Those of you who use Twitter are no doubt already fed up by the recent spate of coverage which paints the micro-blogging service as a complete waste of time or something that we use only to service our narcissism or prove that we are alive. Those of you that don’t use Twitter probably don’t do so partly because of such coverage, as well as a desire not to be seen as a narcissistic eejit who can only validate their existence through the exchange of brief messages on a web site with other equally narcissistic strangers.
So it’s nice to see a balanced article in today’s Financial Times, pg 10 if you have the hard copy or online here, which gives a decent overview of the mechanics of the site, a brief examination as to why it is so popular and its future prospects. All without one reference to it potentially rotting our brains or how dull it is that celebrities are on there, over-sharing.
The only element of the article which I find slightly confusing is where it states that Silicon Valley financiers ‘sense that this could be the next big thing’ which is why they are so keen to invest. That seems like a statement from six months ago. Most people seem to accept now that Twitter is mainstream, its UK audience has trebled in 2009 already, entering into the top 100 most visited UK sites in early February for the first time.
The article does address the issue that seems no closer to creating a revenue generating model, quoting Todd Chaffee, a USA based VC, who feels that if Twitter can find a mass audience then there will be lots of revenue generating opportunities, though what they are exactly is omitted. Comparisons are also made to YouTube and Skype, the poster children of the ‘build it and they will come’ strategy, which as yet seems to result in not actually making much money. A concern that this pieces skips over.
All in all though it is worthwhile read and worth flagging to any Twitter-sceptics friends and colleagues you may have.
Twitter