Twitter versus Facebook face-off
I was recently encouraged, for business reasons, to increase my web presence. I have been on several networking sites for some years – Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/vince.holton, LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/in/vinceholton), My Space – but I’ve never done much with them. I’m now also on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/vholton). I made a conscious decision to put more time into all of the sites. It is working so far, my connections on all the sites are growing. Well, with the exception of MySpace. I’m not really doing anything with that at all, hence no link above.
So far, and bear in mind I am something of an arriviste in these circles, my assessment is this. Twitter dominates. With 100+ people following me after just more than a week, and about the same in the opposite direction, Twitter traffic, via the very handy TweetDeck application, is fairly constant. So far, it seems that 95% of Twitter traffic is nonsense, and of little or no value. Having said that, the 5% that remains is often interesting and sometimes useful, and as an alternative IM mechanism, it works. But - I often do want to challenge those Tweeters that endlessly just post the same links, all day long. Get a life, people!
Facebook is without doubt more about maintaining social – family and friends – connections. And it is good from that point of view. Courtesy of Facebook, for example, I’m now in contact with two members of my family that I haven’t seen or spoken to for decades. Facebook is useful.
LinkedIn is about business. I have been on LinkedIn for many years and not done much other than the occasional profile update. I’m now much more active, and have my own discussion group – WPAN World (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2136483&trk=hb_side_g) – and this is paying dividends. I am building a large group of contacts that have real value for my primary business, which is my Incisor brand – an eMagazine and Internet TV business (www.incisor.tv).
So, in terms of direct benefit to my business, I view LinkedIn as the most relevant. Facebook is a nice site to be on, but for my B2B business, I am not sure of the value. Twitter? Well, I really have not made my mind up about that. It is a fact that I spend the most time engaged in Twitter-related communications. Is it a business tool? I don’t know yet. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Real world testing
UK TV has a programme called The Gadget Show. I shouldn’t need to explain what it is about. In last week’s programme they addressed the Facebook versus Twitter question with a face-off. The programme’s two presenters, Jason Bradbury and Gail Porter, who are both well-known proper, genuine minor celebrities thanks to their TV careers, were set the challenge of attracting as many people as possible to a free to attend event in central London that was to take place 5 days after the start of the challenge. This was an opportunity for everyday punters (that’s ordinary folk) to appear on TV. Not the sort of opportunity that normally takes a lot of selling.
Bradbury was to use Twitter to get people to come along, Porter was to use Facebook. Both had already been dedicated users of the two sites. The person who enticed the most people along to the event would be the winner.
Remember that these are two reasonably high-profile people with lots of friends, and this was guaranteed TV coverage for the men, women and children of our unwashed masses. And the two competitors both used all of the tricks of the social networking trade and put a lot of time into it.
And who won, and which social networking site was more effective? Well, it was Bradbury and Twitter. But the actual numbers achieved were surprisingly small. Bradbury’s Twitter campaign brought 208 and Porter’s Facebook campaign brought just 23 people. So Twitter was much more effective at getting a message to more people quickly.
There are still people out there that insist that Facebook as well as Twitter can be as useful to my business as I can easily see that LinkedIn is.
I’ve just got to work out how to make it so. Do you know?
So far, and bear in mind I am something of an arriviste in these circles, my assessment is this. Twitter dominates. With 100+ people following me after just more than a week, and about the same in the opposite direction, Twitter traffic, via the very handy TweetDeck application, is fairly constant. So far, it seems that 95% of Twitter traffic is nonsense, and of little or no value. Having said that, the 5% that remains is often interesting and sometimes useful, and as an alternative IM mechanism, it works. But - I often do want to challenge those Tweeters that endlessly just post the same links, all day long. Get a life, people!
Facebook is without doubt more about maintaining social – family and friends – connections. And it is good from that point of view. Courtesy of Facebook, for example, I’m now in contact with two members of my family that I haven’t seen or spoken to for decades. Facebook is useful.
LinkedIn is about business. I have been on LinkedIn for many years and not done much other than the occasional profile update. I’m now much more active, and have my own discussion group – WPAN World (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2136483&trk=hb_side_g) – and this is paying dividends. I am building a large group of contacts that have real value for my primary business, which is my Incisor brand – an eMagazine and Internet TV business (www.incisor.tv).
So, in terms of direct benefit to my business, I view LinkedIn as the most relevant. Facebook is a nice site to be on, but for my B2B business, I am not sure of the value. Twitter? Well, I really have not made my mind up about that. It is a fact that I spend the most time engaged in Twitter-related communications. Is it a business tool? I don’t know yet. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Real world testing
UK TV has a programme called The Gadget Show. I shouldn’t need to explain what it is about. In last week’s programme they addressed the Facebook versus Twitter question with a face-off. The programme’s two presenters, Jason Bradbury and Gail Porter, who are both well-known proper, genuine minor celebrities thanks to their TV careers, were set the challenge of attracting as many people as possible to a free to attend event in central London that was to take place 5 days after the start of the challenge. This was an opportunity for everyday punters (that’s ordinary folk) to appear on TV. Not the sort of opportunity that normally takes a lot of selling.
Bradbury was to use Twitter to get people to come along, Porter was to use Facebook. Both had already been dedicated users of the two sites. The person who enticed the most people along to the event would be the winner.
Remember that these are two reasonably high-profile people with lots of friends, and this was guaranteed TV coverage for the men, women and children of our unwashed masses. And the two competitors both used all of the tricks of the social networking trade and put a lot of time into it.
And who won, and which social networking site was more effective? Well, it was Bradbury and Twitter. But the actual numbers achieved were surprisingly small. Bradbury’s Twitter campaign brought 208 and Porter’s Facebook campaign brought just 23 people. So Twitter was much more effective at getting a message to more people quickly.
There are still people out there that insist that Facebook as well as Twitter can be as useful to my business as I can easily see that LinkedIn is.
I’ve just got to work out how to make it so. Do you know?
posted by Vince Holton at
10:11
2 Comments:
A good and honest appraisal of the uses for social/media/business networking.
The reality is simple; if you are in business or have a desire/need to make yourself known then any and all of the methods you have mentioned, plus others, can and are required to achieve the ultimate modern day goal of building your brand, whether personal or business.
The former, to the younger generation is what it is all about now that social/media networking allow for no cost personal brand promotion and as with many of us slightly older folk, they already see working life as being as multi-faceted as their private life, hence the need for the different platforms to reach different sectors of society.
As it's often different strokes for different folks, choosing only one form of online communication obviously limits one's reach.
So, as children learn, so should we as social/media users. Play with all the 'toys' available and find out what each one does for you and how much fun/return you get from it.
It's a vast playground out there with few or no rules, so enjoy. Oh; and where there are rules, break them, just to test the boundaries! :-)
Posted for Dave English (Twitter - @ironleaves)
The results from the contest between Jason Bradbury and Gail Porter from the Gaget Show didn't surprise me, where Jason using Twitter managed to attract 208 people to a free TV event while Gail brought in only 23 people using Facebook, a nine times advantage to Jason. As you wrote, Facebook is a social network but Twitter is that and much more. The turnout of over 200 people should be considered significant. Not everyone wants in front of TV camers and many others who whould have other commitments.
While I don't like the guy, Obama's win was partly due to Twitter. He was able to instantly himself communicate to his "followers" a need for more funds, which may have contributed to his massive funding and he could make people feel as if they were involved with him personally with Twitts.
It was a factor that hasn't been lost on other politicians. Funding and votes, what else does a politician need?
While the 140 spaces is very limiting and an irritation, Twitter is a powerful tool. The ability to offer links, the ability to seek out people with similar concerns or interests on the website http://wefollow.com/ so you can browse the categories and then the contibuters for possible new people to follow and then entice to follow you. You could list yourself under serveral relevant categories to give yourself a positive hit on searches by others.
I have considered sending a Twitter to News 8 San Diego (CBS) and ask them about how they feel Twitter will affect them in the future. We can get news before it appears on TV, we can follow almost any event in real time anywhere in the world. I read an article this last week about the huge party celebrity sprinkeled party when the magazine Talk was launched in 1995. The author lamented the fact that this was theone of last significant magazine launch before the advertising base began receeding. Local and network news have been in trouble for a while and that light they see at the end of the tunnel isn't the end of the tunnel.
Dave English
Oceanside, California
Ironleaves
Post a Comment
<< Home