Comments on: The Twitter Paradox: Why it will likely fail sooner or later

By: links for 2009-11-07 | Webmaster Chronic

links for 2009-11-07 | Webmaster Chronic — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:02:32 +0000

[...] The Twitter Paradox: Why it will likely fail sooner or later (tags: media twitter spam spammers bots) [...]

By: Matt McDougall

Matt McDougall — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:10:33 +0000

Although Twitter is a novel app with a simple idea- many large vendors had previously bagged the concept. Now almost all search engines and internet companies are talking about their own ‘twitter like’ solutions… So I am predicting that the “twitter like” app’s will continue to flowish but there will be a number of these micro-blogging platforms that will gain a degree of stickyness with their own audience.

Cheers Matt
Twitter- sinotechian

By: Sency

Sency — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:09:56 +0000

the real time web is here to stay. Twitter just did a deal with MSFT and GOOG – aren’t they now getting paid for their data?

By: Kimberly K.

Kimberly K. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:06:08 +0000

You’re absolutely right. Twitter was a novel concept to begin with, especially when major celebrities jumped on the bandwagon. While it was extremely popular for a while and it seemed like everyone was tweeting, it’s popularity has definitely ceased. However, in the world of Facebook and MySpace status updates and blogging, it seems that there’s not a big outcry for people to sign up for Twitter anymore.
Once the novelty wore off, many people who were avid tweeters slowed down their Twitter activity, and many readers lost interest. Plus the inevitable large amount of “Twitter spam” and celebrity imposters made the site lose credibility.
Twitter could easily reap benefit from advertisement. Facebook has many advertisements that are non-invasive and can be clicked if a visitor to the site finds something interesting; not in-your-face popups that have to be clicked to get rid of them.
In any case, it seems inevitable that Twitter will eventually dwindle and become a thing of the past, like hi5.com or nexopia.com, since it was likely a “trend thing” from the beginning.

By: Case Ernsting

Case Ernsting — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:27:57 +0000

Great analysis! I have been on Twitter for 6 months (since it got really mainstream) and have not seen the greatness of all the features that I heard before joining. It works in segments, but it’s full potential seems tempered by the amount of spam that has arrived on the seen and inflated the stats/deflated the benefits.

By: BebopDesigner

BebopDesigner — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:34:27 +0000

Brilliant article! And yes, we all wonder “How do they make money?” How do they cover the payroll and other expenses? it’s not like they’re just 2 geek operation in a basement, is it?

We love it, we worry… We love it more than we worry about it, maybe because we fear we might lose it. What do you reckon?

Thanks for posting.

By: Mark Dykeman

Mark Dykeman — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:31:00 +0000

People were probably saying the same thing about Craigslist, too, yet somehow Craigslist survives. Hm. Maybe it’s a better analogy than I thought…

By: @ScottBradley

@ScottBradley — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:45:36 +0000

This is a great article because you bring up a lot of the issues many people are starting to bring to the surface about twitter and the social web companies.

The part where you say…
—-
If they start putting in more advertising regardless of how they do it, two things will happen:

1. Users won’t like it and will complain that the ads are too intrusive.
2. Advertisers won’t like it and will complain that the ads aren’t intrusive enough.
—-

I think this is the general challenge most web 2.0 companies are facing.

The mistake lies in launching their site without any kind of advertising whatsoever, which leads to their audience to believe that everything would be free forever…and by doing so when trying to integrate any ads or business development initiatives to make money…the audience rebels…and goes somewhere else to another free and ad-free platform that serves the same purpose.

The only argument on the flip side, and what the majority of web 2.0 companies are banking on is that they hope their users feel almost “indebted and addicted” to the platform that no matter what changes are made…they still stay loyal to the site.

I am one who believes that if they showed the audience that they were planning on making money from day one, and not always giving everything out for free…most web 2.0 companies wouldn’t be struggling so bad.

What do you think?

By: Niall Harbison

Niall Harbison — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:14:48 +0000

This is an awesome balanced article that actually looks at the situation rationally. I think the biggest problem is that it is all people who have loud voices on Twitter like bloggers, marketers and entrepreneuers. Once the value starts to decrease (like you say the links and traffic they send) then all of those people will move on to the next platform and continue to spread their emssage elsewhere. Really excellent article though well done

By: Melody

Melody — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:12:16 +0000

In the very first paragraph, the correct word seems like it should be “its” (the possessive) and not “it’s” (the contraction). [When Twitter starting making its first mainstream push ...]

I agree that simplicity is part of the success of Twitter, but I think people will get too tiresome of the offensive x-rated profiles (and maybe spammers too) which could lead to its demise. I agree you’ve written quite a thoughtful article.

One strength of Twitter is how people within a certain group – whether it is the coffee drinkers, the news junkies, the foodies, or the knitters and crafters, sports enthusiasts, all seem to find each other. I’ve heard of a new ‘list’ feature (as most people have) and it seems to be exactly the right kind of tool to reinforce finding your niche, and help create more lasting power of Twitter.

And I hope Twitter succeeds! I like it!