing to get right. Part of the value of Twitter is audience, so anything that might reduce the audience is dangerous. You list several premium features that might have worked from the beginning, but now would be perceived as a loss by non-premium users, surely driving some from the platform and creating a wave of negative comment.
tweaking those features to something that makes sense would be the job of twitter's leadership. and if making money wasn't tricky, well, anyone could do it, no? :)
Imagine you are a designer or a developer at Twitter. Are you really going to believe that somebody 3 levels above you has the necessary skills and insight necessary to make those decisions?
> When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads.
Can you explain how twitter's in-stream ads are any different? You can apply any number of arguments that are identical to your Google one. "If I'm following News Outlet XYZ, telling me about News Outlet PQR can create value as they might have another take on this particular story". "If I'm following Pop artist M, telling me about similar Pop artists Q might be useful". You can also apply the other argument - "I know what I'm looking for just feed me the data and get out of the way" to both scenarios.
You can break the activities down to - 1) Are you 'exploring' or 2) Are you just wanting to 'go to a particular data source X'. If you're exploring, of course you're going to be more open to other inputs, and in that scenario, ads - well not ads - but recommendations, are useful.
Can you explain how twitter's in-stream ads are any different? You can apply any number of arguments that are identical to your Google one. "If I'm following News Outlet XYZ, telling me about News Outlet PQR can create value as they might have another take on this particular story". "If I'm following Pop artist M, telling me about similar Pop artists Q might be useful". You can also apply the other argument - "I know what I'm looking for just feed me the data and get out of the way" to both scenarios.
You can break the activities down to - 1) Are you 'exploring' or 2) Are you just wanting to 'go to a particular data source X'. If you're exploring, of course you're going to be more open to other inputs, and in that scenario, ads - well not ads - but recommendations, are useful.
Sure. Search is me actively looking for something. E.g., I want to buy a replacement keyboard for my computer. My goal is to find something that somebody is selling. There, ads may be relevant to my direct intent.
If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal.
Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the advertisers.
Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help. Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my purchasing behaviors.
I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit. I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need to hear.
Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want them.
If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal.
Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the advertisers.
Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help. Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my purchasing behaviors.
I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit. I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need to hear.
Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want them.
Well, ads themselves are toxic, because they aim to manipulate. But, on the other hand, they continue to propagate the illusion that consumers en masse are rational actors that always somehow choose the right product for their needs, or that they are even capable of choosing the right product. Given that illusion, you can always sell someone something that they think is valuable, even if its not. Products suck because people suck, is in essence the state of the capitalist world. :)
2¢;
Twitter needs to learn how to let me, as a small company advertise at affordable prices. Facebook learned this, even though we all know bots click on "Boosted" posts. Give us, millions of small companies lots of amazing tools and charge for it. (Start with multi user support for the corporate handle, buy Buffer and get back to respecting developers)
Twitter needs to learn how to let me, as a small company advertise at affordable prices. Facebook learned this, even though we all know bots click on "Boosted" posts. Give us, millions of small companies lots of amazing tools and charge for it. (Start with multi user support for the corporate handle, buy Buffer and get back to respecting developers)
... and as a small company connect to their firehose at an affordable price.
Have you tried their advertising products?
https://ads.twitter.com/login?ref=gl-tw-tw-twitter-advertise
I have on a very small scale so I can't speak to the effectivene4ss, but it's (advertising options) been available for quite some time.
https://ads.twitter.com/login?ref=gl-tw-tw-twitter-advertise
I have on a very small scale so I can't speak to the effectivene4ss, but it's (advertising options) been available for quite some time.
I recently did a very small amount of advertising on Twitter and managed to reach 20,000 people for around $15 which I thought was quite reasonable, although I haven't tried any other platforms yet. You don't pay for views, only interactions, so it can be quite affordable.
Some of these advertising-related problems seem to be related to Twitter's ad delivering mechanism offering too much transparency into the effectiveness of the advertising, while other networks profit from opacity. In other words, by letting advertisers be more efficient, Twitter should have a better handle (and perhaps later, collect a premium) for the value inherent in better matchmaking and conversions.
Is there a path for an efficient social network that has the right buyers and sellers on it transacting in highly efficient ways, but which isn't beholden to conquer-the-world MAU metrics that have it scrambling to attract the masses at the lower end of the Facebook curve (e.g., old high school acquaintances who find it the perfect outlet to display their self-betraying views on conspiracies, politics and race?)
Is there a path for an efficient social network that has the right buyers and sellers on it transacting in highly efficient ways, but which isn't beholden to conquer-the-world MAU metrics that have it scrambling to attract the masses at the lower end of the Facebook curve (e.g., old high school acquaintances who find it the perfect outlet to display their self-betraying views on conspiracies, politics and race?)
Facebook has millions of real people on it -- for sure also bots, while twitter has a much smaller hardcore fraction of people, next to too many bots. Advertising performs better on FB.
Twitter just has way too small of a scope to be useful for most people. I imagine most of their growth was hype-train growth, not really true usage growth.
Not only that, but I'm quickly realizing that having a public record of short little quips I've made is actually a really bad idea.
Not only that, but I'm quickly realizing that having a public record of short little quips I've made is actually a really bad idea.
Twitter needs to create a better platform for international social media. That will save it's bottom line and place itself into a completely new market for enterprise accounts.
Wait, there is no mention of Periscope or Meerkat in this post. Have I been moved to a parallel dimension?
Twitter should adopt deep-linking in app install ads.
Yes. And a redesign. And a paid premium (200 chars) account. And a enterprise (500chars + in-tweet-auto-playing-video) option.
There is clearly not enough advertisement on twitter, no wonder the users are running away.
There is clearly not enough advertisement on twitter, no wonder the users are running away.
- Photos are very badly cropped and clicking on the tweet does not diplay them full size anymore. We have to click a second time on the photo.
- Photos are now displayed above the text which somehow makes the bad cropping even worse.
- People who want to post photos have all moved to Instagram anyway. Twitter is an actor, not a victim, of this move. They seem to consider photos as a feature for advertisers, not for users.
- Embedded tweets (retweets with a comment) don't have functionnal links. Clicking them opens the tweet's page in a way that ruins the auto-scrolling of the main stream. The trick against that is to right-click on the embedding tweet's time and open the link in a new tab. WTF, designers?
- If one wants to post a longer text, Twitter leads them to create an account elsewhere. Twitter could easily just display the title and hide the longer text behind a click. WTF, strategists?
Twitter definitely needs a new leadership.