Tim Cohn sent me a link to a story that asserts (based on Compete data) that Twitter has passed the NY Times in terms of monthly uniques:
Assuming it’s accurate, what are we to make of this:
- Twitter’s rapid growth in action, but there are limited “practical” implications at this point
- Twitter now has greater “reach” that the Times
- Apples to Oranges
Who should “worry” about Twitter?
Advertisement
April 10, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
Google defines the benefit of AdWords as “Reach, Relevance, and ROI”.
Twitter definitely has reach and relevance down … no wonder Google and Microsoft are in such a mad dash to help take care of the ROI part.
I’d be worried about Twitter if I were any type of local directory (outside of Craigslist) or other local news site who will likely be facing new competition for ad dollars. Twitter may be competing for these bucks very soon. They already have command of the eyeballs anyhow.
April 10, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
What to make of it? Twitter “bigger than the NYT”? Nothing short of the fall of western civilization as we know it; at least nothing short of a further fall. And as to monetization: is this now the only measure by which we define the value of social discourse? The capacity to wrap an ad around my 140 character contemplation on the noxiousness of a particularly vile smelling fart? Anyway, time to go: back to The Osbourns and The Biggest Loser before running out to catch Seth Rogen in Observe and Report.
April 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
@Joe – Unfortunately; How right you are!
April 13, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
I love twitter, have been using it for a relatively long time, and actively read all of the discussions and articles around it. Its the future, right?
I have noticed that as Twitter is rising in popularity, the newspapers are getting more and more coverage on their ultimately demise. Personally, I want the information in a newspaper, I just don’t want it delivered ‘old school.’
I still read the NYT and other newspapers (online). Absent when and where I get my information in the future, it will be a sad day if i educate myself based on the random thoughts of others while they are eating, walking, talking, multitasking or sitting in a public restroom.
All that said, I think Twitter’s disruption is in its ability to allow people or businesses to communicate information to people in real time. I still don’t see a C to C business model but I definitely see a B to C business model that can emerge and a SIGNIFICANT ecosystem of applications that can be built around it.
One final qualitative observation, as a long time Facebook user, I noticed a significant about of people I know (professionally and personally) join over the last 6 months or so. For a while, they were online, updating, etc fairly often. Now their online presence and updates are all but disappearing and I have trouble reconciling the recently announced 200 Million Facebook users with what this people are doing / the value they are getting.
April 13, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
“…its ability to allow people or businesses to communicate information to people in real time…” This, I think, is the rub. One to one, I don’t take issue. One to many? Twitter, it seems to me, is symptomatic of the sound bite, get it fast ,damned if you get it right info-vehicle that has discredited the MSM and, truth be told, got America into the war in Iraq. Twitter as “virtual” small-talk is fine; that it could become a credible tool of mass communication and information exchange between individuals and/or business concerns me.
April 13, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
Twitter is great as a sort-form “fun” notification service and it’s also good as an “alerts” tool. One day it may work also as a recommendations engine. But it’s quite limited in terms of what it can deliver. I mostly points to other things. So it’s a natural PR vehicle.
April 14, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
Just for Joe: http://i.gizmodo.com/5211135/man-builds-chair-that-tweets-his-farts-single+handedly-justifies-twitters-existence