They look really good, from far away, that is. But there's something phony about this pair that we've been admiring for two years now:
Facebook and Twitter are breast implants.
There's a round perfectness to the idea of each, but it's phony, and that causes some consternation within the companies and among investors: A tempest in a D cup.
There's something each company doesn't want you to see. A number that exposes their seeming size and beauty:
- Facebook can't make money. Now boasting 300 million users, worldwide, the Giant Peephole will make about $500 million in revenues this year. That's weak. A buck seventy-five or so per customer might be OK profits for a hot dog vendor, but not for the portal that is transforming communications. Facebook ads are impressively targetable, but people don't think about Facebook as a place to spend money. It's the good, clean fun of the recession. A free mall where we can hang out. And virtual goods are just not a solid business plan. (Despite the success of Farm Town, a company this big cannot be run like a cartoon farm.) Last year Facebook insiders admitted to me the company was still figuring out the money thing, only to have an investor angrily refute that later. Uh, sorry moneybags. I'm guessing a top executive is telling the truth.
- Twitter is a small community. Everyone's favorite annoying little bird doesn't even pretend to know how to make money yet, as Evan Williams admitted yesterday. But that's not the problem. The problem is that Twitter is just not that popular. Seventy-five percent of Twitter accounts are dead. And 10 percent of Twitter users account for 90 percent of tweets. What does that add up to? According to Nielsen Online, bout 2.5 million actual dedicated tweeters. There are more active knitters in the United States than twitters. But Time magazine didn't do a cover story on How Knitters Are Changing The Way We Live. Walker Smith, head of Yankelovich Worldwide Marketing told me, "Twitter gets talked about a lot, but it just hasn't captured the public imagination." Chuck Schilling, head of Nielsen Online, echoed his comments: "Twitter seems to be relegated to a certain upper echelon of media-savvy people."
Next time: The good news.
Thanks for this refreshing post! All the chat about facebook and twitter is getting pretty long in the tooth and the techcrunch article you references makes one wonder if businesses are the only ones really talking to each other, or worse, themselves.
ReplyDeleteGreat analogy Jeff. I can't wait to hear where you think we are going. And I really appreciate Fran leading off with a focused and applicable comment.
ReplyDeleteHaha - nice post Jeff.
ReplyDeleteHave you asked your therapist about that analogy you came up with? LOL, I'll be playing that one in my head all day (Esp. when I log onto FB!!!)
ReplyDeleteBut on a serious side, why the emphasis on money? if "Social Networrking" is the goal, why wouldn't $500 million be enough? Why does everything have to produce profits the way banks do for people to think "successful?"
I feel sorry for the kids who have grown up in the middle of "Social Media". I think it has impaired communication, not improved it. And I am tired of proponents pushing it as something "you have to have". Nothing revolutionary here. They'll be gone soon replaced with something else..
ReplyDeleteNo need to A/B test this headline! Looking forward to the follow-up view, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteYou had me at "tempest."
ReplyDeleteAnd you made some fair points, too. Somebody's going to end up with a pretty good backache when all is said and done. Or the desire for a nose job.
Then why did The Observer launch Charlotte.com today, which is Twitter heavy? Didn't ask you first?
ReplyDeleteGood points. All of these social media conferences and consultants are getting a little tiresome and repetitive.
ReplyDeleteAs always, some great info and insights, Jeff
ReplyDeleteJeff, Facebook has unprecedented value for corporations desiring to have impactful dialogue with their customer base and key stakeholders--if they are willing to engage.
ReplyDeleteTwitter has untapped potential as a 911 response tool. (#911charlotte anyone?) In crisis events or breaking news situations, there is no better medium for people to see a story unfold--if you don't believe me, ask Richard Quest, European CNN anchor. In April 2009 we experienced the 15 murders in Stuttgart Germany unfold at an unprecedented pace--Richard spent hours talking about it on the evening news. For those of us glued to the right hashtags earlier in the day, we knew an hour before the news hit the wire that the shooter was probably dead. What does that mean, we can learn to use the info to reduce cycle times and provide better support to people in crisis. I think the Twitter engine will continue to spawn 3rd party apps that will shape the way we use info--hopefully to improve our quality of life and help us solve emerging problems.
Hehehe, breasts.
ReplyDeleteBet that title will boost your SEO, dude!
Come on.
Who do you know besides the handful of your fellow Social Media Experts that have been "admiring" Twitter for two years? Twitter has only seen an explosion in growth since January, mostly because of the hype it received in the media as the "next big thing." Most of those users then abandoned it because it was **built to be a small community,** just like you say (fail whale, anyone?). Those are real people talking to each other, not some abstract marketing-speak ROI stat from a Neilsen Online survey. (Isn't "Neilsen Online" an oxymoron anyway?)
And I don't know what world the Observer lives in, but $500 million is a pretty hefty chunk of money, even for a company that's received $300M+ in venture capital funding since 2008.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the millions in their communities, these are the guys who are changing the way we communicate, not the dead-tree media. (note: This blog is operated by Blogspot, a Google company.)
Consider the sources: anonymous "Facebook insider," Neilsen Online spox, and newspaper Social Media Expert. Let's talk to real people next time we want to see if something's "real" or not.
Oh yea, and breasts.
I wouldn't mind being a hot dog vendor with 300 million customers... But I agree. See
ReplyDeletehttp://jumpersbloghouse.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-there-there.html
I think Facebook has problems with their code-writers, too, not just their accounting. It's a mess.
Oh no! Now I'll have that boobies implant image stuck in my head each time I power up my facebook page. Thanx a lot Jeff!
ReplyDeleteSmart Headline...it drew me in.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think you agree this will change. Few people have figured out how to really make money on the internet. Not to mention, the boon of both of these sites have come during a slow growth period for advertising.
Facebook waited a long time before attempting to make money and I have no idea how twitter makes any.
I think Twitter needs to figure itself out soon or fade into obscurity. Although FB isn't making $$ at this time I think the sheer number of users and the amount of time they are in FB is too lucrative an opportunity to not be taken advantage of. Let's see where this goes...
ReplyDeleteNow we know why they are Sarah Palin's platforms of choice.
ReplyDelete