Twitter did facilitate the Iranian protestors. And facilitated getting the word out to the world.
Twitter did help make the Kogi Korean BBQ Taco Truck a sensation!
Twitter did keep us updated about Balloon Boy in real time.
I agree that it is not a "platform" but it does provide real-time news and discussion like no other tool at this time.
Obviously, people who Tweet that they are riding the train to work don't 'get it.'
But those of us who have formed discussion groups using hashtags do.
As an example, I'm CulinaryHatchet, have a blog (that I've been neglecting while working on BHeardusa.com start-up), really into the #profood movement and have met many other very informed #profood -ies (as well as #agchat and #foodinc) on Twitter, including the son of the people from whom Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma) purchased his cow. There is great discussion in #profood from all sides of the issue. There are farmers, farmer's markets, attorneys, journalists, restaurants, etc. I can't think of any other resource that provides this kind of value right this second (although BHeardUSA.com will be taking it to the next level and using Twitter as one of the tools.)
Twitter did facilitate the Iranian protestors. And facilitated getting the word out to the world. Twitter did help make the Kogi Korean BBQ Taco Truck a sensation! Twitter did keep us updated about Balloon Boy in real time.
Do you have any substantial proof of those claims? I know for a fact the first one is at least misleading (Every news outlet had people on the ground in Iran and they certainly reached far more people than Twitter did).
The point of the article is that people who use Twitter ascribe accomplishments to it without proof so you making the same claims without offering proof only makes the author's point.
Notice that, in my post, I reworded the 1st claim to say that it "facilitated" the protesters. (Are you sure that you read my "claims" carefully?) It was a real-time messaging service that the government wasn't able to shut down as easily as cell service that spread the word about what was going on and there is plenty of proof out there. Furthermore, one could argue that the Twitterers counted as "news outlets" supplying information not otherwise easily uncovered. It's like having a free workforce. (Of course, with a lot of Twitterers, you get what you pay for.) You may offer proof that this wasn't the case if you choose.
Secondly, lot's of people have blogged that they love the Kogi truck and followed it to find out when it would be arriving. Another score for real-time messaging from one-to-many. Even the editor of Bon Appetit wrote about it, How many other food trucks do you think she writes about? Major PR score!
Thirdly, the the proof is in the Tweets for all three examples. (I didn't follow balloon boy but I can picture the scenario that anyone interested could follow the balloon's path in real-time.)
Finally, I offered proof of my own claim as to it's usefulness for #profood. Tweet to them otherwise and see what they say.
What I and other posters are saying is that, even though it is a one-to-many messaging service and not a platform, it does have value and that Twitter bashing is as useless as a submarine with screen doors.
> Even the editor of Bon Appetit wrote about it, How many other food trucks do you think she writes about? Major PR score!
That's probably more due to the fact that Kogi made the New York Times and the LA Times, than due to direct Twitter awareness. Kogi often has long lines now, but that pretty much started happening when it hit traditional media. The first time I went to Kogi was last December, before it hits NYTimes/LATimes, and there was no line.
Definitely Twitter helped them hit their early following, but it doesn't seem that a majority of their customers now use Twitter. Last few times I've been waiting in line for Kogi, most people I talked to around me got the word that the truck was there due to their website itself, or word of mouth from friends.
> I didn't follow balloon boy but I can picture the scenario that anyone interested could follow the balloon's path in real-time
You could have also followed it on CNN. It's funny that Balloon Boy is an example. That story was not broken on Twitter, but via traditional news channels, and all the Twitter chatter was based around updates from those same traditional news channels. Except if you tried to follow the story on Twitter, you'd have way more noise to filter through, as Twitter has a lot of redundant posts (Retweets don't add any value when you're searching).
I just did a search on Twitter for #profood. A large majority of it was RT messages. How does one find the discussion that is going on about #profood in all of this? Speaking for myself, I would find it much more efficient if there was a profood forum, blog, or even BBS. Any of these solutions would provide a signal-to-noise ratio that is manageable, and have the bonus of being intended for discussion and discourse instead of requiring users to quote one-another to get a message out.
I don't think that you can judge a real-time one to many discussion by a snapshot in time. There are frequently very good discussions taking place.
How would you suggest such a large group as #profood have real-time discussions with so many contributors on one person's blog?
You have to join forums and BBS'. How do you find out about them in the first place? Retweeting has the benefit that followers who don't know about #profood will see the messages.
For example, if you find out about Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch and follow them, you'll then find out about #profood where you'll find out about all sorts of organizations and experts who Tweet in #profood. I have met people that I would never have otherwise met and learned things that I would never have learned from one forum, blog, or BBS.
You have to use it to 'get it.'
I don't understand why non-users are so emotional about discounting it's value.
How did you find out about the #profood tag? I am assuming someone you know was either in the community, or interested in the community. This is no different from a wikipedia page referencing the community, a blog you follow pointing you at the forum, or a person you don't even know mentioning it at an event. I do not see why the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch website/blog/weekly newsletter couldn't also point you to this community.
What I am getting at is that Twitter works the same as all these things that have come before, but it is the new and the now and therefore the media darling. I do not debate that it has usefulness, but I do debate that it has impact and change beyond what already existed (in addition to imposing barriers to usability). Twitter does work as a communications platform, but that doesn't meant it is changing the world or a paradigm shift or any of the other breathless praises it has received.
Also, please do not assume I am not a Twitter user just because I dislike the service.
Obviously, people who Tweet that they are riding the train to work don't 'get it.'
Why? Because they're using Twitter to send boring, banal info that you don't care about, but perhaps their friend or spouse does?
I don't think anyone gets Twitter because there are so many ways to use it. I swore off it a while back, but then found it much more enjoyable after unfollowing about 2/3 of my list. Now, some of the ones I enjoy reading the most are the boring, banal parts of my wife's life that she experiences at work.
Twitter has allowed for a focused elucidation of a tiny concept. It bridges the gap between the line-by-line nitpick of an article and the 'so-short-it'd-be-flippant-elsewhere' single line nitpick.
It helps that this is a small twitterstorm with a bunch of seasoned professionals, but the following seems like a slightly more asynchronous IRC convo:
http://orbit.vect.org/misc/gamedesign.html
Because you haven't yet done it, perhaps? Having the small character limit really forces you how to get your message across very succinctly. How many times have you read something that could have been boiled down considerably and gotten the point across more clearly? We actually do have meaningful real-time conversations in #profood. I have rarely used two Tweets to make a point.
Having said that, many Tweets are links to #profood blogs.
Some talk about Steve Jobs's reality distortion field.
Your quote offers another example: "Having the small character limit really forces you how to get your message across very succinctly". All perfectly logical.
Do you really, really, really believe this? That a limitation at 140 characters is helps people express their thoughts better? It doesn't strike you in any way, limiting? Are there some good thoughts that need 200 characters?
Don't get me wrong: having such a limit has advantages to the readers. But if you think of it, twitter is not so different from a giant blog RSS feed which only broadcasts the titles of the posts...
> twitter is not so different from a giant blog RSS feed
I think this is precisely the point. Twitter has basically taken the idea of RSS and made it RRSS (really really simple syndication), in that non-techies can easily grasp the concept.
It's curious you should mention Apple in your post, too. Were you one of the people who said "no wifi, only 5gb space, no FM radio, it will fail" when the iPod came out?
This guy is basically right. Twitter isn't social; it's a PR tool.
What's annoying is that you have all these "broadcasters" (bloggers, celebrities, media personalities) telling me how great Twitter is. And for them, the people with an audience, it is.
But guess what - most people have nothing worth broadcasting about. It turns out that the average person has very average thoughts. Who knew?
The other problem I have with Twitter is that it's just Twitter. It makes me cringe to hear tech luminaries talk about using Twitter as infrastructure (e.g. replacing RSS). Does nobody else mind handing over that level of power to a closed, corporate body?
I'll give microblogging a serious thought when there are protocol standards and more than one provider is actually operating in the space.
Similarly with blogs, photostreams, generic web sites, etc.
It can all be a PR tool. It can all be banal. It can lob grenades that spark research or discussions or the genuine (unpaid) discovery of a neat product.
Twitter is what you make of it. And you can find pretty much whatever you're looking for.
Though I'm definitely with you on the protocol/provider bit.
The argument is: do interesting uses of Twitter exist?
If they do, the banal is irrelevant, since you never need to see it to access those interesting uses of Twitter.
But I think what makes twitter interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster. Now, this is not news for people in the media, because they will just have another channel. But for everyone else it important.
"Anyone can become a broadcaster" also counts for blogs, mailing lists, usenet, etc. People still have to opt in to tune into you, so why is Twitter more interesting than all those other options?
Have you ever noticed that when animals are let out of cages, they don't always realize at first that the door's open?
Often they have to be poked with a stick to get them out. Something similar happened with blogs.
People could have been publishing online in 1995, and yet blogging has only really taken off in the last couple years.
In 1995 we thought only professional writers were entitled to publish their ideas, and that anyone else who did was a crank.
Now publishing online is becoming so popular that everyone wants to do it, even print journalists. But blogging has not
taken off recently because of any technical innovation; it just took eight years for everyone to realize the cage was open.
There are quite a few web technoligies for which I could write your same sentence. What makes bulletin boards interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except that not many people were aware of bulletin boards so you didn't reach many people. What makes electronic mailing lists interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except they weren't that easier to discover and join so you didn't reach many people. What makes blogging+rss interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except it has started to get a similar air of elitism as traditional editorials so unless you have some gimmick or are already famous you don't reach many people. What makes twitter interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except the site has become so inundated with celebrities, news personalities, corporations and marketters that, like blogging, unless you have a gimmick or are already famous, you are just part of the noise and don't reach many people.
Is twitter interesting? Sure. Is it revolutionary? Eh, maybe a little. But does it represent some kind of fundamental shift in how people communicate and who can broadcast to large audiences? Not in my opinion. Twitter makes some things easier, but it doesn't completely change the game. There have been any number of amazing broadcast methods coming down the pipe ever since the web came into existence. But all that broadcasting for the average man doesn't make a lick of difference if no one is paying attention.
More important though than "everyone can become a broadcaster" is that broadcasting means you have something to broadcast. Putting together a broadcast takes time. You say "not many people were aware of ____, so you didn't reach many people", but the flip side of that is that people who are aware of xyz broadcast medium and wish to broadcast something (thus providing more content for consumers of the broadcast building into a feedback loop of broadcast/consumer growth...like television) don't always have the time or energy to produce something decent for broadcast, or to produce something at all. How many completely dead Twitter accounts are there?
Twitter's retention stats show that this is true even for something as completely cut down as Twitter (creating a broadcast requires mere seconds of time)...they only retain, what, about 10% of their users (or maybe rather 10% are active)?
I'll give microblogging a serious thought when there are protocol standards and more than one provider is actually operating in the space.
All of the open protocols are already in place for someone to trivially build a clone of twitter's basic functionality. And actually, there are a number of microblogging sites out there lying mostly derelict.
The real value of twitter is not its technology, but its vibrant user activity. And you usually don't get critical user mass unless a closed system is locking them in somehow.
It works really well when you only follow people you're actually interested in. Most of the people I follow (and I only follow about 60 people) are fellow developers, entrepreneurs, geeks, and IRL friends, and I get a lot of value out of the stuff they post.
Twitter can of course be used as a PR tool as well, although I think there's a lot more room for abuse there. But I have about 1600 followers that I've gained over time from guest writing on blogs and putting my twitter name on apps and presentations and I can regularly get great feedback from my followers and sometimes some good business opportunities, too.
Twitter only works, I guess, if you are interested in other people. A lot of detractors forget that you can control the spigot of information coming in, and that you can actually get a lot of value out of Twitter without even posting one tweet.
One thing not touched on regarding the strategy of following a lot of people. Whenever you follow somebody new, an email is sent to that person. For people who already have lots of followers, this may get lost, but for people who use Twitter relatively casually, getting this email along with a sample tweet is a great way to get introduced to a Twitterer that they may be interested in.
It may not be the intent, but it works well as an announcement mechanism as long as you remember that not everybody uses Twitter for business reasons.
At this point, you need to either be important somehow to the industry or have something really novel to say to get my attention with a Twitter critique. Maybe I'm wrong, but this guy seems like neither; he works for an ad/PR agency, and is saying the same thing everyone else does about Twitter.
Twitter is undoubtedly overvalued because of all the media exposure they've received. But why the f@ck is that supposed to matter to me? Twitter works; I've used it to run surveys, I've used to answer questions, I've used it to find customers, I've used it to fill classrooms for OE courses.
If an ad/strategy person can't figure out how to use the service --- or, better yet, refuses to embrace it for emotional reasons like "the hype bothers me" --- I have to wonder what they're doing in that profession.
It's interesting Kogi BBQ is mentioned, because that to me is an example of the dysfunction around Twitter.
Twitter started out as an SMS service, yet these days they cannot reliably deliver SMS messages. Kogi is awesome food, so whenever I visit LA, I turn on SMS delivery for Kogi's messages on Twitter. This would be a really great feature, since when I'm out for the evening I may try to stop by Kogi for some food, and it's great to get updates about where they are in relation to me, and if they're running late due to traffic (which happens a lot in LA). Except the last two times I was in LA, Twitter didn't send about half the updates to my phone. Which makes it not useful at all.
The Kogi case is a great application for one-to-many SMS updates, but Twitter completely drops the ball on that. Yet Twitter is so popular, there isn't really room for a more technically competent service to provide value. As we've seen already, merely cloning Twitter, even if you do it better, isn't enough.
The world could use a popular, reliable one-to-many SMS delivery platform. Instead we're stuck with Twitter. It's sad.
I agree completely with this author. Following more than 100 or so people becomes completely unmanageable and I think destroys the value of Twitter for anyone who does it.
38 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 87.2 ms ] threadI agree that it is not a "platform" but it does provide real-time news and discussion like no other tool at this time.
Obviously, people who Tweet that they are riding the train to work don't 'get it.'
But those of us who have formed discussion groups using hashtags do.
As an example, I'm CulinaryHatchet, have a blog (that I've been neglecting while working on BHeardusa.com start-up), really into the #profood movement and have met many other very informed #profood -ies (as well as #agchat and #foodinc) on Twitter, including the son of the people from whom Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma) purchased his cow. There is great discussion in #profood from all sides of the issue. There are farmers, farmer's markets, attorneys, journalists, restaurants, etc. I can't think of any other resource that provides this kind of value right this second (although BHeardUSA.com will be taking it to the next level and using Twitter as one of the tools.)
Do you have any substantial proof of those claims? I know for a fact the first one is at least misleading (Every news outlet had people on the ground in Iran and they certainly reached far more people than Twitter did).
The point of the article is that people who use Twitter ascribe accomplishments to it without proof so you making the same claims without offering proof only makes the author's point.
Notice that, in my post, I reworded the 1st claim to say that it "facilitated" the protesters. (Are you sure that you read my "claims" carefully?) It was a real-time messaging service that the government wasn't able to shut down as easily as cell service that spread the word about what was going on and there is plenty of proof out there. Furthermore, one could argue that the Twitterers counted as "news outlets" supplying information not otherwise easily uncovered. It's like having a free workforce. (Of course, with a lot of Twitterers, you get what you pay for.) You may offer proof that this wasn't the case if you choose.
Secondly, lot's of people have blogged that they love the Kogi truck and followed it to find out when it would be arriving. Another score for real-time messaging from one-to-many. Even the editor of Bon Appetit wrote about it, How many other food trucks do you think she writes about? Major PR score!
Thirdly, the the proof is in the Tweets for all three examples. (I didn't follow balloon boy but I can picture the scenario that anyone interested could follow the balloon's path in real-time.)
Finally, I offered proof of my own claim as to it's usefulness for #profood. Tweet to them otherwise and see what they say.
What I and other posters are saying is that, even though it is a one-to-many messaging service and not a platform, it does have value and that Twitter bashing is as useless as a submarine with screen doors.
That's probably more due to the fact that Kogi made the New York Times and the LA Times, than due to direct Twitter awareness. Kogi often has long lines now, but that pretty much started happening when it hit traditional media. The first time I went to Kogi was last December, before it hits NYTimes/LATimes, and there was no line.
Definitely Twitter helped them hit their early following, but it doesn't seem that a majority of their customers now use Twitter. Last few times I've been waiting in line for Kogi, most people I talked to around me got the word that the truck was there due to their website itself, or word of mouth from friends.
> I didn't follow balloon boy but I can picture the scenario that anyone interested could follow the balloon's path in real-time
You could have also followed it on CNN. It's funny that Balloon Boy is an example. That story was not broken on Twitter, but via traditional news channels, and all the Twitter chatter was based around updates from those same traditional news channels. Except if you tried to follow the story on Twitter, you'd have way more noise to filter through, as Twitter has a lot of redundant posts (Retweets don't add any value when you're searching).
How would you suggest such a large group as #profood have real-time discussions with so many contributors on one person's blog?
You have to join forums and BBS'. How do you find out about them in the first place? Retweeting has the benefit that followers who don't know about #profood will see the messages.
For example, if you find out about Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch and follow them, you'll then find out about #profood where you'll find out about all sorts of organizations and experts who Tweet in #profood. I have met people that I would never have otherwise met and learned things that I would never have learned from one forum, blog, or BBS.
You have to use it to 'get it.'
I don't understand why non-users are so emotional about discounting it's value.
@CulinaryHatchet
What I am getting at is that Twitter works the same as all these things that have come before, but it is the new and the now and therefore the media darling. I do not debate that it has usefulness, but I do debate that it has impact and change beyond what already existed (in addition to imposing barriers to usability). Twitter does work as a communications platform, but that doesn't meant it is changing the world or a paradigm shift or any of the other breathless praises it has received.
Also, please do not assume I am not a Twitter user just because I dislike the service.
Why? Because they're using Twitter to send boring, banal info that you don't care about, but perhaps their friend or spouse does?
I don't think anyone gets Twitter because there are so many ways to use it. I swore off it a while back, but then found it much more enjoyable after unfollowing about 2/3 of my list. Now, some of the ones I enjoy reading the most are the boring, banal parts of my wife's life that she experiences at work.
It helps that this is a small twitterstorm with a bunch of seasoned professionals, but the following seems like a slightly more asynchronous IRC convo: http://orbit.vect.org/misc/gamedesign.html
Having said that, many Tweets are links to #profood blogs.
Your quote offers another example: "Having the small character limit really forces you how to get your message across very succinctly". All perfectly logical.
Do you really, really, really believe this? That a limitation at 140 characters is helps people express their thoughts better? It doesn't strike you in any way, limiting? Are there some good thoughts that need 200 characters?
Don't get me wrong: having such a limit has advantages to the readers. But if you think of it, twitter is not so different from a giant blog RSS feed which only broadcasts the titles of the posts...
I think this is precisely the point. Twitter has basically taken the idea of RSS and made it RRSS (really really simple syndication), in that non-techies can easily grasp the concept.
It's curious you should mention Apple in your post, too. Were you one of the people who said "no wifi, only 5gb space, no FM radio, it will fail" when the iPod came out?
What's annoying is that you have all these "broadcasters" (bloggers, celebrities, media personalities) telling me how great Twitter is. And for them, the people with an audience, it is.
But guess what - most people have nothing worth broadcasting about. It turns out that the average person has very average thoughts. Who knew?
The other problem I have with Twitter is that it's just Twitter. It makes me cringe to hear tech luminaries talk about using Twitter as infrastructure (e.g. replacing RSS). Does nobody else mind handing over that level of power to a closed, corporate body?
I'll give microblogging a serious thought when there are protocol standards and more than one provider is actually operating in the space.
Though I'm definitely with you on the protocol/provider bit.
If what most people make of it is banal posts and celebrity watching, is it deserving of all the hype?
A medium is (un)deserving of 'hype' based on whether it can be used to do anything that appeals to us.
The argument is: do interesting uses of Twitter exist? If they do, the banal is irrelevant, since you never need to see it to access those interesting uses of Twitter.
Is twitter interesting? Sure. Is it revolutionary? Eh, maybe a little. But does it represent some kind of fundamental shift in how people communicate and who can broadcast to large audiences? Not in my opinion. Twitter makes some things easier, but it doesn't completely change the game. There have been any number of amazing broadcast methods coming down the pipe ever since the web came into existence. But all that broadcasting for the average man doesn't make a lick of difference if no one is paying attention.
Twitter's retention stats show that this is true even for something as completely cut down as Twitter (creating a broadcast requires mere seconds of time)...they only retain, what, about 10% of their users (or maybe rather 10% are active)?
All of the open protocols are already in place for someone to trivially build a clone of twitter's basic functionality. And actually, there are a number of microblogging sites out there lying mostly derelict.
The real value of twitter is not its technology, but its vibrant user activity. And you usually don't get critical user mass unless a closed system is locking them in somehow.
Benefits like that are good enough for me. Twitter has been the best source for me to learn about events in my city in the last year.
Twitter can of course be used as a PR tool as well, although I think there's a lot more room for abuse there. But I have about 1600 followers that I've gained over time from guest writing on blogs and putting my twitter name on apps and presentations and I can regularly get great feedback from my followers and sometimes some good business opportunities, too.
Twitter only works, I guess, if you are interested in other people. A lot of detractors forget that you can control the spigot of information coming in, and that you can actually get a lot of value out of Twitter without even posting one tweet.
It may not be the intent, but it works well as an announcement mechanism as long as you remember that not everybody uses Twitter for business reasons.
Twitter is undoubtedly overvalued because of all the media exposure they've received. But why the f@ck is that supposed to matter to me? Twitter works; I've used it to run surveys, I've used to answer questions, I've used it to find customers, I've used it to fill classrooms for OE courses.
If an ad/strategy person can't figure out how to use the service --- or, better yet, refuses to embrace it for emotional reasons like "the hype bothers me" --- I have to wonder what they're doing in that profession.
It's best to pick a short hashtag because it counts in your character limit.
#BHeard
@BHeard
Twitter started out as an SMS service, yet these days they cannot reliably deliver SMS messages. Kogi is awesome food, so whenever I visit LA, I turn on SMS delivery for Kogi's messages on Twitter. This would be a really great feature, since when I'm out for the evening I may try to stop by Kogi for some food, and it's great to get updates about where they are in relation to me, and if they're running late due to traffic (which happens a lot in LA). Except the last two times I was in LA, Twitter didn't send about half the updates to my phone. Which makes it not useful at all.
The Kogi case is a great application for one-to-many SMS updates, but Twitter completely drops the ball on that. Yet Twitter is so popular, there isn't really room for a more technically competent service to provide value. As we've seen already, merely cloning Twitter, even if you do it better, isn't enough.
The world could use a popular, reliable one-to-many SMS delivery platform. Instead we're stuck with Twitter. It's sad.