Updates from February, 2011 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dbinkowski 9:00 am on February 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: kenneth cole   

    Kenneth Cole Proves Any Press Is Good Press 

    Last week the folks at Kenneth Cole, and perhaps Kenneth Cole himself, set off a firestorm among the twitterati and mainstream media when they decided to try and hijack the “#Cairo” hashtag to promote an upcoming Spring collection. “PR blunder”, “Social media gaffe” and other forms of pseudo outrage ensued, with the media jumping on board to help amplify the noise in the social media echo chamber. For those of us familiar with how influencers, including those on the internet and mainstream media, may – or may not – actually influence the general public, we waited. We waited to see what the outcome would be without overreacting or making worthless predictions. The result? Check it out after the jump.

    (More …)

     
  • dbinkowski 9:30 am on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Old Spice Social Media Buzz Doesn't Equal Sales 

    For the love of God, put your shirt on.

    For the longest time I used to think that PR agencies didn’t get social media. “Give me impressions!” was the public relations mantra because it meant that they could easily transfer their knowledge of publication circulation multipliers into the emerging field called “social media”. Screw the long tail, screw review web sites, screw message boards and all of the other “unimportant” groups online because “they don’t have reach”.

    “We want to take on the ad agencies head on!” was the PR agency rallying cry, and even though most ad agencies are going down the wrong route, and no matter how many decks you presented to them that this gimmick marketing was the wrong approach, they continued to push to ignore the long tail, ignore communities and ignore what actually drives sales. What’s come full circle is that the coveted social media reach play online that ad agencies have been great at have one thing in common: they don’t work.

    (More …)

     
    • quikness 2:31 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I was at a roundtable discussion recently where i brought up the report that this campaign hasn't translated into sales and got a pretty good response from one of the other attendees: deodorant or soap isn't something you rush out to buy. You buy it when you run out.If Old Spice can keep this train rolling for another month or two they just might get the sales uptick they're ultimately looking for. And by all accounts, that seems to be what they are trying to do. Its like an all out assault.

    • Marc Meyer 3:23 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Maybe we need to hear from P&G or Wieden. What was the purpose? If it was Buzz only-then it was a home run. If it was to drive sales to a product that still smells the same as it did when my Dad wore it..then we know the answer. Riddle me this, how much of this social blitz was actually about the product?

    • dbinkowski 5:01 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Shouldn't the goal always tie back to sales? The rest is just noise and stuff that the trades and award-givers go nuts for.

    • c2cmom 10:48 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yes, the success should be tied to sales and business impact, and ditto quikness. I disagree that they missed their mark and audience. Old Spice succeeded in resurrecting a tired product to hotness. Hot guy with sense of humor = sexy for millions of wives and girlfriends across the country. While Twitter and YouTube are immediate mediums, the use of deodorant and bodysoap have a slower cycle, and are not purchased on a daily basis, like say, coffee, which could be measured and evaluated within maybe a week. Besides, who purchases deodorant or body soap for most households? 😉 Old Spice at BlogHer makes a lot of sense to buoy the brand and continue the buzz among the women purchasing the wash.Mark, if that's the case, I bet there are millions of 20-something or 30-something year old gals with subliminal memories of the security and manliness of their dads with Old Spice. As right or wrong as that may be . . .;-) On the other hand, that could also be why they weren't focusing on the scent in this campaign to reinvigorate the brand.Either way, when I was on a panel about why and when moms choose to talk about brands and products via social media at the Yahoo! Mother Board Summit last week, as soon as I mentioned the Old Spice campaign, the room of 60 educated and thoughtful women from around the country – many of whom I imagine have disposable income – lit up momentarily. Sharing hubbies and old boyfriends whom used it, laughing about the different videos. Bullseye. Ya know what else? I actually stopped to check it out (price, scent, ingredients) while at CVS for cotton balls today. Not proud. Not ashamed either.

    • Peter Çoopèr 9:21 pm on July 24, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, because all forms of marketing and branding are about selling products within weeks of exposure. Or not. This is a long term game.

    • Soup 9:22 pm on July 24, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I bought deodorant today and laughed when I saw the Old Spice. I didn't buy it because I don't like how it smells. Simple as that. Loved the campaign though. Being entertaining doesn't make me want to buy your product unless your product is entertainment.

    • Kelly Whalen 12:40 am on July 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      The news that it didn't turn into sales was prior to the latest viral campaign. Based on what I read the 7% down figure was from June 2009-2010. The past month Nielsen reported a growth of 107% in sales.Despite getting the facts mixed up (don't worry not blaming you-it's going around!), I understand your points, but have to disagree.I'm the one that does the shopping for almost everything in the house including my husband's body wash, and it's what I picked up while I was in the store this week mainly because of the campaign.I'm betting they will do the donation, since Alyssa did use her vast following, and time to respond to the campaign.I would welcome an Old Spice guy appearance at BlogHer, though I'm sure it would cause mass hysteria.

    • Kelly Whalen 12:40 am on July 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      The news that it didn't turn into sales was prior to the latest viral campaign. Based on what I read the 7% down figure was from June 2009-2010. The past month Nielsen reported a growth of 107% in sales.Despite getting the facts mixed up (don't worry not blaming you-it's going around!), I understand your points, but have to disagree.I'm the one that does the shopping for almost everything in the house including my husband's body wash, and it's what I picked up while I was in the store this week mainly because of the campaign.I'm betting they will do the donation, since Alyssa did use her vast following, and time to respond to the campaign.I would welcome an Old Spice guy appearance at BlogHer, though I'm sure it would cause mass hysteria.

    • Motherhood Uncensored 12:56 am on July 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      No hot guy on a horse is going to change the fact that it smells like crap. I agree that it was aimed at the wrong crowd. No doubt, it's funny and somewhat entertaining, but would it make me or my husband (who buys his own darn body wash and deo) go out and buy it? No way. They were banking on stats (and maybe rightfully so) that women do all the household buying. So maybe I should be offended that Old Spice thought I'd be so swayed by the sexy man to run out and buy it for mine.I've heard differing numbers on whether this campaign actually did well or not, but overall, I think it did well for brand awareness, but changing what's been ingrained in our heads over the years “Old Spice is for old dudes,” I still think that.

    • dbinkowski 8:54 pm on July 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Well, they quickly rushed to the trades to justify their campaign and reported sales were up. However, the fact that the product is also heavily discounted wasn't really mentioned. In a crap economy, cheapest product wins, not “those with the most tweets”.

    • karimkanji 3:14 pm on August 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      David,

      You say it was a failure but you use only opinion and not facts. What about the increase in sales that was reported? Would love your thoughts and analysis on this.

      kk

      • dbinkowski 4:56 pm on October 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for the comment! There are two facts that are true:

        1. The brand was heavily discounted during this time period. Social media or not, consumers are looking to save money and a 1/2 price item within a category doesn’t need social media to sell.

        2. The ROI of this campaign has yet to be proven. Yes, there were sales and yes they used social media, however at what cost and what return? Until those factors have been added in it’s way too premature for the agency that created it to be pitching trades on what a huge success this was by simply showing Nielsen data on sales. If the product was a loss leader then it’s not a “win” IMO.

  • dbinkowski 9:30 am on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply  

    Old Spice Social Media Buzz Doesn’t Equal Sales 

    For the love of God, put your shirt on.

    For the longest time I used to think that PR agencies didn’t get social media. “Give me impressions!” was the public relations mantra because it meant that they could easily transfer their knowledge of publication circulation multipliers into the emerging field called “social media”. Screw the long tail, screw review web sites, screw message boards and all of the other “unimportant” groups online because “they don’t have reach”.

    “We want to take on the ad agencies head on!” was the PR agency rallying cry, and even though most ad agencies are going down the wrong route, and no matter how many decks you presented to them that this gimmick marketing was the wrong approach, they continued to push to ignore the long tail, ignore communities and ignore what actually drives sales. What’s come full circle is that the coveted social media reach play online that ad agencies have been great at have one thing in common: they don’t work.

    (More …)

     
    • quikness 2:31 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I was at a roundtable discussion recently where i brought up the report that this campaign hasn't translated into sales and got a pretty good response from one of the other attendees: deodorant or soap isn't something you rush out to buy. You buy it when you run out.If Old Spice can keep this train rolling for another month or two they just might get the sales uptick they're ultimately looking for. And by all accounts, that seems to be what they are trying to do. Its like an all out assault.

    • Marc Meyer 3:23 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Maybe we need to hear from P&G or Wieden. What was the purpose? If it was Buzz only-then it was a home run. If it was to drive sales to a product that still smells the same as it did when my Dad wore it..then we know the answer. Riddle me this, how much of this social blitz was actually about the product?

    • dbinkowski 5:01 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Shouldn't the goal always tie back to sales? The rest is just noise and stuff that the trades and award-givers go nuts for.

    • c2cmom 10:48 pm on July 23, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yes, the success should be tied to sales and business impact, and ditto quikness. I disagree that they missed their mark and audience. Old Spice succeeded in resurrecting a tired product to hotness. Hot guy with sense of humor = sexy for millions of wives and girlfriends across the country. While Twitter and YouTube are immediate mediums, the use of deodorant and bodysoap have a slower cycle, and are not purchased on a daily basis, like say, coffee, which could be measured and evaluated within maybe a week. Besides, who purchases deodorant or body soap for most households? 😉 Old Spice at BlogHer makes a lot of sense to buoy the brand and continue the buzz among the women purchasing the wash.Mark, if that's the case, I bet there are millions of 20-something or 30-something year old gals with subliminal memories of the security and manliness of their dads with Old Spice. As right or wrong as that may be . . .;-) On the other hand, that could also be why they weren't focusing on the scent in this campaign to reinvigorate the brand.Either way, when I was on a panel about why and when moms choose to talk about brands and products via social media at the Yahoo! Mother Board Summit last week, as soon as I mentioned the Old Spice campaign, the room of 60 educated and thoughtful women from around the country – many of whom I imagine have disposable income – lit up momentarily. Sharing hubbies and old boyfriends whom used it, laughing about the different videos. Bullseye. Ya know what else? I actually stopped to check it out (price, scent, ingredients) while at CVS for cotton balls today. Not proud. Not ashamed either.

    • Peter Çoopèr 9:21 pm on July 24, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, because all forms of marketing and branding are about selling products within weeks of exposure. Or not. This is a long term game.

    • Soup 9:22 pm on July 24, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I bought deodorant today and laughed when I saw the Old Spice. I didn't buy it because I don't like how it smells. Simple as that. Loved the campaign though. Being entertaining doesn't make me want to buy your product unless your product is entertainment.

    • Kelly Whalen 12:40 am on July 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      The news that it didn't turn into sales was prior to the latest viral campaign. Based on what I read the 7% down figure was from June 2009-2010. The past month Nielsen reported a growth of 107% in sales.Despite getting the facts mixed up (don't worry not blaming you-it's going around!), I understand your points, but have to disagree.I'm the one that does the shopping for almost everything in the house including my husband's body wash, and it's what I picked up while I was in the store this week mainly because of the campaign.I'm betting they will do the donation, since Alyssa did use her vast following, and time to respond to the campaign.I would welcome an Old Spice guy appearance at BlogHer, though I'm sure it would cause mass hysteria.

    • Kelly Whalen 12:40 am on July 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      The news that it didn't turn into sales was prior to the latest viral campaign. Based on what I read the 7% down figure was from June 2009-2010. The past month Nielsen reported a growth of 107% in sales.Despite getting the facts mixed up (don't worry not blaming you-it's going around!), I understand your points, but have to disagree.I'm the one that does the shopping for almost everything in the house including my husband's body wash, and it's what I picked up while I was in the store this week mainly because of the campaign.I'm betting they will do the donation, since Alyssa did use her vast following, and time to respond to the campaign.I would welcome an Old Spice guy appearance at BlogHer, though I'm sure it would cause mass hysteria.

    • Motherhood Uncensored 12:56 am on July 26, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      No hot guy on a horse is going to change the fact that it smells like crap. I agree that it was aimed at the wrong crowd. No doubt, it's funny and somewhat entertaining, but would it make me or my husband (who buys his own darn body wash and deo) go out and buy it? No way. They were banking on stats (and maybe rightfully so) that women do all the household buying. So maybe I should be offended that Old Spice thought I'd be so swayed by the sexy man to run out and buy it for mine.I've heard differing numbers on whether this campaign actually did well or not, but overall, I think it did well for brand awareness, but changing what's been ingrained in our heads over the years “Old Spice is for old dudes,” I still think that.

    • dbinkowski 8:54 pm on July 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Well, they quickly rushed to the trades to justify their campaign and reported sales were up. However, the fact that the product is also heavily discounted wasn't really mentioned. In a crap economy, cheapest product wins, not “those with the most tweets”.

    • karimkanji 3:14 pm on August 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      David,

      You say it was a failure but you use only opinion and not facts. What about the increase in sales that was reported? Would love your thoughts and analysis on this.

      kk

      • dbinkowski 4:56 pm on October 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for the comment! There are two facts that are true:

        1. The brand was heavily discounted during this time period. Social media or not, consumers are looking to save money and a 1/2 price item within a category doesn’t need social media to sell.

        2. The ROI of this campaign has yet to be proven. Yes, there were sales and yes they used social media, however at what cost and what return? Until those factors have been added in it’s way too premature for the agency that created it to be pitching trades on what a huge success this was by simply showing Nielsen data on sales. If the product was a loss leader then it’s not a “win” IMO.

  • dbinkowski 1:27 pm on February 22, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Media,   

    Note to the Media: Please Stop Quoting Twitter 

    I’m sure you’ve noticed a recent phenomenon in the main stream media. It’s something that typically happens whenever a quote is needed for a story. It goes something like this:

    (More …)

     
    • VDog 6:34 pm on February 22, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      It's even better when they quote a *Celebrity* on twitter.

    • dbinkowski 6:43 pm on February 22, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Exactly. “I can't get to their publicist but I can use search.twitter.com and call it good!”. Online I get it, but broadcast TV using it is weak considering the vast majority of their audience doesn't use it.

    • Spencer Sokol 3:16 pm on March 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is not new, nor is it unique to Twitter or even social media. Reporters have been grabbing “Average Joes” off the street for years and asking their opinions. Now they can do it without the bother of actually asking any questions because people provide their opinions for free.You can easily reformulate your questions for a random passer-by and get the same answers. In that light, it just sounds like you hate Twitter.

    • dbinkowski 3:55 pm on March 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Spencer,Thanks for the comment, however your correlation isn't accurate. Random passer-bys are grabbed because they are local and connect with the local TV station broadcast community. It's called relevancy. The bottom line is that Twitter is not relevant for the vast majority of Americans. dave

    • Spencer Sokol 7:11 pm on March 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      While not an exact correlation, it's simply a matter of scale. The passers-by the grab off the street in the city have little relevance to those in the suburbs which have little relevance to those in rural areas, all covered by the same station.I don't disagree that Twitter is irrelevant to the people who don't use it. What I'm saying is that the problem is not Twitter, while the article reads that it is.

  • dbinkowski 12:19 pm on January 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    A Great Debate on Gaming the System: Social Media Shilling 

    There’s a good discussion going on Twitter right now about social media shilling, aka “please tweet (blog, lifestream, status update, fan, etc.) this for a client” and the big “what if big agencies did this” en masse. Todd Defren started it off with his post called “Slippery Slope“. Laurel Hart, an adjunct instructor at NYU, asked if it was unethical to impose said coordination across an entire firm. My response is that it’s not unethical for employees to participate in social media on behalf of a client provided they disclose and do it of their own free will. It is unethical if mandated.

    (More …)

     
    • Marc Meyer 6:26 pm on January 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      You are dead on with this and I blogged about it yesterday. I got away from my original thought on the piece and started harping on privacy on Facebook, but my point was this. Every conversation that takes place on Twitter and to a certain degree on other social nets, has a baseline purpose of extracting a price, a fee, or of completing a transaction. Conversations are transactional. Some will converse but deep down its with the the hope that something will be derived from that conversation. Few will admit it, but it's true.

    • Jeremy Weiland 7:36 pm on January 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      “Go ahead and say you’re just there to make friends – and I’ll call you a liar.”But that's what real people do. That's the “connection” that you're trying to avoid naming because you want to view fake people (organizations) as legitimate participants. That's fine as long as *you* are transparent about your views and biases going into this question. But real people – those who want to do silly things like make friends – will view such participants as intruders most of the time, because they are. Marketing cheapens everything on the web and this is no different. It's the same old game; people flock to a new social network or way of sharing their lives with each other, marketers and other business interests see a chance to make a buck (nothing wrong with that, but let's distinguish it since you see “making friends” as a marginal activity) and they end up creating so much noise that it becomes useless for non-experts to participate.Twitter was not created for marketers. It's pretty obvious when somebody is shilling, and unless it has personal value at least now you can shut those annoying people down most of the time.

    • PRGully 1:52 pm on January 22, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Good post Dave and I agree. The early adopters and pureists on Twitter will fight its commercial use but that's how it will make money and keep relevance.To think otherwise is stupid or naiive.

  • dbinkowski 3:32 pm on December 22, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: disclosure, FTC,   

    Twitter Is Setting Marketers Up For FTC Lawsuits 

    As you know, the FTC recently published “blogger” and celebrity guidelines around disclosure. And, the most simple terms, it said that people should be able to discern whether or not you’re being compensated for talking.

    Twitter retweet

    No room for disclosure

    On a parallel track, Twitter recently changed how their functionality works. Specifically, the common practice of re-tweeting, or saying what someone else said, has caused pains for a lot of users. In particular, the technology Twitter’s using doesn’t allow the original Twitterer to see that someone re-posted their content. Not a big deal, however for those of us looking to retweet client work are in for a bit of an education.

    See, the current re-tweet function that is built in to the new interface just asks if you’d like to retweet something without the ability to post edits – or add disclaimers or disclosure. If I visit a client’s Twitter account or want to retweet something that is beneficial to a client, I have to manually cut and paste the tweet and re-type their username in order to meet FTC requirements of full disclosure.

    Perhaps this functionality is something Twitter will allow or introduce . Either way the platform and FTC guidelines create a challenge for those of us looking to comply and will pose the question – will there be exceptions based on the actual use of each platform? For now it’s looking like we just need to be more careful and not use Twitter’s built in RT functionality.

     
  • dbinkowski 4:24 am on October 30, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bing, , , Yahoo   

    Twitter Integrates with Google, Bing and Yahoo! – Now what? 

    Twitter finally lands a few business deals, but at what cost?

     
  • dbinkowski 2:16 am on June 21, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , prsa,   

    2 more speaking gigs lined up: one for P… 

    2 more speaking gigs lined up: one for PRSA (Advanced Twitter course) on July 16th and another at http://www.typeamomconference.com in September (24-27), 2009.

     
  • dbinkowski 3:06 pm on March 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    What the Twitterfication of Facebook Means 

    Facebook unveiled their new home page Wednesday and I have to say – it’s awfully Twitteresque. The center well, or “stream”, of content on the page is now an ajaxy, auto-updating time line of your network’s status updates. The language at the top has changed as well, from “David Binkowski is” to “What’s on your mind?”. (Twitter’s call to action has always been “What are you doing?”)

    I think this signals a “game over” for Twitter for several reasons. I’m not saying they’re going under, but the site will never achieve the sort of growth MySpace or Facebook have, and without a suitor it’s unlikely they’ll ever become profitable or sustainable. Aside from “No reason to join Twitter now”, let’s get to 5 reasons why I feel this way:

    1. Usability

    Twitter’s site has never changed. It’s a linear, hard to follow, gigantic message board thread. Sure, they acquired Summize to provide a basic search, and there are tons of third party apps like TweetDeck that may help you get a little organized, but I’ll ask you this: What’s the first thing people say when you tell them what Twitter is?

    “I don’t get it.”

    And therein lies the problem. If I describe a message board (“A place where people with common interests gather to discuss that interest”), a blog (“A publishing tool with an author or author’s point of view on topics where you can comment”) or social network (“A virtual place for your real life friends to stay in touch”) they all make sense. When people explain Twitter (“What you’re doing in 140 characters or less”) the first response is “Why would anyone care what I’m doing?”. Even more poignant is “Why would complete strangers care what I’m doing?”

    On top of the “Who cares?” question, the best solution for categorizing topics and information is through the use of hashtags. Ma Bell would be proud.

    2. Friends vs. Followers

    I have friends. You have friends. I have readers. You have blogs you like to read. And then there’s Followers. I’m not saying that I haven’t met my Followers in real life, but of the roughly 1,300 Followers I have on Twitter I’ve maybe met 100 in person. And of those 100 most of us are friends on Facebook. Real friends, mind you. I’m not discounting that people think I’m funny or interesting or look like a good candidate to start a MLM business or need a life coach, but the reality is that there’s a mutually beneficial relationship, much like in business, for following and return following people on Twitter. Which brings me to my next point:

    3. Facebook isn’t about self-promotion

    Check out the bio of the folks you follow on Twitter. I’d wager dollars to donuts that they have a URL they’re promoting somewhere in there, whether it’s their blog, their company or their MySpace music page. Look at their tweets and you’ll probably find links to their posts and press releases. Hell, there are even companies that will help you monetize the truncated URLs you’re sending around. And while we’re at it, there are also services that will help you gain 10,000 followers overnight. Talk about authentic.

    Facebook, unlike MySpace or Twitter, isn’t about a self-promotional game or race to the most followers. It’s about hanging out with co-workers outside of the office. Or connecting with childhood friends. Or college classmates. Or people who live down the street. You typically wouldn’t add someone as a friend on Facebook you didn’t know, well, because that’s where your private life is kept. Sure, there are privacy features to limit your profile, but aside from awkward employer/employee, ex-boyfriend/husband/wife/girlfriend and parents “friendings” the content is your private information that you choose to share with people you know vs. broadcast to the world.

    4. Spam

    We’re all familiar with the Twitter cast of cartoon characters, in particular the Fail Whale and 404 upside down bird. Recently Twitter’s had to add a more ominous friend to the tribe that I call the Spam Owl. The Spam Owl is what appears when a Twitter account becomes suspended due to “suspicious activity”. I’m not sure why they don’t just say “We caught the spammer!” and instead present it like there’s an FBI investigation for money laundering or a TSA security breach like a forgotten backpack in an airport crowd, but I digress.

    Spam has become so prevalent on Twitter that several A-list bloggers have quit using Twitter or reverted to dropping everyone on their “friend” list and only adding the people they know in real life. (The other reason is that they found it impossible to “follow” tens of thousands of people and conversations, which speaks to the lack of usability and impersonalization of the tool). And much like email spam, there’s no way outside of a CAPTCHA to stop it. Even with the best intentions, a n00b might not know this unspoken “Twettique” that says you shouldn’t add a ton of people and let your following grow organically.

    Facebook has had its share of virus attacks, but nowhere near the volume of spam that one gets on Twitter on a daily basis.

    5. Revenue

    Argh, this pesky one keeps coming up, doesn’t it? Just over a year ago Jason Calacanis gave Twitter three ways of monetizing the service, none of which have come to fruition. Twitter hired a biz dev guy back in December to look at monetization of the tool, and one rumor has it that businesses would have to pay for corporate accounts. As I tweeted, I’m not sold on that idea unless they provide metrics and better functionality.

    On top of this problem, the company has been funded handsomely but is bleeding so badly that they shut off outbound messaging in the UK.

    Facebook, in comparison, had an estimated revenue of $300MM and is innovating new platforms for brand engagement, including live streaming (Obama, NBA All-Star game) and targeted ads. They built mass, allow you to keep your network small, and offer brands the opportunity to engage through earned and paid methods. All they need to add is an e-commerce platform and they could literally become your own private internet.

    But, what about all that press?

    Techcrunch recently was startled at all of the press Twitter gets. I’m not. The boys at Twitter do a remarkable job of pimping their service to the media and did a phenomenal job of getting influencers and early adopters on board. But let’s call it what it is – an RSS feed with a personality. Remember, this is a microblog, and while people want to call it several things nothing more, nothing less. It’s possibly including a loose, self-promotional social network (although I think it’s really a lame message board via SMS and third party apps – except on message boards it’s easier to find useful information because q&a is longer than 140 characters) and or “the next Google” (that is an utter joke, btw – Google makes money)..

    Twitter wanted press and that is exactly what it got. The site is now filled with marketers, promoters, PR people, brands, journalists, publishers and programmers. As a PR tool it’s wonderful, as Frank can attest to. And as a cable news channel, it makes you feel you’re more relevant.

    Before you jump into the comments and start bashing because TechCrunch covers it every other blog post (ok, not every other, but come on), let’s put all of this hype into perspective outside of the echo chamber. Here’s a breakdown of unique visitors to Facebook and Twitter via Compete:

    Like it or not, Facebook is still eating everyone’s lunch. And by changing the status updates to become a more usable, functional, dynamic, personal version of Twitter they’re likely to have everyone’s dinner too.

    3/25/2009 Update: This video from Current captures Twitter perfectly:

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/What_the_Twitterfication_of_Facebook_Means’;

     
    • InspiredWriting on twitter 9:53 pm on March 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Sorry, hate facebook,love twitter! So no contest for me! But great in-depth post …and each to their own of course! I’m one of those who loathes having to drag over to Facebook and log in … and I’m interested in fast sharing of ideas/theories etc not party pics! I actually dont care if someone has a url 2 share – if it is fresh and intelligent-looking I will click on it – good for them I say! I do the same! (Looked at 2 random twitter urls 2day a)I found out u could post poems on Assoc. Content and b) this one! (a recommendation) I also have 4 notifications from Fbook to check on….but I cant be bothered 2 get over theere and trawl through all that stuff! Horses for Courses? Thanks for the post.

    • Anonymous 4:22 am on March 15, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Twitter is so easy. Plus it’s open and very fast. Facebook is getting better and better, but it is complicated and very hard to navigate. If you stay in your own little world, Facebook is ok. Twitter is just wide open. I don’t “get” what people don’t get about twitter.

    • Anonymous 9:57 pm on March 17, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      I have been on Facebook for a year and a half now. I joined Twitter 2 months ago – and just can’t get into it. You are right a lot of folks do not know what it is, especially the more “mature” crowd,- who by the way is quite present on Facebook.

      I for one like seeing the pics, and reading longer notes on Facebook.
      On Twitter I cannot believe the amount of nothing-ness that gets sent to me – really – who cares? Think I will shut down my Twitter account. oh, and I do “get it”, I just don;t care to “get it”!

    • Lauren Brander 2:25 am on April 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Ironically, I found your blog through Twitter. This argument is definitely an interesting one, and one that is not often argued this well, by someone so familiar with both Web sites. I feel that if Twitter commits itself to improvement (as in virus prevention and better hyperlink capabilities- I’m tired of shortening everything) than it can be competitive with Facebook. As of now, I use Twitter far more often than Facebook, and it’s because it’s easy, streamlined and I don’t get nearly as distracted.

    • David Binkowski 2:44 am on April 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      @inspiredWriting the down side to Facebook is the monetization aspect, for sure. the Apps craze is over but other companies have repositioned how they use Apps (e.g. Zombies vs. Top 5) to fit into a user’s life.

      @Anonymous i disagree. it’s easy to join but it’s definitely not intuitive. i think Twitter fills a void for parents or adults without social networks because they can connect with each other.

      @Anonymous2 exactly. people shouting hoping someone listens most of the time. Heh. 😛

      @LaurenBrander i’d argue you found my blog through today’s intern challenge but it’s neither here nor there. my Twitter stream is full of nonsensical garbage that my friends and clients find entertaining. when they want my opinion they call, IM, email or meet with me — or, if it’s a larger issue, i’l blog it for everyone to read.

      i also have 0 confidence that Twitter will change since their model is to be simple, open up the API and let 3rd parties create apps and usable tools. if Google et al buys them it’s only because they think they can monetize it by incorporating the content into search, not because they’re looking to increase the service’s up time or add enhancements (check out Jaiku).

  • dbinkowski 2:28 am on January 28, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    Twitter Social Media Experts Graph 

    I’m not Hugh McLeod so I used Keynote to create this chart demonstrating where most people are regarding so-called ‘social media experts”. Enjoy.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Twitter_Social_Media_Experts_Graph’;

     
    • chrisdymond 12:59 pm on February 2, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Made me proper laugh this did!

      And the Hugh McLeod tag even more!! HAHAHAHA!!

    • ruffian 1:58 am on March 7, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      awesome – we ll said my friend!

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel