Commentary
Guess Who Doesn't Tweet: Almost Everyone
- by Erik Sass , Staff Writer @eriksass1, May 4, 2010
Twitter has grabbed the imagination of a sizeable subset of professional Americans, and it has garnered a huge level of name recognition in the U.S. population, with 87% of respondents to a recent Arbitron-Edison Research study saying they were aware of the site. But the number of Americans who use Twitter at least once a month remains relatively small, at 17 million, or about 7% of the total. Separate figures from Nielsen and ComScore suggest the site has been attracting an average 20-22 million unique visitors in the U.S. in the first months of 2010.
This raises the question of whether Twitter can truly go "mass market" in the same way other sites like Facebook and MySpace have. Looking at the trend lines, the answer would seem to be "no."
Based on measurements from ComScore and Nielsen, Facebook grew pretty gradually from about 15 million unique visitors in the U.S. in June 2006 to about 20 million in October 2007; it then began growing much more rapidly, hitting 35 million uniques in December 2007, 55 million by December 2008, and over 100 million in December 2009. In January of this year, Nielsen and ComScore both said Facebook attracted about 115 million unique visitors in the U.S.
By contrast Twitter's period of rapid growth came early -- but also appears to have ended early. From 500,000 users in January 2008, it doubled to one million by March 2008, then again to two million by June 2008, four million by December 2008, 9.3 million by March 2009, and 23 million by June 2009. And that's where it stalled: in the nine months which followed, Twitter has hovered around the 20 million mark in the U.S., while Facebook added about that many new uniques per month. And it's worth remembering that Facebook was originally limited to members with college email addresses, before opening itself to the great unwashed masses; Twitter has never operated under such a constraint.
So what's blocking further expansion for Twitter? Edison's vice-president for strategy and marketing, Tom Webster, summed up the problem: "Twitter has yet to articulate its value to mainstream Americans." But I would reformulate that as a question: does Twitter have value for mainstream Americans?
My guess is, not as much. This is based on a gut feeling which in turn is based on pure, psychological speculation. But for what it's worth, here it is...
It's easy enough to see the appeal of Facebook. The concept of the self-constructed profile corresponds pretty well to most people's sense of ego: by selectively presenting information, you can craft a flattering, consistent self-portrait to present to other people. While tweets are also selectively created and presented to individual advantage, each tweet and even a whole history of tweets is less about presenting a complete identity -- indeed, it's less of a "profile" and more of an "account," meaning a narrative of yourself encountering, interacting, becoming.
It's worth noting that the Arbitron-Edison study found 70% of Twitter users frequently update their status, versus 55% of users for other social networks. At the same time, Twitter's progress resembles the first wave of blogs a few years ago: millions of people signed up, but most of these accounts soon lapse or go dormant because (I would venture) they discovered they don't have anything they feel is worth posting on a day-to-day basis -- let alone moment to moment.
Again this is pure speculation, but I believe Twitter's approach to self-expression runs counter to most of the population's dominant self-image, which strives for the appearance of consistency and stability over time. True, Facebook offers users the option of minute-by-minute updates, but these are anchored in a profile which purports to reflect a core identity, covering basic building blocks like gender, age, job, likes and dislikes, etc. This is a better medium for self-expression for people who aren't pursuing dynamic, tumultuous lives filled with coups and setbacks and revelations and windfalls and intrigues and endless networking -- that is, the majority of the American population (by the same token, this may also explain why Twitter is less popular with adolescents, who are striving to construct consistent identities amidst volatile social lives).
Erik Sass is editor of Publishers Daily. You can reach Erik at eriksass@gmail.com.
This whole "Twitter doesn't reach everyone" meme is really getting tiresome. Social media has never been about trying to reach mass. It's about trying to reach the people who count.
Another bit of perspective:
It took radio 38 years to reach 50 million users, television 13 years, the Internet four, and Facebook nine months. Let's give Twitter a few more years before we pronounce it "niche."
Twitter can potentially serve niche purposes but it is highly unlikely that it can sustain a viable, long term business model.
Paul Benjou
Industry Blog: www.MyOpenKimono.com
"Social media is about trying to reach the people who COUNT?" Who COUNT? According to who's subjective opinion, Michael? Twitter is a technology. Technology is evaluated on four measures: impact, efficacy, competitive position, and ubiquity (the size of the bubble). Based on these metrics, Twitter gets a whopping big fail whale.
Kirsten Osolind
Profitability Adviser
RE:INVENTION, Inc.
www.reinventioninc.com
That most of the users are only reading tweets is no different than most TV and radio users are only viewing or listening! Just because it's a two-way medium does not mean that users are somehow required to transmit. Really, I'm tired of these stories planted in broadcast-oriented news sites, trying to denigrate Twitter. And it's seldom a new story, usually just the same one repeated over and over. What is your agenda, Mediapost?
It's clear that Twitter is evolving into a communicator's medium. That is why it is so popular with the mainstream broadcast media. It is an excellent way to make yourself available and heard for those who like to do that. It is for Marketers, PR, and Media, where it has achieved ubiquity, impact, efficacy, and competitive position- as pointed out by Kirsten earlier.
The people who like and use Twitter are people with a message to send. The people who do not like and do not use Twitter are the majority of the population who do not have a message to send. This will not change, and Twitter will never reach the popularity of Facebook because of this.
I think this data from Nielsen and comScore might be a bit misleading unless it counts Tweets from way more than just Twitter.com.
Actually using the site to tweet is pretty rare for people who do it frequently, they tend to use stand alone tools such as Tweetdeck.
This also doesn't count the massive number of people who Tweet from smart phones, few of whom use the Wap browser to tweet.
The fact is, traffic numbers for the site are more likely to reflect people either signing up, or altering profile settings.
Facebook is a great way for business owners to secure a great informative profile along with different means to communicate with their "friends" or "fans" - it has a diversity that Twitter does not.
Twitter on the other hand gives business owners to reach their target markets with a quick message - a kind of "in and out" marketing.
As a Virtual Assistant working with many clients in the Social Media world for marketing - I think the two complement each other very well and the best way to use them is together.
I do think that Twitter will continue to grow out of the "infant" stalled subscribers numbers as soon as the "reputation" of "People use that to tell everyone what they had for lunch, why would I want to be part of that?" clears out a bit more!
**Christina VA-a-GoGo blog: www.vaagogo.com**
I agree with Mike Rubin in that many of the people who count are on Twitter. Love him or hate him, Karl Rove is active for instance. Ditto for his counterparts and major pundits. Just try to influence US politics now without a Twitter account. Make a cogent comment directly to a key influencer and he or she will see it because there aren't so many others on Twitter to make it too noisy.
RT a key influencer, or better yet expand on what they've said, and you've possibly earned a new friend.
Twitter is self-selecting for people who "get it" that there needs to be such a public "e-mail".
The same is true for many other industries now as well. The C-Level people are on Twitter. Joe Schmoe in Milwaukee might not be, but who cares.
Maybe the lack of a revenue stream has something to do with slow growth too. No revenue means lack of an investment in infrastructure (how many times does Facebook go down compared to Twitter). People get ticked off and don't come back after a while.
Paul....look at Michael Rubin's comment.....it isn't about the masses. There are a certain "type" of audience that "get it"...that are the true influences, and they are using social media. The people who are truly going to take this 21st century by storm are those who are "in the know", and that will include being able to maneuver the social media web. Yes, many Americans may not be as well connected via social media....may I emphasize the phrase "not well connected"....the well connected will be using social media to their advantage.
I have to say as one who sees exactly where this 21st century is headed and see the huge changes happening in business itself (the old 20th century ways of business are over) Michael Rubin's comment is correct and Twitter's reach is not about the masses.
Not everyone on Twitter knows how to use social media for their advantage as far as creating worthwhile connections that put them on a world stage of influence..people use the social media for different reasons.. I will say, however, there is a certain "type" of audience who "get it"...who are the true influencers, and these people are using social media. They are going to know how to do things and get the inside information that many of us can't even get our hands on...because they are in the "know" due to social media.
The people who are truly going to take this 21st century by storm are those who are "in the know", and a crucial element to that include being able to maneuver the social media web and expand their reach and influential footstep globally via the net. I am a living testimony of that for sure.
Yes, many Americans are not as well connected via social media....may I emphasize the phrase "not well connected"....the well connected will be using social media to their advantage..how else can you get "this much access" at the tip of your fingers to build a spiderweb of influential relationships, whether business or personal..how else can you spread the word about who you are and your voice this fast from scratch unless you know how to use the social media? That is 21st century...and many people are already being left behind due to the lack of understanding these things.
So, Twitter may not have many Americans on it...but then again, many of us in this country are already falling behind the grade in innovation and connecting to a world wide audience..many of us are still in the dark on how to build good relations with the global society...this is all to say that there are many things that we have not learned to do in this country to stay competitive, innovative, and "in the know' of what is going on in the world around us...and the social media ..if we know how to use it well...will be that tool to bridge that gap.
Christi
Founder/CEO
Global Crest Media
--GC Style Magazine (Life-Style Magazine for the 21st century young professional)
--Diamond Cinema (Fine Entertainment Network)
http://gcstylenetwork.ning.com
http://diamondcinema.ning.com
Facebookers who aren't Tweeters are missing a wonderful opportunity to engage with a search engine that is surpassed by none, except perhaps YouTube's. FB's huge #s is part mass hysteria, like its predecessor television. Plus, our privacy isn't quite as in peril on Twitter. Try it, you'll like it.
BTW, Michael Rubin is right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhPgUcjGQAw