How to Save Twitter
This is a follow up to my thoughts on the advent of microjournalism and how Twitter could become a bellweather in the news media if it positions its brand correctly.
I’ve been diving in deeper into these ideas and I realized that the way Twitter is percieved will be a major hangup if they want to continue further. Currently, Twitter is set up as a many-to-many application, in which you try and get as many to follow you and reciprocate the same. This is the status quo in social media (blogging, facebook, etc).
A new shift, particularly in online media, is the few-to-many application, in which a select “high value” producers generate content for the masses. This is only the natural evolution of online media; noise eventually gets filtered out until you find producers that create real value. The problem with Twitter is that currently there is too much noise, and until you find the proper filters, it will not be able to retain a sustainable user base.
Twitter needs to become a few-to-many application, in which they recruit high-value targets to write random thoughts to their Twitter feed. I gave several examples in my previous post, but I’ve realized there is a much more valuable target for them to reach: the Olympics.
Right now, they need to start getting in contact with as many athletes and coaches that are participating in the Olympics (U.S. participants as well as others) who have access to internet and cell phones throughout their competitions. Explain to them that it would be a great way to vent their feelings and show the rest of the world what it’s like to be a world class athlete.
This will provide Twitter with access to information that NBC can’t have. If NBC takes notice, Twitter can then license out the Olympics content out to them or try for an all out acquisition.
Clock’s ticking.
My name is Steve Place. I live on the space coast of Florida.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Barack Obama is already on Twitter, with absolutely no recruitment or coercion from any source other than having an informed team of campaign strategists. This approach doesn’t need to happen because Twitter has that vibe of finding people, and if the Obama camp and can pick up and adopt it, so can other sources without being recruited to do so.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
dave:
That’s great that Obama has a Twitter feed. Why hasn’t anyone heard about it? Twitter should be telling all the major news outlets to watch the feed for live, up-to-date information about the campaign. A couple mentions on the networks would expand the user-base.
And by recruiting I’m not saying pay people; rather, just tell them about the availability of such a platform.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
“Why hasn’t anyone heard about it?”
Are you kidding? 30,000 followers + being mentioned on CNN multiple times simply for having a Twitter feed is certainly hearing about it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Not to mention the extensive press coverage one individual got after Twittering his imprisonment in south Asia resulted in his being released from prison. Saving Twitter doesn’t have anything to do with major news outlets, trust me.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
I’ll grant you those points (although I think the imprisonment came out of Egypt); they actually validate my theory that a few high-priority producers are the key to bringing value to the platform rather than the entire internet microblogging about what they had for lunch. I think it’s analagous to Youtube vs. Hulu.
Do you disagree with my point that it would be a good idea to actively market Twitter to high-value targets? Or do you have other ideas?
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
But see, the fact that the Internet powers the virility of these things is what makes it beautiful, and the argument of “what I had for lunch” is a terrible oversimplification of why Twitter matters. I do acknowledge it can be a great source for news and early-alert, but I can’t say a systemized approach to making it a hit within news is the ideal way to go.
I’ve preached it on my blog and on others for the longest time: just because you call it viral marketing doesn’t mean it is. Now, I know we’re not talking explicitly about viral marketing here, but the principles remain. Jumping on a system like Twitter, using it to publish news with a fancy CNN or Fox News stamp and then calling it Journalsim doesn’t grant you any more profundity than you deserve, SIMPLY because you’re using a service that’s already a smash hit when it comes to delivering quick, broad, updates on a given topic.
Case in point, George Carlin. Within 20 minutes a Summize.com search for Carlin had over 20 pages of Twitter updates.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
But at the same time, I do see your point that if it weren’t for major news outlets, these Twits would never have happened. The same for Tim Russert, we still depend on news outlets to find these things out and then pass it along. This is a great topic for research, fwiw.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I guess you heard about they guy who got fired for putting up the Russert death on Twitter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23link.html