The tech set quite completely sliced and diced the "new" Twitter concluding that it "gets better the more you use it." But something's still gnawing at me no matter how pretty the Twitter song sounds or how beautifully the "new" Twitter intro video flits.
While I certainly can see how heavy duty users would benefit from the redesign, I ask; "what about "Judy Consumer" - does she need a "new" Twitter when so few Judy Consumers used the "old" Twitter in the first place?" Clearly Twitter believes by designing Twitter to be more usable, it will become a hub (of some sort) and therefore the monetization Gods will smile kindly upon them. The highly touted Twitter figure of "145 million users" suggests that they have a critical mass adoption which can be best leveraged with a "new" Twitter.
Sounds nice until you poke at it a bit. 145 million anything is a lot and in this case it represents, according to Twitter, "145 million users", but no one really knows how many real people actually use Twitter (many people have multiple accounts). Nor can one ignore the high abandon rates/ low activity rates among 80%+ of the Twitter population. Anecdotally, just a few days ago, it was "reported" that Justin Bieber alone accounted for 3% of all Twitter traffic (Twitter neither confirmed nor denied this report). So many tweets concentrated in so few Twitterers. Not exactly a groundswell now is it? It does not take much to realize that Judy Consumer's usage of Twitter is flighty at best.
Now let's poke at the "hub" idea which many experts believed was the point of this redesign. Twitter's Evan Williams, surprisingly defensive words suggested Twitter might become an information hub: "You don't need to tweet. Twitter can be great just as a way to get information." Hmm - well - that takes a leap of imagination since the firehouse nature of Twitter actually makes getting trusted information very difficult - redesign notwithstanding. Or maybe, as others speculated, Twitter means to take on FB or YouTube - maybe even both.
And that's the heart of the matter. Twitter is caught in its own tender trap of the now famously "no business plan" approach which, I believe, leaves them unable to innovate to carve their own way. Instead they seem caught up trying to monetize their traffic via conventional "copycat" ad/ hub venues. Or, they continually improve the Twitter experience mainly for their glitterati without giving Judy Consumer a clear understanding of how Twitter can be really useful today -- much less as a hub tomorrow.
No doubt Twitter strategists and fans will remind me that Twitter really aspires to be the "fabric" that drapes over the Internet providing identity and connectivity for Judy Consumer. As interesting as that sounds it seems as useful as knowing that gravity is not evenly distributed across the universe. And I care exactly why? I lack the imagination to understand how this fabric draping over my little corner of the Internet works without suffocating me. Some specificity would help. Some details please.
IMHO it seems that in the past year, Twitter has not strategically matured much in defining how Twitter really works for business despite lots of advice from lots of consultants on how to use Twitter (it would seem that it should be unnecessary for there to be so much Twitter-for-business "how to" lists). Nor, has Twitter answered the all-important; "why does Twitter really matter to Judy Consumer at all?" question. Lots of consultants have stepped in to try and fill in the functional gaps Last September, I openly pondered these questions in a post; Twitter's growing pains for 2010) where I wondered out loud when would Twitter grow up.
"Here's a thought for you Twitter folks to help you on your journey of maturation. When you wake up tomorrow pretend that you have no idea how you are going to make payroll next week. Or, forget that you have oodles of someone else's cash in the bank and try to figure out how to convince your first 1,000 prospects to buy from you. You'd be amazed at quickly you grow up in the process."
Alas, as their name suggests, perhaps they are best at flitting about without being able to land solidly for more than a few moments. Or maybe they are flying so high I am blinded by the light and can not see their grand plan. I dunno but I am getting a bit tired of continually squinting to try and see clearly.
Judy Shapiro