As is stated on our homepage, we are late adopters. We always wait a few years for the hype to wear off before adopting a new technology. If after this period of hype, the technology in question has become more ubiquitous, and truly addresses a need which makes cyber communication better, we then decide to give it a try. But there are some technologies – no matter how meteoric the rise in popularity – which are destined for failure.
Take Twitter for instance. From the word go, we have never understood the reason for its existence. Besides having one of the most irritating names in the history of the interweb, spawning rage-inducing verbs like ‘tweet’, the mere existence of Twitter begs the ultimate question that we always ask before undertaking any project; “So What?”
Is our cyber world the better for having a technology like Twitter? Does it replace any means of communication? Is it endearing, useful and fun to use? Does it effectively complement other technologies like email and cell phones? After the hype wears off, does it settle into a role which makes our lives better?
The answer seems to be a resounding “No, Nada, Nyet.”
You can analyze Nielsen research and other studies which show that more than half of all new Twitter users bail after 30 days of signing up, but all it takes is you actually using the service to realize it ain’t gonna last long.
There is no “stickiness”, no endearing quality to keep people coming back to Twitter, because its whole existence is predicated on the deluded notion that EVERYONE has something important to say. News flash – what you have to say isn’t important and nobody cares. Particularly if you’re a corporation.
To make matters worse, corporations see this gargantuan bandwagon effect happening with Twitter, and they instantaneously have to have a Twitter handle. Oprah is on there. Ashton Kutcher too. All the celebrities are on there. So it’s gotta be relevant, right? Everyone’s jumping off the Empire State Building, and there’s going to be one huge splatter of a party at the bottom.
You leap on the wagon and get a Twitter handle. Great. Now what? What do you say? Who cares. Say anything. Just make sure you inject your “brand” into whatever you’re saying, as hollow and insignificant as it may be to genuine users.
This lack of substance is magnified by the fact that even if you might have something remotely pertinent to say, you gotta say it in less than 140 characters using abbrs., acronyms & unreadable ‘twit-ese’ to cram your cyber soliloqy into the space allotted.
But we don’t need the latest Twitter trendspotting to validate what we already know – that Twitter is all hype, and will fail at the hands of a much more useful, interactive, and enjoyable communication platform – Facebook.
Facebook has the “stickiness” that Twitter only wishes it could have. And not only that, but Facebook is founded on the premise of interacting in a way that most people would typically interact in real life; by sharing photographs, videos, and links, and commenting to one another in an open, relatively unrestricted manner without having to use confusing twit-ese.
There is a personality to Facebook and a usefulness which complements email perfectly. And it has a clean, spam-free design and user interface which doesn’t make you want to blugeon yourself in frustration - unlike the cyber train wreck that is MySpace.
Can corporations use Facebook? Yes, but as is the case with any technology, use with discretion. Go home and tell your spouse what the company wants to say as if you were saying it yourself. Do they listen intently, or do their eyes glaze over and shift to the television while muttering ”uh-huh” and “that’s nice, honey” ad nauseam? If they do the latter, don’t waste your time and marketing budget.
But if you insist on wasting both, do it on Facebook, not Twitter. In our modern ADD-riddled world, there simply isn’t enough room for two social media platforms.
