To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question
I had a recent discussion with a non-twitter-addicted friend recently over how best to get news alerts out onto “mobile devices” (i.e.: text messaging). He advocated using a particular vendor to send out SMS text messages (for a small fee) and thought Twitter was “just a fad” (oh now where have I heard that before). I, of course, advocated Twitter.
Functionally both services operate essentially the same. Both can be updated either manually or via an RSS feed. Both, well, send out text messages. And that’s where the similarities end….
The vendor supports 160 characters vs Twitter’s 140. This is important because that’s 20 extra characters to put in sponsorship info into. You know …this message sponsored by Foo Inc. Yes, we still have to make money here. Of course the vendor also charges $.05 per user while Twitter is free (this is, I assume, in addition to some initial setup fee).
But Twitter is more than just text messaging. Twitter can be accessed via the web, by desktop applications and even embedded in web sites. It can even offer the prospect of two-way communication with @replies and direct messages.
Because this particular vendor is operating in a text-message-only model their value becomes limited here. Since only text message are assumed — and there’s that per user fee — the idea would be to not send out updates as they happen, but rather two or three summary message per day tops. With Twitter you can (and should) send out a continuous stream of updates as they happen without worrying about extra charges. That’s called “breaking news”.
And here’s something else: hyperlinks make little sense in a pure text message model. With Twitter linking off to pages with more detail is almost assumed. By including links to larger stories Twitter can drive traffic while this vendor, locked in their text message model, not so much.
I don’t think my esteemed friend was sold… and it’s unfortunate. I think the vendor — whom he’s used before — was in his comfort zone and he wasn’t up to breaking out and trying something new. He felt more comfortable with the perceived value of paying for something regardless of it’s real value than using free a web service that offered an ROI that was far, far higher.
I’m reminded of a quote I recently saw online.
Nathan L. Walls:
Our industry is in such a blind rush to monetize everything that it seems we always have our hands out for spare change or a “powered by” notice. It’s a bit unseemly.
I’d be _more_ open to having a twittered “special deal” once every great while for a sponsor (identified as such) rather than always trying to shove someone’s brand down reader’s throats.
Besides, isn’t the building of traffic to go see other ads^H^H^Hcontent enough reason?
23 May 2008, 10:46 amPat Thornton:
I can’t imagine paying for an inferior version of something that is free. Twitter is a great way to get into the mobile landscape, and it’s free for everyone involved.
Plus, Twitter is really easy to update from a mobile device. But as you said, he was probably in his comfort zone. That’s an issue that a lot of organizations face, because many managers would rather be comfortable than innovative.
Another huge issue is ROI. This is something that every news organization has to be concerned with. The ROI with Twitter is going to much higher than a service that costs $.05 per user — a service that has no Web or desktop integration.
Personally, I’d have every beat reporter blog (this would be their main form of reporting) combined with usage of Twitter. Both blogging (with RSS in a great mobile reader like Google Reader) and Twitter work incredibly well on mobile devices. And they work well on computers. And the content can be the basis for solid print content.
Unfortunately, this idea will probably not happen anytime soon at most publications.
23 May 2008, 10:50 am