If I Were Twitter’s Agent: Assessing the Social Media Tool’s Rise and What Would Make it Flop - Jory Des Jardins - MediaBizBlogger - Jory Des Jardins - Jory Des Jardins - MediaBizBlogger

Published: April 10, 2009 at 08:22 PM GMT
Last Updated: August 19, 2009 at 08:22 PM GMT

For months I've been pondering a column on Twitter, but I wasn't sure what to say about the uber-popular microblogging service other than that it has enjoyed a digital ascension to superstar status faster than the Jonas Brothers. But like anything that becomes popular in this way, without a prolonged climb to the top, or an after-the-fact appreciation common with "sleeper hits", Twitter will likely have to contend with an identity crisis when the bloom is off the rose, other services jump into the fray, and its investors (or buyers) start to demand a business model.

As someone who loves to read TMZ and TechCrunch, I can't help but see parallels between start-ups and starlets. Interestingly, Hollywood provides some interesting comparisons and maybe even some lessons for Twitter as it matures.

Indie beginnings: Those who Tweeted each other two years ago at SXSW Interactive—the annual digital industry event where Twitter had its first promotional push beyond the super-inner-geek-circle -- have bragging rights similar to those who can boast they saw Jake Gyllenhaal play Hamlet in the high school play. (Sure, he might have been quirky, but you knew he was going somewhere.) It didn't hurt that Twitter had successful Web venture vets Evan Williams and Biz Stone at the helm, but considering the number of hot Web 2.0 companies being touted at the time that eventually folded, one couldn't be absolutely certain that another service that required people's already divided attention would thrive to the point of being habit-forming. I mean, if you had seen The Outsiders back in 1983, would you have been able to predict which of those guys would go Supernova and which would star on a VH-1 Celebreality show? If you could, maybe you should ask Henry Blodget for a staff job.

Stints in rehab: Twitter has had its service issues over the last two years--downed servers and lag time during busy periods. Its early adopter user base may have complained, but they also knew that was the price of using a new product. But the pressure of expectations is mounting, and eventually users won't tolerate anything less than a Google-like service level...particularly if they're paying for it!Lindsay Lohan could only show up late to so many film sets. Let's hope Twitter can be like George Clooney -- more grounded, capable, and impactful as he became more successful.

And let's hope that Twitter will be the Denzel Washington of Web giants--able to bring in audiences without needing to live in the limelight. The public bore witness to Yahoo's dalliances with potential M&A partners, and the breakups; at this point I’m as confident they will merge with Microsoft as I am of Kate Hudson and Owen Wilson staying together. We've seen Facebook involved in embarrassing incidents and have to publicly apologize. Have too many of those and you lose some leverage permanently. As talented and repentant as Mel Gibson may be, many still see the guy in the mug shot.

Casting against type: This comparison refers to the practitioners of Twitter, many of whom might have had only the best intentions of expanding industry best practices, just as I'm sure Keanu Reeves felt he was developing himself when he took on a British accent in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Some out-of-character stretches work--witness Tom Cruise's manic turn as a film producer in Tropic Thunder, or Holly Hunter's move to television--but without authenticity the effort flops.

Take character microblogging, a cousin of its predecessor, character blogging, which involves creating Twitter accounts for fictional people in an effort to generate a community of followers behind a brand. But if that brand hasn't yet engaged that community, it can't work. Getting followed by Glenn Close's Damages character Patty Hewes was disconcerting; it’s not dear Glenn who is actually Tweeting, but rather someone I don’t know, blogging as someone else. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, who blogs, and who actually READS other people and WRITES her own tweets? That's rad.

Acting, directing, cutting an album, and starting a signature perfume line: In our incessant attempts at justifying Twitter as the Ginsu of platforms (…it can distribute corporate messaging in seconds and encapsulate a CRM strategy ... for FREE! But that's not all!) we try to twist it into what it’s not—the genesis of a marketing strategy. Ask yourself, the next time you turn to Twitter to solve your marketing issues: Should Paris Hilton act, or Scarlett Johansson sing? Twitter can help promote campaigns, but, many will agree, it should not be the campaign. Twitter doesn’t allow for context; it’s a tap on the shoulder, not an explanation of why you should buy something.

And, when considering some of the new Twitter offshoots that are being built, ask yourself, do I NEED this tool? What value is being added? Do we need one more aggregator? One more keyword-driven search tool? Everyone is jumping on the Twitter bandwagon, but are these attempts wasted cameos—there for show, but no real purpose? Lauren Conrad hopes we think we need another celebrity fashion line, but when our time and money really get squeezed, we realize we don’t.

Jumping the Shark, and the Comeback: New business models are circulating, but the jury is still out on their: 1) effectiveness, and 2) appropriateness. It's possible that the models that emerge will compromise Twitter beyond repair.

Uberblogger Robert Scoble tested the waters by including an Amazon link into one of his Tweets for the Amazon Kindle. Trendwatcher Louis Gray reported that Daring Fireball blogger John Gruber "made nearly $6,000 in just over a week by encouraging his blog visitors to buy Mac OS X 10.5 from his affiliate link instead of directly from Apple." These experiments at monetization are interesting now, but if replicated by the wrong people could Twitter become one big, content-depleted link farm?

Other sectors of the Twittersphere have not been selling product, per se, but influence. Disney recently compensated SavvyAuntie founder and microblogger Melanie Notkin for promoting a marketing initiative via her Twitter feed, something she likens to a Sponsored Conversation, an acceptable practice in the Blogosphere if disclosure and pay for one's work, not one's endorsement, are in play. But Twitter isn't set up for subtlety; with a 140-character maximum allotment disclosure and confusion-free messaging are difficult to achieve.

Meanwhile, some social media-savvy companies are getting into the action by launching corporate-sponsored Twitter landing pages, or even off-Twitter feed aggregators. But are landing pages and extra sites to visit where it's really at for Twitter's users? Chopping the Twitter chicken a thousand different ways is potentially useful, but it remains to be seen if it can actually be done profitably, effectively, and without community resistance.

It seems clear that users accept an ad-supported model in most instances, so why isn't Twitter just going down that path? Are they being so innovative that they risk implosion?

Mickey Rourke re-invented himself by losing it all and then re-establishing his talent from the base point of who he was, a beat-up man seeking redemption--identical to his Academy Award-nominated character in The Wrestler. I don’t recommend Twitter commercialize itself to the point of ruin in order to achieve a similar redemption, but I do suggest that it re-establish its grassroots foundation before it has to, and remember what made it successful.

As co-founder and President of Strategic Alliances for BlogHer, Jory Des Jardins is an innovator in online advertising, women's media and Internet entrepreneurship. Jory can be contacted at jory@blogher.com.
Read all Jory’s MediaBizBlogger commentaries at Jory Des Jardin - MediaBizBlogger.

To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to JackMyers Connection Hotline.

Jory,

Although I got a laugh when Patty Hewes started following me -- within 25-minutes of tweeting about the upcoming second season of "Damages" -- as someone who enjoys a particular show I'd rather not pretend to be engaging or listening to characters who aren't actually being "voiced" by one of the writers or actors on the show. Character microblogging can feel like an unwelcome breach of the fourth wall. If anything, it potentially detracts from the brand. Last summer, I tweeted about "Mad Men" and characters started following me. Those characters are alive and well in 1962, marveling at the purchase of an electric typewriter and copy machine. Why are they tweeting about their day? For me, anachronisms can spoil the fun of historical films and shows.

The great thing about Twitter is that as individuals and brands, everyone is still experimenting with what works, and what doesn't, character microblogging included.

As you noted about Jane Fonda and celebrities, authenticity matters. Stephen Fry has become very popular because people know he actually tweets, which underscores one other point: if you're goal is to become a celebrity or a big brand on Twitter, it helps if you're already a celebrity or big brand period.

I agree with you that Twitter so far seems to work best as "a tap on the shoulder."

Posted at 07:31 AM on Apr 10, 2009 by LarryG

Interesting. Although I don't use Twitter, I know what it does. Since the interaction frequency is high, the startup cost each time I use it would be amplified. If it was anything less than totally clean and pain-free to use, I wouldn't use it.

A few things, though... it's easy to lose context, especially since people tend to only move in their own circles these days. Though they may have heard of it, most people don't know what Twitter is, and even fewer know what RSS is. Even when they know what it is, they don't know how to use it. Even fewer know who Robert Scoble is. He might be an "uberblogger", but he's still very "niche" and gets virtually no mainstream mention at all.

Though I'm probably not the type of person that Twitter would court because I think it's a pointless technology that provides information I could and would never rely on, I would rather pay a monthly fee to use it than have to deal with any kind of obfuscation from marketing messages whatsoever.

Posted at 07:38 AM on Apr 14, 2009 by mattbg

Jory, I'm still dealing with the question of "To tweet, or not to tweet?" So I appreciate your intelligent analysis of what Twitter can and cannot do. I'm not one of those persons at the forefront of technology (tho I am way ahead of most of the general public). I'm simply ambivalent about adding one more social media stream to attend to and maintain.

Posted at 08:07 AM on Apr 28, 2009 by Deb Call