Facebook Has Twitter Envy - But Why?
It is no secret that Facebook has Twitter envy. The number one social networking site is not content to win over rival MySpace. It is not satisfied being far ahead of Google on the social web. Facebook now has Twitter firmly in its crosshairs.
True, Twitter traffic has gone through the roof. True, Twitter is the new killer app, the new cool kid on the block. And yes, even Oprah now loves Twitter. But does this mean Facebook should be worried? Well, maybe yes, but likely no, because Twitter and Facebook are two very different services.
The Coolest Kid on the Block
It is always hard not to be the cool one anymore. Whether you're a movie star or an NBA player, going from #1 to #2 is hard. It is even harder not to be near the top at all. Aging is pretty hard and something we all have to deal with. But change is inevitable, part of the cycle of life. The new comes in and replaces the old.
The history of the software industry is a classic illustration of this kind of transition. IBM was replaced by Microsoft, which reigned for decades. Its strong grip was taken over by Google, and for a while Google was cool. With the rise of the social web, things have changed again. MySpace, Facebook, and now Twitter are taking over in people's minds as the newest, coolest kids on the block.
But IBM is still around and doing well. So is Microsoft, which now looks more like IBM. And, of course, Google, despite not being so cool anymore, is still king of the web. Not so cool, perhaps, but certainly very solid and with enviable revenue.
So maybe Facebook should not feel the need to be so cool and look like Twitter.
Why Did Facebook Take Off to Begin With?
Facebook emerged out of Harvard and was initially a network for college students. It started out as a simple way to keep in touch, to see what was going on around campus. By the time its doors opened to everyone, Facebook had a few things going for it:
- Unlike MySpace, it had clean and elegant profiles.
- It made sharing pictures easy.
- It made sending private messages to friends easy.
- It made posting public messages on walls easy.
In short, Facebook solved basic problems of communication between friends. And it solved them very well.
But it felt compelled to continue evolving. Perhaps it felt threatened by Google's foray into the social space. Perhaps it was enticed by the prospect of being bigger than Google. Or perhaps it was the $15 billion valuation offered by Microsoft that set the bar too high. Whatever it was, it kept rolling out features, including the Facebook platform and Beacon, which aimed to make the web revolve around it.
Facebook blew past MySpace and managed to keep Google at bay. It firmly won the race for the social web. But now it has begun a brand new race, this one against Twitter.
Twitter and Facebook Are Just Different
The thing is, though, this race makes no sense. Facebook and Twitter are simply two different services that need to co-exist on today's web. The only thing they have in common is that their users have a limited number of hours in the day in which to socialize.
At its core, Facebook is about closed sharing between a group of friends. That is why my sister, one of Facebook's first users, felt so compelled to use it, not because of apps or Beacon or tabs within tabs within tabs. It was simply about photos and messages on walls between friends.
Unlike Facebook, Twitter has not added new features. It has stuck to its core product: connecting people via short messages. And unlike Facebook, Twitter has allowed uni-directional connections: if you want to follow someone without him or her following you, you can. Twitter was never about sharing between friends in the first place, but rather about sharing news. And if you look at Twitter today, it has clearly changed the way the world consumes news.
So, Facebook is chasing a rival that is playing, in Gartner-speak, in a different Magic Quadrant. And that does not make sense because even if it refocuses on streams, Facebook at its core is about friends, not news. Even if it had public pages for celebrities that everyone could follow, Facebook would still not be about news. It's just different.
Focus on What You Do Best
Chasing Twitter could be costly. Facebook likely won't overtake Twitter and what it has built up today. Twitter has won that race already. But if Facebook continues to spend too much time trying to re-position itself, its core business (i.e. connecting friends) is in danger of becoming vulnerable.
Clearly, MySpace, with its brand new management, is not wasting time. AOL is cooking up some interesting new stuff itself in the social networking space. And Google may just decide to make Chrome more social than other browsers.
So, it seems that Facebook's best path to preserving its strength is to not waste energy chasing Twitter. Instead, it should return to its roots and core strength: being the #1 social networking site that makes it easy to network with your friends.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I disagree. FB is in Twitter's business as much as Twitter is in FB's business. There's no fine distinction. I think FB should compete head-to-head.
good post (notice i'm using Facebook Connect, not Twitter Connect =)
Agree and disagree - I think the question people are asking most these days is completely off: "Is facebook open enough?" But at the same time facebook has a potentially dominant product compared to twitter. If facebook can manage per item privacy and completely public profiles elements and have thrid party applications adhere to that, they have a twitter 2.0 that will be able to reap developer creativity, moreover, one that people can still use from their twitter interface, but the stream will be more interesting than the 140 characters, however useful that limitation is. (@almostadiary)
Twitter is about communicating with short messages - preferably with people with same interests.
Do you trust these people? Maybe - maybe not.
Facebook status updates and feeds allows you to see what others near you are doing, see what your friends are doing, see what your family is doing, communicate with them easily because you probably don't know their email address, share media with them that is stored.
That is the power of facebook. Twitter is more about interests and thoughts with anyone, Facebook is more about those you trust and those in your proximity or seeing what your friends are doing far away.
Ofcourse Facebook should be worried. Where will people spend their time? Twitter is making the distributed web easier to reach. Facebook is compiling everything inside with some external reach.
I don't know. Think about facebook connect. there can easily be a twitter connect and i would like to use both twitter and fb connect.
i'm really confused. this is hard.
You sound like someone pleading not to take your toy away.
As you mentioned, the users have limited time and facebook will want them to spend most of this time with them and not with any of their 'competitors' on the web.
When you have a R&D team, you will always find ways to increase your market share and in this case the internet users and their time.
Your vision can remains but your mission statements have to change according to the eco-system. Just look at what happens to Friendster for an example.
I just wrote about this earlier today. If Facebook wants to be the dominant player in this space (and I am pretty sure they do) then they need to figure out how to contextualize their service.
The first service to figure out contextualization will win.
Alex, I really liked reading your post and it certainly made me think a lot about FB's moves....but, I take a different stand on the issue. I think it's a smart "macro" strategy for Facebook to aggresively integrate Twitteresque features, WHILE staying true to what they do best....here's something I posted about it yesterday.. http://bit.ly/11Lpu3
Posted by: TedBailey
|
April 28, 2009 6:36 PM
Agree, except I've always considered Google "cool". I'm shocked to hear differently.
I'm with you Alex. Facebook should still be focusing on its core business rather than trying to become what it is not.
They got where they are on the web by being the new thing and being it well. Once they start being 'the copy of the new thing', their appeal will likely fade. There are many 'new things' fb could do without trying to invade a separate space.
(disclaimer)I've seldom seen anything in fb that was worth my time anyway. If I want to throw a barnyard animal at someone I'll find a piglet and chunk it at'em. Incidentally, the only reason I created an account with them was to join a group sponsored by....
AdaptiveBlue!
Go Glue!
I totally agree with you. FB's strength is the length and potential "intimacy" of communication, continuous, over time, in depth. Twitter focuses on casual and potentially anonymous, on-the-fly communication. Each should pursue its strength, so that we surfers may have the best of both worlds. There's a valid need for both, I think.
Stopped reading after this, "MySpace, Facebook, and now Twitter are taking over in people's minds as the newest, coolest kids on the block."
Myspace? Cool? Really?
I think you are correct, but Twitter's strong point isn't uni-directional connections. In fact I think users who only participate by broadcasting aren't seeing the true value of the platform (take note of the recent influx of celebrities). The fact that news travels fast on Twitter is a by-product of the two-way conversations taking place.
Ultimately, Facebook is used to strengthen existing connections you share in real life, Twitter is more of a networking platform to meet and connect with people you didn't know previously. Both serve their own purposes well, and both can and should be used in conjuction with one another.
I do agree that Facebook has been going down the wrong path of late, competing with services which do not share the same purpose.
I only get on facebook to accept friends from the email notification links. Otherwise, I haven't spent much time on it. It's just too entertainment focused and quite annoying. Twitter, on the other hand, is functional, I can't live without it.
On a side note, I attempted to close my myspace account. Waiting for the confirmation email.
I agree. I have always stated that these two services are completely different. People have a difficult time relating to Twitter given the breadth of its scope and usefulness (useful to businesses, celebrities, teachers etc) whereas Facebook is easier to relate to (connecting with friends)and thus uptime and retention is quicker and a lot easier
Richard, your pieces RULE.
Posted by: Mona Nomura
|
April 28, 2009 10:25 PM
yes yes and yes. I don't know why Facebook feels the need to be just like Twitter. They are completely different networks with different purposes and different audiences. Maybe the smarties at Facebook have something up their sleeves but at this point they seem to be scrambling and going in any direction like a child with ADD. :)
Posted by: Violet Mae Lim
|
April 28, 2009 10:33 PM
Love the article. As an upstart entertainment business entity, Twitter is proving immeasurably more useful than Facebook. Maybe it's just 'cause I don't have 'friends'. The 90 or so Facebook friends of mine have forgotten I exist there, so long live Tweeting and soaking up knowledge instead of gosssip.
I liked the statement that Adam Ostrow made in his post yesterday, How Many People Actually Use Twitter?
In it he says, "...it actually might be best to start thinking of Twitter as the new Blogger ... as opposed to the new Facebook."
That goes exactly with what you are saying here, "Focus on what you do best."
Facebook is successful in its own right and should not be looking at Twitter as a competitor. Simply incorporate the ability to import Tweets into your Facebook newsfeed, call it a day and move on.
Your conclusion seems to say that Facebook should play safe within its chartered territory. Playing safe is good only to a certain extent. Not always. With MySpace's overhauling, AOL's new embellishments and Twitter's rising tide, Facebook should definitely be concerned. They cannot bring in Twitter into their system, but they can definitely try new ways to keep users hooked to their site.
But I agree with one point of yours: FB should never think of losing ground on connecting with friends. Facebook, as you say, is about friendships whereas Twitter is about information.
FB and Twitter are different and I guess there is scope for both of them to survive:
On FB your r status messages or not search able, its reach has limitations, its personal(to you and your friends) and are not part of conversations. Twitter is more open, u can use it with various tools and developers have more scope of building useful tools. Openness is a limitation on facebook and thus limits innovation
Twitter's biggest challenges is getting on board users who understand twitter at first go
Facebook is mainly for college students and now to public. For me, I like facebook as I could know more youngers there. Twitter is also good but too many kinds of person there. My hobbies like fond of colleting tools or reading or watching film, I could find similar person and enjoy our time in facebook. SO I think it really worth the envy.
I firmly agree.Facebook and Twitter are both different services and should not compete with each other. Twitter is in buzz now, but that does not mean Facebook is out.
I don't generally try to mix both services, though I have a few common contacts on both.
I guess, Facebook's problem is that Twitter could make money before they do.
Posted by: Oliver Bouchard
|
April 29, 2009 4:30 AM
I agree with your comment "[Twitter's] core product: connecting people via short messages."
Maybe I'm thinking too literary about this, but I see Facebook as the novel, and depending on the writer, sometimes epic and sometimes a novella. Sometimes, filled with facts and detail, great descriptions. Sometimes a rich picture book. Sometimes it makes it to the big screen (lots and lots of exposure.)
Twitter, is like the short, short story. Flash fiction. Or, news alert, the short messaging. Emergency announcement, morse code, the old Western Union telegram. Short storytelling. Six word memoirs.
I think they're like apple to oranges. And make the still-life complete, compliment one another--very nicely!
I agree with the author entirely. Facebook and twitter have different entities, meant for different purposes. Why can’t we have the best of both worlds? I personally connect with most friends on FB, but twitter is part of my everyday life. It is the best way to keep in touch with other non virtual elements, albeit in a virtual way!
I find I don't go on Facebook anymore because I already saw all the news on Twitter.
Twitter is like CB radio.
"Twitter has won that race already." But they're still not generating revenue, right? IT's all VC. It's won the race for an ecosystem of users, but isn't making its own profits on top... yet.
I'd say it's still racing. Far ahead of facebook in its simplicity and openness (it's public, and has a fantastic API and a whole host of complimentors) but it's still running.
Posted by: https://creativecommons.net/zach/
|
April 29, 2009 7:01 AM
I totally agree! I know many people who complained about the new live streaming of facebook. While I do find it somehow enjoyable, I don't really use it the same way as I use my tweets. Twitter is more about exchanging news as you have said, while facebook is more to me about being connected to my family and friends.
I still use google for search, and windows for running my pc! Most of those services can survive in their own way, no one need to panic!
I think that it is OK for FB to improve their services status stream and even make it appear via the UI to be a core feature. What they have done is logical. Their is a truth to social patterns and that is the - short messages are IN!
So, with people preferring to communicate with short bursts via status updates or a quick comment with a link... why should Facebook not focus on this area?
Now I don't think that FB and Twitter are comparable when you look at each as a whole entity. At least not today. But let's remember that twitter being so simple... it is a feature. a feature that has evolved into being a new communication utility on par with Instant Messaging and Email. Twitter was arguably the first or one of the first projects to focus on public micro-messaging.
And they have come out on top by first maintaining the loyal early adopter crowd and gradually over a few years entering the mainstream with the help of some well known people becoming users and especially news programs on TV utilizing it for a dead simple way to get audience interaction applied to their shows.
Every social network should provide micro-messaging as a feature. The should also interface with twitter (in and out).
I do agree that Facebook should not get overly concerned with twitter success. They really don't have anything to worry about today regarding twitter. It is what it is. And their is room to have more than one popular app out there without one suffering. So they should, as you say, pay attention to friend connections and on the business end... how to monetize without destroying the environment that have created for millions of internet users.
Facebook should be more concerned with avoiding becoming stale, complicated, spammy and generally annoying to users.
They should keep an eye on security and their developer network (which can hurt them just as much as help them).
Some of it you just cannot control... eventually, people will tire of all the stupid facebook apps and quizzes and the whole "school-like" atmosphere that seems to sprout.
And in 2-5 years, Google may have the experience that people naturally prefer for keeping in touch with friends and everything else that comes with social networking and social media.
I think Google could have been what facebook is today by properly leveraging Gmail and a select few other applications that they have either built or bought. It was a lost opportunity and one that only could have enhanced their data wealth and advertising business. But their is still time and opportunity. Even if that means them buying Facebook when they show signs of struggle.
As for Twitter, I always knew they were going to make it even when they had deep technical troubles and bad press etc. I also predicted that Amazon would end up buying them.
I'm going to stand by that prediction if anyone ends up buying twitter. Amazon/Bezos is already involved with twitter. Normally I'd say that Amazon would be more interested in being an investor and getting a ROI but twitter is unique enough right now where it might make more sense to own it and cultivate business partnerships around the fast growing data pool that twitter has become. twitter is probably the next best data source for search and since they have great search tech (via summize++), they have obvious value in this area and have many options for monetizing this.
Facebook will continue to shape-shift as they always have. They watch intensely at what services/features/func are trending and then apply it to FB. They have an enormous amount of useful data but are obstructed by their own core privacy issues. They need to tread carefully. They may even be better suited if they launch a side project that more closely competes with twitter and then interop/integrate it into facebook.
@sull
Yes, I use facebook to share pictures and connect with friends while I use twitter to retrieve news from someone I don't know.
The different social media platforms are just that, different. As Twitter stands today, I cannot see it as a tool that is very easy to use to socialize as is Facebook.I do see Twitter as another means to make connections and to network for business opportunities. Twitter's open format of followers, makes it difficult to say that truly personal relationships will ever exist with the majority of those people.
Facebook, however, does enable the user to develop and maintain more personal relationships. Through friends, it is possible to expand not only your personal network but to become engaged in groups and causes that are important to you or your business.
I do not think that we can rely on just one form of social media to meet our needs, we must be open to using multiple forms, just as we do in traditional forms of communication.
I'm with you on this. Facebook and Twitter are different services with different core businesses, with different user dynamics, and different missions. I dont see why there is all this "competition" (either real or spin) between the two. Facebook should focus on what Facebook does and let Twitter do what twitter is good at. I doubt I'll see the day when Twitter manages photos, events, and all the other stuff that Facebook does.
Twitter - Still The King Vs Facebook, Myspace
The “Place for Friends” is starting to feel lonely. MySpace, the Rupert Murdoch-owned website once synonymous with social networking, is losing popularity and key staff in its biggest troubles since launching five years ago.
Latest figures show that Murdoch is being beaten in the fight for social networks. MySpace suffered a drop in visitor traffic last month and is now less than half the size of its younger rival, Facebook
A good read:
http://www.techunits.com/blog/2009/04/29/twitter-still-the-king-vs-facebook-myspace.html
@Alex - I wrote a detailed post (see URL link) about the difference between public and private status culture that highlights the differences in relationship structure and how it affects the community that is very relevant to this conversation.
To your point, I don't think that Facebook need chase Twitter - people are happy to use both - one for personal (Facebook = I know you offline) and one for public status (Twitter = Public connections). Already apps like Tweetdeck are integrating functionality for the overlap, so it seems that Facebook still wins the status game (we need not chose one or the other). Twitter is for people who are comfortable venturing outside the protective walls of Facebook, and you're right; they are very different. Great post, great points.
I see nothing great with twitter at all. Facebook and Myspace still are the top two for me. To me twitter is just the status bar and people commenting on it. Neh, big deal! Facebook has nothing to worry about though. It has so much more to offer then twitter.
anyways, both are great tools for search engine optimization companies and it'll always depend on the professional way they manage it!
http://www.ilikesem.com/natural-search-engine-optimization.html
Whether FB should compete or not I'm not sure, but I prefer Twitter a lot more. I don't have much time to casually use the Internet so Twitter is great for me over Facebook.
I can make new contacts quickly, get news customised to my needs and gain brand recognition.
All 3 of these points, Facebook isn't as good at.
I never used Facebook much as it's more for existing friends to communicate, and I see them in real life enough!
Twitter - Still The King Vs Facebook, Myspace
http://www.techunits.com/blog/2009/04/29/twitter-still-the-king-vs-facebook-myspace.html
Dati friendster lahat... tapus naging Multiply.. then now, facebook... will this be the next? smart yata may hawak jan.. watch this youtube vid... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdbJXlcXYa0&feature=channel_page
So Twitter is awesome for Taking traffic to you website . It is very
simple to setup and its a fun positive way to keep in contact with
people. To get more followers on twitter check out this amazing
tool.Twitter
Traffic Machine
Mostly because twitter has a lot of fan praise and celebrity endorsements.
Facebook is like the old trend that people are getting tired of, also the reception of twitter was more fantastical while facebook didn't really get celebrity endorsements.
You don't see Oprah dedicating a show to it.
Actually it is a smart move. Since micro-blogging is the hottest thing right now, it makes sense for facebook to enhance their existing feed in this direction. Micro-blogging getting main-stream.
It should not be long before we start seeing clients which allow to post to both feeds (and probably more) simultaneously.
I just wonder how twitter plans to stay in business.
So Twitter is awesome for Taking traffic to you website . It is very
simple to setup and its a fun positive way to keep in contact with
people. To get more followers on twitter check out this amazing
tool.Twitter
Traffic Machine
Yes, I use facebook to share pictures and connect with friends while I use twitter to retrieve news from someone I don't know.
I am in total agreement. Facebook is trying to be something it's not, which in turn is alienating a lot of people. I respect the need for innovation, but Facebook should not be afraid of Twitter - they each serve seperate, distinct purposes. I just wish Facebook would realize/accept this fact. I liked what Debbie H. said: Facebook is the novel, while Twitter is the "six word memoirs".
I found this FREE event and thought it would be interesting. So thought of sharing -
TweetUp with Twitter VP Ops, Santosh Jayaram and LinkedIn Co-founder, Allen Blue on Wednesday May 6 @ 6PM in Santa Clara.
Hosted by TiEcon 2009
Details: http://tiecontweetup.eventbrite.com/
I found this FREE event and thought it would be interesting. So thought of sharing -
TweetUp with Twitter VP Ops, Santosh Jayaram and LinkedIn Co-founder, Allen Blue on Wednesday May 6 @ 6PM in Santa Clara.
Hosted by TiEcon 2009
Details: http://tiecontweetup.eventbrite.com/
Twitter and Facebook both could and should be friends. The biggest difference between the two right now is that Facebook is used for stalking your friends while Twitter is used for stalking celebrities.
I provide a brief breakdown of Twitter at this site:
www.zrdavis.com
I think facebook is so different from Twitter that there is nothing to be envious of. I prefer facebook but thats just me.
1 2 Next