Comments on: The Twitter – Facebook Disparity

By: Pedro Daltro

Pedro Daltro — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:15:44 +0000

man, I love this blog! Another great post.

By: Tom Webster

Tom Webster — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:17:31 +0000

Maybe – and “relegating” Twitter to more ephemeral things isn’t necessarily a bad thing for Twitter’s future. Everyone likes Ice Cream.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:14:42 +0000

Then is it a timeliness thing, then? Perhaps FB is that space for “this is my life” and then I can be a fan of XYZ, but on Twitter “this is right now” and I appreciate the interaction for tonight’s special at the ballpark. Maybe that’s another defining line?

By: Tom Webster

Tom Webster — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:26 +0000

What may happen is that Facebook becomes the home of the “fan”, while Twitter has the broader reach (due to its asymmetrical nature) and thus begins to embrace being a “broadcast” network, rather than an interaction platform. In the case of the team I wrote about, I’d love to read tweets from the players, but wouldn’t necessarily have an expectation to interact with them. But who knows?

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:02:37 +0000

Got me thinking and I believe you’re spot on. Twitter is much more of a buy-in, let me find interesting folks to follow, let me see if there’s something special going on out there. And Facebook typically has more of I really know most of these folks feel, having “friends and family” in most respects being friends and family. And even with FB Pages, those are more whims usually than actual seek these topics out kinds of connections.

By: David Breshears

David Breshears — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:45:07 +0000

I wish I could, Tom, but I honestly just don’t see it. Don’t get me wrong – I think there’s tremendous business value in Twitter – it’s a great listening tool, a professional development resource, and for niche peer networks like ours (the aforementioned SM geeks), it even has casual social utility. I just haven’t heard a compelling argument for mainstream adoption, and I suspect there might not be one. Seriously, can anyone explain this mysterious value relative to Facebook, or is this an Emperor’s New Coat situation?

By: Tom Webster

Tom Webster — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:34:38 +0000

I was hoping you could tell me. Great question, David. I’m making an assumption here, obviously If there isn’t one, then there isn’t one – Twitter will probably continue on regardless, in some form. I do think Twitter has a mainstream play, but again it isn’t the responsibility of businesses to sort that out for them.

By: David Breshears

David Breshears — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:23:55 +0000

Thanks for another thought-provoking post, Tom. In this case, the thought it inspires is this: do you think Twitter has failed to communicate its unique value to mainstream SM users, or is the problem really that Twitter doesn’t add a lot of unique value for them? Finding friends is more difficult than on Facebook, communication options between friends are more limited, and the one thing Twitter lets me do – status updates – Facebook already does. I’m fairly active on Twitter, but that’s primarily a function of my professional peer network (social media geeks). Frankly, I’m still not convinced of Twitter’s mainstream potential, and usage data from a variety of sources supports my skepticism. So, what exactly is the mysterious value proposition that Twitter has failed to communicate?