Twitter vs. Facebook


Matt Daniels posed an interesting question on my post Twitter Feedback from a few weeks back.  We began speaking via email, and I’ve posted some of the highlights below.  He challenged a lot of my assumptions, and I’m glad he did.  Hopefully I’ll figure out the majority of these issues earlier rather than later.

Matt:  You’ve mentioned in a couple posts that Twitter will tip and asked for feedback.

I’ve been doing quite a bit of thinking/debating lately, and it seems that Twitter might be in a bubble. I cannot get my head around the actual value that twitter provides to users (as a micro-blogging platform). The communication, touted as a value-add, is dwarfed by the relevance and value that a mature Facebook micro-blogging platform could provide. Once Facebook realizes this, twitter may be rendered obsolete.

Me: Facebook or any other micro-blogging service CAN replicate any of Twitter’s features.  What’s to stop them?  There is nothing so unique about Twitter features such as user replying, re-tweeting, direct messaging or pictures that couldn’t be programmed into Facebook or other micro-blogs.  But, Twitter does it better.  They do ONE thing really well, which is micro-communication.

What Twitter has nailed, and Facebook has missed (in terms of micro-blogging) is execution.  The Facebook micro-blog service is crap.  Facebook’s original platform wasn’t built around micro-blogging, and I don’t see it being elevated to a level where it can compete with Twitter’s.  Zuckerberg knows this, which is why his team was looking into purchasing Twitter.

The beauty of Twitter is it’s interactive platform.  The ability to have a public, open feed of communication with the dynamic potential to build other services and applications around is Twitter’s edge.

Matt: Try updating your status message on Facebook. Do the same thing on Twitter. My feeling is that the responses, and relevance on Facebook with far outpace that on Twitter.

The problem is that Twitter is not interactive. Sure, they opened up their data, but you are still limited to 140 characters bs. With Facebook, I can add so much more context and value to make my micro-blogging rich (photos, friends, videos, etc.). Twitter deprecates me to using a TinyURL to send links. This blows my mind…

Facebook users are beginning to open up their profiles to the public. You should be able to replicate the same behavior on Twitter without all the 140 character non-sense, self-aggrandizing follower counts, and multiple sign-on requirements.

Me: I disagree with Facebook status messages.  I never update mine, and when I do, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a response.  Maybe it’s me, or my circle.  I mean, when any of us experiment with these tools, we’re all appealing to a certain selective community bias.  Some of our circles will respond, some of them won’t.

The 140 character limit works to Twitter’s benefit.  It limits clutter, and requires people to actually say something value-add, as opposed to saying something stupid or meaninless.  I look down the mini-feed on my Facebook page homepage and no one is actually saying anything of value.  I look through my Twitter feed and I see live, active, real-life communication.  Links, conversations, pictures–actual emotion and feeling.  Twitter tips into the relevant mainstream life, which Facebook misses on the micro-blog front.

Twitter has one feed that pools all of its users.  For Facebook to do this, they will need to have some “opt-in” requirement.  Correct?  I can’t see the majority of the Facebook demographic opting in to be tracked and analyzed more than they already are.

Matt: When I update my status, people will respond and comment. I do not get this on Twitter–that’s because there’s little relevance to the people that follow you. Try following a random person–chances are that they will follow you back. This is the absurdity of Twitter.

My 17 year old sister communicates soley over Facebook (no email, just writing on others’ walls). I tried to explain Twitter–how you could talk to people, the 140 character thing–it was laughable. The fact that someone, who you would think would be Twitter’s core demographic, finds no value is troubling. I took a screenshot of my Facebook feed–I would describe it as much more alive than anything on Twitter, where the users I follow have no personal connection.

Facebook is beginning to allow you to classify your news feed. So some updates will only be seen by your “true” friends.” Other updates might be public. Facebook will trend in this direction as your profile becomes, more or less, your web identity.

There is clearly more to be said on both fronts, which will expand as time goes on.  To be honest, I’m not a huge Facebook or Twitter user, so please chip in if you are.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon] 


Post Tags: , , , ,

  • Interesting debate. I guess I've stopped looking at which will win or which is better. I simply know that tomorrow it will be different, and both may be gone, or evolve, or dominate. Execution is key, but that does not mean that what we use today will be here tomorrow.

    They have simply become tools in the toolbox. I use what is best for the goal.

    After all how much do you use telnet or gopher anymore? Which one won in it's category?
  • I have not heard of Telnet or Gopher. Maybe that says something about the services, or maybe I'm just too young.

    The online communication space moves fast. I agree execution is key, but who knows who will prove to be viable in the long-run.
  • The reason Matt's sister laughed at him is the same reason I barely ever use Twitter - none of my friends have it.

    The heavy dedicated users of twitter are people like Robert Scoble - pro bloggers, and tech people. While it might be interesting and sometimes a useful tool, for person-to-person communication between friends, facebook is much easier, mainly due to the fact that I know all of my friends are on there, and check it regularly.
  • Twitter proves advantageous in reaching beyond your circle of friends. Facebook is more limiting regarding how many people you can reach at at time.

    For a girl in high school who's main goal is to communicate with her immediate circle of friends, Facebook makes sense. But, for a girl in high school that is interested in say, the fashion industry, Twitter is a great way for the same girl to observe live conversation and communicate with people that would otherwise be difficult to get in touch with on Facebook or in the physical world. It comes down to purpose.

    Twitter is also more scalable than Facebook, which will be to its long-term viability.
  • @alex yes I picked two internet tools that I used in the early 90's and have become less dominant (telnet) or obsolete (gopher) to make a point.

    The tools we use today will be gone tomorrow, or will not be the same, or wont be as important any more. So it doesn't pay to focus on them as much.

    What does become important is knowing what we want to accomplish. So if you have a small circle of friends and a tool fits that role of keeping in touch, then fine, end of story. If you want to increase your network of friends based on some affinity you have, then being open minded to options becomes more important.

    Good Hunting,
  • I don't think Twitter will tip. It's never going to be in the mainstream. A big problem is that some people follow each other because they're Twitter whores, wanting to rack up thousands of followers in hopes that they'll raise awareness of whatever they're trying to promote. What's worse is that there are idiots like Scoble who do worthless updates five times every hour. It clogs up the space for those who actually have infrequent but interesting posts. Twitter is just too noisy.

    BUT I do agree that it is a useful site for businesses/organizations to observe and respond to conversations that are taking place.
  • Mainstream (whatever that means these days; let's use Facebook's level as an example) may be unlikely, but I think it will continue to grow at a steady pace for the next few years. There is valuable conversation taking place, assuming you know where and how to look for it. And, Twitter is only as noisy as you make it. You choose to follow noise makers like Scoble, Arrington and Kawasaki by your own selectivity (and I do).
blog comments powered by Disqus

© Copyright 2009 alex j. mann (.com)