News Design School » Twitter

How many people would pay for Twitter?

Bob — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:38:07 +0000

How much would Americans pay for Twitter?

Zero. Zip. Nada.

At least that is one of the findings in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism’s (USC) annual report on our Digital Future.

Just under half of Americans report that they have used Twitter, but not one of the people surveyed said they would be willing to pay. As hated as online advertising is, people said they would rather put up with ads than have to pay out of pocket.

I have long suspected that much of the appeal of Twitter, and other similar programs, comes from being free. That explains the inanity of many tweets: you get what you pay for. With a free program, people almost feel compelled to use it, usually badly.

Frankly, I think there is a wearing off of the thrill as the average person finds out that he or she has to keep on tweeting if one is going to be a true tweeter. I have noted on my Twitter feeds that fewer and fewer tweets are coming from individuals; most come from organizations or from independent consultants trying to get work.

Now it could be that it is just the summer doldrums and that the numbers will pick up again in September.
But I wonder if some people are tiring of the pressure to tweet. Time will tell.

The trouble with Twitter

Bob — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:16:12 +0000

I am not really a Trekkie, but the parallels between the classic Star Trek (the original television show) and Twitter are interesting.

Basically the plot involves Tribbles, “pregnant from birth” creatures who reproduce at a rate that makes rabbits seem darn right frigid. They can be introduced into an eco-system and decimate the supply of food in very short order.

Tweets are the same thing.

They are as cute as a bunny, little and innocuous creatures of only 140 characters (aren’t they c-u-t-e?) that can eat up your time and the Internet’s bandwidth with the alacrity of piranhas.

In the beginning it seemed like such a good idea, this micro-blogging tool that asked the question, “What are you doing,” and later amended to “What’s happening,” probably because the answers to the original query were too vapid and inane. I mean, who cares if you have an extra five egg yolks left over or “I just unlocked the “Adventurer” badge on @foursquare!” Save it for Facebook.

People follow people on Twitter because they have something to say. People friend people on Facebook because they want status updates. Give your audience what it wants.

Twitter lost its way, IMHO, when it went from a microblogging platform to a microdetail-of-your-every-move platform, when it lost sight of its original purpose. I think I am not alone either.

After stunning growth — nearly 10-fold in 2009, according to the WSJ — visits to the Twitter site have stagnated at around 21 million.

Why am I not surprised? Few tweets reflect any meaningful thoughts at all. One can argue that “meaningful” can’t happen in 140 characters, but some have shown it can. Twitter must move away from the jejune back to the reasons it was worth reading in the first place.

The Tribbles were taken care of when they were beamed aboard a Klingon ship, where “they’ll be no tribble at all,” according to Scotty.

Where’s a Klingon ship when you need one?

Twitter: tapas writing

Bob — Fri, 01 May 2009 02:54:37 +0000

I have been playing around with Twitter — the 140-character tapas of writing — for several months now and have come to mixed conclusions as to its worth. Apparently, I am not alone as Twitter has a pretty good churn rate after 30 days, according to the WP.

On the plus side, I have been led to some great web sites and articles. That has been very good, but I am not sure that outweighs the negatives. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Some people seem compelled to tweet their every thought — and most of these people appear to have salient thoughts in their heads that would sound, if they were made physical, like two BBs rolling around in an empty tuna fish can. They suffer from a mind-numbing twitterhea. I don’t need to know you are bored tonight or read the drunken conversation you overheard in a bar.

2. Other people seem to do the above and then re-tweet what I already get from the original twitterer, probably in an attempt to push as many tweets as possible. Didn’t we follow one another because of similar interests in the first place? There is no need to re-tweet to fellow travelers.

3. Some tweets are simply empty and obvious marketing moves, sort of tweeted junk mail. I don’t mind links to relevant blog links (I’ve even done that once or twice.), but don’t keep trying to sell me on links to marginal copy.

4. Many tweets are just fluff, simplistic ideas that are the written equivalent of like, uh and um in spoken language: they take up space unnecessarily. A well-known designer took the time to let everyone know that content is more important than design and design should support the content. Well, duh. Share your genius not platitudes.

5. Finally and this is rather like No. 4, some real experts in a field seem to think that we want reports on their daily life instead of insights and thoughts along the lines of their professional expertise. As an example, I follow the Getting Things Done guru, David Allen. I had hoped for some good daily tips. Instead I have found out about wine, gardening and the weather in Ojai, Calif. Interesting, but not what I hoped for. I’ll stay a follower, however, because the occasional gem is in there.

I have been guilty of a few of these, in part because I felt the need to say something once or twice a day, but no more. Tomorrow I cull my “following” herd and will tweet only what I think is truly important, even if I am silent for awhile.

I am sure the Twitterati will be saddened…. The Muse is merely miffed.

Great Twitter Experiment, part 2

Bob — Fri, 01 May 2009 02:33:50 +0000

I have been playing around with Twitter for several months now and have come to mixed conclusions as to its worth. Apparently, I am not alone as Twitter has a pretty good churn rate after 30 days, according to the WP.

On the plus side, I have been led to some great web sites and articles. That has been very good, but I am not sure that outweighs the negatives. Here they are in no particular order:

I am sure the Twitterati will be saddened….

OMG! UGC?

Bob — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:40:44 +0000

Today marks the demise of the Rocky Mountain News. A sad day to be sure, but it should be another cold slap in the face to publishers everywhere. If you don’t adjust your business model, soon you’ll have no business.

It has been my experience that newspapers are incredibly reluctant to change, even as they read about the trials and tribulations in the industry every day. Despite evidence to the contrary, they seem to keep doing the same old things. Change is necessary, and the changes newspapers have to make to remain alive are not small or easy ones. But change must occur.

One of the many ideas that publishers are having a tough time dealing with is the interactive aspect of news web sites (and can include the print product, too). It is no longer a one-way street. Readers want to be a part of the action. What? Turn over content to the readers???

It’s called User Generated Content (UGC), and you need to make room for it on your web sites and tease to your UGC in the print product. I have talked about this in earlier posts. Set up reader blogs, wikis, photo galleries, and areas where special interest groups can get together and interact with one another. Get a few of your more creative staffers to start blogs as well. Readers will start jumping in with comments.

Get your your paper and your reporters on Twitter. Some readers will want to follow the paper or a particular reporter or both. You can report live action, send out follow-up links to important stories, get story ideas sent to you, and keep up with what people are talking about. Twitter is gaining more traction every day. (You can follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/newsdesign.)

UGC seems to make so much sense because YOU don’t have to pay for it, yet readers want to read or see it. And advertisers are likely to want a piece of the action, too. That’s the point of all this isn’t it? Stop thinking about the old model. Your readers want more.

I also believe that many would be willing to pay for access to a web site that offers them information, interaction, and a pleasurable experience. Many would disagree with me, but I truly believe that if your web site is good enough, and you limit access to some portions of it to subscribers to the print product, you will find takers. Of course, you need to improve your print product as well….

An interesting piece along these lines from a British blog can be found here. Ideas worth thinking about.

Need some help going interactive? Let me help. E-mail me (bobnewsdesignschoolcom) with your questions.