In your opinion, what are the better ones and why would you distinguish them as so? Both from the perspectives as an investor and target user.
- Facebook - Linkedin - Shit, Gplus The problem with Twitter is that it's about 80% bots, has a die-off rate approaching 99% and is mostly used by marketers to talk to other marketers. It's the easiest thing in the world to have your Facebook post your tweets, your Twitter tweet your Facebook, your Facebook post your Instagram and your twitter to tweet your Instagram. there's no real reason to even bother with the network other than that you can add it as a stock plugin to your SEO deck and have an "also twitter" button for everything you do. Ryan Holiday pointed out that Twitter's crowning achievement was breaking the news that Osama bin Laden was dead seven minutes before CNN. Seven minutes. Beyond that, what is there, really, that needs to be tweeted?
Whenever I tell anyone that I think Facebook is still undervalued, they look at me like I'm crazy. Of course, I deleted my Facebook years ago, suspiciously coinciding with about the time my mom got one... But trends, man. Facebook is still picking up users all across the world as more and more people acquire internetses. Edit: and retention is through the roof, probably 85% of everyone that ever used Facebook still uses it.
After all, more people use facebook than use the Internet.
Heh, didn't even have to click the link. Yeah, people are dumb. More proof that you should design your user experience and interface to accommodate the lowest common denominator.
There's nothing that says Facebook has to stick around. That's why I think it's overvalued... yeah, they've got ad revenue, but their ads poison their network. They know their shit is invasive and unloved so they have to ride the balance between "shit that makes us money" and "shit that drives our userbase away." That means they're one good competitor from death, and always have been. Fortunately for them, Gplus failed.
From what I've seen Twitter is great for powerful, dynamic people to read in tiny bursts and write in tiny bursts, then get on with what they were doing; the character limit makes Twitter the success it is. It also makes it fail at being a meaningful communication platform, given that concepts must be expressed in a finite, tiny space. Much Twitter anger seems to stem from a fundamental failure of one party to fully explain thier position within the character limit. But given celebrities' small attention spans and/or demands on thier time, I don't see them moving to another social network unless it makes the experience faster and easier to consume still. This makes Twitter-in my mind-less of a place for normal people to socialise, and more of a stream-of-consciousness of celebrities - a one-way social network, and occasional personal messaging client.
It's also great for bitching at big companies. They usually track twitter very well and I have even been fast tracked through customer service once because I tweeted that my telecom company was crap. The standard procedure if to get the complains off the web as fast as possible ;) It's also a great outlet when I'm simply frustrated. I have like 30 followers so I feel like I can post whatever my current corporate frustrations are.
That's Twitter in a nutshell - "for when you're too lazy to use PRNewswire."
