Twitter is one of the biggest things to engage in online today.
Three years go, Myspace was.
You remember Myspace, don’t you? The last, “really important site your business has to be on if you expect to be anywhere with the kids?”
Twitter is going to shuffle along before too long as well. And before you start writing your flame comments, know that I do like Twitter - I just see it in a very non-fanboy way, and as such must call out the problem as I see it: Twitter is no longer about communicating, but prestige.
Specifically, the prestige of showing how many followers you can rustle up. If you can show the world how 2000 people are really interested in what you have to say, and what’s more you yourself only find 60 other people worthy of reading, then you’re a pretty special someone.
On the other hand, if you are following 2000 people, it’s pretty obvious you do that to get anyone to follow you back - and show the world how you’re not completely invisible. (If you are following 2000 people, though, and only 143 are following you back, it sure doesn’t look much better.)
If you’re somewhere in the middle of that, you probably have, say, 300 people you follow and 200 or so who follow you back. Even so, that means there are 200 people’s updates streaming across your Twitter page each day, and you aren’t reading all of their posts. That’s because it isn’t important to anyone to read all of those updates.
It’s rather like bragging about how many e-mail address you have in your contacts list. Sure you never write to any of them, and when they write you the message is almost immediately deleted… but just LOOK AT ALL THOSE ADDRESSES! You must be pretty special, eh?
Here’s where I’m going with all of this: Twitter is slowly dying, not because the site is doing something wrong or the technology is bad. Neither is the case, Twitter hardly ever gives the Fail Whale anymore, and it gives people pretty much everything it says it will.
It is the culture of Twitter, however, that is failing. Like a pyramid scheme, everyone is relying on a large number of people a little further down to pick up on what they are doing, and follow it. Little important information is shared, though, and if it is it gets lost, or gets re-reported in more manageable sources. I’m sure Obama’s campaign announced some important stuff on Twitter - but if I heard of it, I heard it off the news. And I was even following!
There are quite a few other sites that are jockeying for possition already to be the “next Twitter.” Success for them will mean who adopts them in as great of numbers, but succuss could also mean which one gets the concept of “social” as being more than having a heap of friends you never listen to.
In the case of social media, a definite problem is having too many people to listen to. There is no more filtering agent if you follow just one more person than you have the time to read - even at 140 characters. The next sites will either hide the number of friends you have from the public - which would take the impetus out of getting too many friends - or change the technology used so it would be at least possible to listen to that many updates. (Friendfeed, 12seconds.tv and Utterli.com come to mind.)
Robert Scoble’s Twitter account follows 20,969 individual accounts as of this posting. Unless he has a staff sifting through all of those posts, he does not see everything his chosen friends are saying in a day. And if he does, he is intimately aware only of how many of them are watching TV, or just got to work, or are sleepey, bored, have the flu… things no one NEEDS to be on top of, and things that surely don’t require a staff.
In short, a lot of things that aren’t worth the trouble of maintaining a Twitter account. Don’t get me wrong, Twitter does have it’s value. The way everyone else uses it, though, that value is rather limited.