Comments RSS 
Does the Media Get Twitter?
April 19th, 2009
·
by Warren Whitlock · Filed Under: New Media Marketing · Social Media · Twitter
Christian Science Monitor is one of the many news pieces quoting “authorities” on what Twitter means to the business now that @Oprah has “blessed it”.
People are under the impression that they are talking to the world when trying to market themselves on social networking sites, she says. “But they are only talking to a small niche,” she says.Twitter does have a lot of users. In fact, it saw a 131 percent rise in unique users in March alone, according to Internet research company comScore Inc. Capturing the bulk of those users, however, can be a challenge. Oprah and Mr. Kutcher can do it. But few have their brand power.
“The thing they have that everybody wants is eyeballs, but how do you monitize eyeballs?” says Ms. Quint, “Google has found a way to do it.”’
But can Twitter?
It’s NOT about eyeballs Ms Quint.. Twitter lets us connect to each other and bypass you and the media.
[...] Twitter Handbook put an intriguing blog post on Does the Media Get Twitter?Here’s a quick excerptChristian Science Monito r is one of the many news pieces quoting “authorities” on what Twitter means to the business now that @Oprah has “blessed it”. People are under the impression that they are talking to the world when trying to market themselves on social networking sites, she says. “But they are only talking to a small niche,” she says. Twitter does have a lot of users. In fact, it saw a 131 percent rise in unique users in March alone, according to Internet research company comScore [...]
[...] Twitter arrives” highlighted. I definitely agree the celebrity focus on Twitter can be silly as well as misguided at times, but overall I think it can be beneficial for more people to become familiar with these [...]
The article uses the wrong phrase for activity on sites such as Twitter. It says “talking to”.
For the purposes of comparing big media vs. social media (in this case, Twitter), they should most have used the phrases ‘talking at’ and ‘talking with’. Big media and Old Marketing are still way more interested in ‘talking at’. They still want to gather the largest number of ears and eyeballs that they can and put their message in front of them. This is not really the strength of social media, which is the ability to ‘talk WITH’. Since they haven’t yet embraced the concept of ‘talking with’, the appeal to this kind of medium is lost on them.
For those who realize the benefits of ‘talking with’ folks, the appeal and strengths are very obvious.
I prefer to think that when I talk with anyone I am talking with one person at a time individually – of course there may be a number of people following me on twitter or a large number of people who might see what I have written on facebook or who will eventually read what it is that I have written – but these people are neither masses or niches- they are always individuals who may or may not be touched in some way by what I have written or by any of the images that I have posted – an if this is the case I welcome hearing what they have to say back to me or what they wish to express about such an experience!
oh – and I am sorry that my web address got cut short so that it did not function properly in the post above –
Walter
What everyone fails to see in Twitter is that it requires a “real” marketing strategy to monetize this medium. You can’t fake it. Even Oprah and Ashton have not leveraged Twitter for it’s unique market ability. They don’t get it. Of course, they have an endless amount of followers, but they don’t engage anyone which really makes this no more beneficial to them then a stunt that will die. I really liken Twitter to being at a Nudist resort where it is mandatory to be naked in the pool. Everyone is really equal and exposed for all to see what truly lies inside of each one of us!