Twitter Health - Investors Better Look Closely
Written by Robert Bacal | 
| 
| 
| Social Media Platforms - Twitter |
There's a nifty little article entitled: Here's Why DST Won't Invest In Twitter from The Business Insider, that talks about the drawback of Twitter no longer having its founder involved in the company, and the effect on possible outside investors. I think it's way more serious than that. Here's my response:
I would have to disagree regarding the health of Twitter and its future, and I would suggest that the only way investors are going to win by investing in Twitter is when it is acquired. It's the very weak sister of the major social media platforms, and has a limited set of features and possibilities.
It's existing features are in fact the ones that spawned success but now will result in it's decay.
I actually like Twitter. However, it has trapped itself in a corner it will not get out of on its own.
There's really strong evidence in terms of data and how people use, or more accurately do NOT use Twitter after they join. The only reason it isn't obvious is the addition of new ACCOUNTS. When numbers indicate 92% of tweets get no reaction, and that the majority of accounts never post, that shows a market place that is voting with its feet.
It's the equivalent of a new TV show that opens and garners a large number of viewers during its first 20 minutes, then viewership drops for each quarter hour. Next episode the "buzz" generates lots of new viewers at the start, who also tune out. Networks understand this. Social media punits are completely lost. Go figure.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
 |
| Subscribe to Work911 Ezine |
| Visit this group |
Scoundrel
MicroThoughts
You can tell your "social media expert" is a scoundrel or utterly ignorant if they use the phrase "They just don't get social media". The truth is that the expert doesn't get social media, or how human beings work and is unable to come up with anything better to refute arguments or disagreements about social media.
Mashable no-no
In response to a Mashable article about how Starbucks supposedly used social media to bring one million people into their stores in a day:
This is just terrible "journalism". First, the giveaways brought the people in. Second, we have no idea how many people came for the freebies hearing on it from Twitter or not. Third, They could have pulled people into their stores with this promotion in any of a number of ways. This is not a social media success, anymore than having sandwich board guys outside of each store would constitute a success for loitering.
Learn From Competition?
Some believe you should monitor and emulate your competition on social media. Here's a thought:
If you look at your competitors, will you end up looking like your competitors? The ongoing issue in any marketing or even in developing a network is how to standout FROM the competition, and not to BE like the competition.
Social Media Frauds
You know someone isn't worth following if they retweet compliments given to them by others. They are either frauds who are better at self-promotion than they are in their alleged area of expertise, or they are so insecure that they have to -- just have to, make sure that everyone knows how wonderful other people think they are. Hint: Run away. These folks are like empty drums. Bang on the outside and you get a cool sound. Empty inside -- nothing to offer.
Immersion
You cannot fully understand social media solely by being immersed in it. In fact, one reason why there is so much bad information about social media is that most of it comes from immersed people. The full picture is only available to people who can DISTANCE themselves emotionally and intellectually and see social media from the outside -- as most human beings view it.
Full Social Media Bust Feed - Atom
Social Media Bust Articles