Bursting Twitter Hype

[limoge]

This article Twitter hype punctured by study points out a few truths about Twitter beyond all the hype and excitement about it:

"Just 10% of Twitter users generate more than 90% of the content"

"growing faster than any other social network however ... more than half of all people using Twitter updated their page less than once every 74 days. And most people only ever "tweet" once during their lifetime, the researchers found."

"the most striking result was that so few people used the service to publish information, preferring instead to be passive consumers."

""The Harvard data says very, very few people tweet and the Nielsen data says very, very few people listen consistently"

' "Twitter is a broadcast medium rather than an intimate conversation with friends," he said. "It looks like a few people are creating content for a few people to read and share."Some "super users" can have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of followers.'

I think this is still good news for IM because the behavior they have found is the way I think IM uses Twitter. For the most part people follow and there's not much peronal interaction. If you consider a twitter feed as advertising directed at an audience, some of the total possible audience will see your ad and check out your product and then a percentage of them will actually purchase your product. The research shows that the membership for Twitter continues to grow so that means the amount of eyes on your product should continue to grow.

[DavidO]

Twitter is a total waste of bandwidth. I know some people are making money with it and that's great... but enjoy it while it lasts. Something newer and more exciting will come along any day now... WHOA! I think I see one coming right now!

[limoge]

Yeah, there will soon be another hot social networking site coming down the pike. I don't like social networking sites like twitter, face book or myspace and only use them because there's a potential audience and at the very least a strong backlink if google gives it a high pr.

[imageworx]

Yeah, some of those stats are pretty surprising. facebook I think is the best organised of all of the...myspace is a mess but nice for Marketing.

[Troy_Phillips]

The marketer who refuses to adapt to the ever changing opportunities of the internet gets passed up.

The wise marketer uses every aspect available to them while never depending on any one model to sustain their business.

That's worth a lot more than two cents :-)

[hangtimenino]

i think twittering could boost a bit of your traffic.i just dont know how other people make money out of it directly.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

I personally think that the people that are banking with Twitter are the same people that would have made that same money with their email lists...

With that being said, I'm sure that there are some exceptions so, everyone can save the "I don't have a list and I make money with twitter" -- I agree there probably are a couple of people doing so...

[Troy_Phillips]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I personally think that the people that are banking with Twitter are the same people that would have made that same money with their email lists...

With that being said, I'm sure that there are some exceptions so, everyone can save the "I don't have a list and I make money with twitter" -- I agree there probably are a couple of people doing so...

While some make money directly on twitter , I only use it to build a list .

Twitter is hot as of now but everything settles down sooner or later . I would rather have the members than the money from twitter . The money would stop if twitter did (if this was your only source ) but the members live on

[shorwood]

Those stats don't mean that Twitter is just hype or it is dead. For instance:

"Just 10% of Twitter users generate more than 90% of the content"

Well that happens with most sites. I am sure there are similar stats for Squidoo and other sites like that. Most people only create one lens in their lifetime. Many people probably sign up and don't even finish a lens. And then there are people who create hundreds of lenses on multiple accounts. I would almost be willing to bet that 10% of the people on Squidoo create 90% of the lenses.

That stat will be the same for any type of site where users contribute. There are obviously going to be people who are contributing much more than the rest of people.

"growing faster than any other social network however ... more than half of all people using Twitter updated their page less than once every 74 days. And most people only ever "tweet" once during their lifetime, the researchers found."

Big deal! Many people use Twitter to see what other people are up to, not to update their lives. I for one signed up for Twitter and tweeted only once in the first little while. I tweet a little more often now, but I spend most of my time reading other people's tweets and seeing what other people are up to.

I also use DMs alot instead of Tweets, and I know a lot of people use a lot of direct messaging instead, and they don't bother using tweets. They just use Twitter to contact certain people and they aren't there to actually update people all the time.

"the most striking result was that so few people used the service to publish information, preferring instead to be passive consumers."

So what's wrong with that? The same is with facebook, myspace, and probably any other networking site. A large portion of the people on facebook and myspace are just there seeing what other people are doing, consuming more than contributing. That is no different than anywhere else.

"The Harvard data says very, very few people tweet and the Nielsen data says very, very few people listen consistently"

How many people did they study? What age group did they study? Were all the people from one area? What ethinicity were the people they studied? How do they define consistently? What about the people who are there to use the DM feature, or just to search for different things people have said. These are VERY vague stats, and I would like to know how they came up with these stats. These are very vague, and potentially mean absolutely nothing.

' "Twitter is a broadcast medium rather than an intimate conversation with friends," he said. "It looks like a few people are creating content for a few people to read and share."Some "super users" can have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of followers.'

And this is different than other networking sites how?


That is my personal opinion on these stats, and they just prove that Twitter is what most people call a "social networking site". It is the same as any other networking site. Some people have real relationships on it, some don't. Some people use it regularly, some don't.

Yes, at some point another thing will come out that many people will flock to, which will make Twitter even more valuable because the people that stay with it are the people who actually contribute to the Twitter community. New things always come out. I'm sure people said these same things about Myspace when it came out, probably the same with Facebook. Any big thing is going to have people wasting their time doing studies that prove absolutely nothing, just like these ones.

If you like Twitter, use it. If you don't, then don't.

Shawn

[Troy_Phillips]

Here is a new stat . I have more converted followers on my email list than a lot of people have following . It's always about the list :-)

[limoge]

Originally Posted by Troy_Phillips

While some make money directly on twitter , I only use it to build a list .

Twitter is hot as of now but everything settles down sooner or later . I would rather have the members than the money from twitter . The money would stop if twitter did (if this was your only source ) but the members live on

Yes it should be one of many weapons in the arsenal.

This actually reminds me that I still haven't figured out how Twitter itself is going to make any money. It's gone through three rounds of venture capital funding and is not generating money on its own. Eventually they will have to figure this out.

[sbucciarel]

I think if you look at Twitter like a feed of ads streaming down your screen, you're using it the wrong way. I very quickly unfollow people who post "ad type" messages and I'm sure many others do as well, leaving you with a bunch of followers who are also marketers, rather than real users. Marketers will undoubtedly eventually ruin the social experience of Twitter altogether, much as they've destroyed Craigs List and other social media.

[Troy_Phillips]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I think if you look at Twitter like a feed of ads streaming down your screen, you're using it the wrong way. I very quickly unfollow people who post "ad type" messages and I'm sure many others do as well, leaving you with a bunch of followers who are also marketers, rather than real users. Marketers will undoubtedly eventually ruin the social experience of Twitter altogether, much as they've destroyed Craigs List and other social media.

I do not disagree with you totally . But think about it . If your scenario plays out and all is following a marketer is other marketers then it is time to give away stuff the marketer needs and convert them to an email list .

Marketers spend a lot of money .

[limoge]

The full article has more information.

Originally Posted by shorwood

Well that happens with most sites.

- Not according to these researchers. The reason why they point this out is because twitter's percentages are not in line with the typical numbers: "On a typical online social network ... the top 10% of users accounted for 30% of all production. "

"the most striking result was that so few people used the service to publish information, preferring instead to be passive consumers." So what's wrong with that?

- because this isn't what twitter says the site should be used for. "The Twitter management need to decide if this [the way how people have are using the site vs. what they state the site is for] is a problem."

How many people did they study? What age group did they study? Were all the people from one area? What ethinicity were the people they studied? How do they define consistently?

- You would have to read the original studies for that but "The Harvard study took a snapshot of 300,542 users in May 2009. As well as usage patterns it looked in detail at gender differences."

[shorwood]

So most networking sites have a 10% giving 30% of content. That's fine. But you also need to take into account that Twitter is a lot easier to throw off the content. Because the bits of content are much smaller, it is much easier for the really enthusiastic people to post more content.

You also have to take into account all the tools that have been created to automatically post the content. People can post a lot more on Twitter because they can have their tweets go through cycles and on top of that do their normal contributions. I know people who have set up 30 tweets to run on a 30 day cycle, so they are posting the same content again and again, but it appears that they are posting new content. Then on top of that they go and post a bunch more content on the spur of the moment. This is obviously going to skew the stats.

WHO CARES WHAT TWITTER SAYS IT SHOULD BE USED FOR? These sites are supposed to be designed for the user, not the builder. The point of Twitter is to build a community, and there are always passive people in a community with a few people standing out and contributing the most. This happens offline as well as online, and it doesn't matter if Twitter says it should be for.

Do you have a link to the full article? I would like to read the entire thing and see how they got their stats. But there are so many variables involved that it is almost impossible to get accurate results on studies like that.

Shawn

[queenbuzzy]

I have to admit, I'm not quite hip to Twitter yet. I'm on it, and I'm challenging myself to tweet at least once a day for the next month just to see what the fuss is about. But, I haven't yet figured out how to make it work for me.

Actually, I haven't really attempted to figure out how to make it work for me. For now, I just want to get in the habit of posting---I'm really bad at blogging too, although I think it's a great tool, I just have other things to do!