5 ms·
A company like the BBC can post content to their own website completely under their own control. They can build their own platform that completely controls comm
by supportlocal4h 4y ago
A company like the BBC can post content to their own website completely under their own control. They can build their own platform that completely controls commenting. They can pay a large staff to build and maintain that platform exactly as they see fit. So why do they need Twitter?
Seriously, what is the value of Twitter for them? It isn't the same as for the masses who need somebody else to build and maintain all that infrastructure. For entities capable of running their own networks, Twitter and TikTok and all the other "social media" serve a different function. Indeed, when you are not only capable of running your own datacenters but actually do run them and operate your own media network, but still include Instagram as a core component of your business strategy, it is because it provides a value you aren't realizing from everything within your own datacenter.
- nirimda 4y agoI'm not sure I understand the way your post relates to mine. Are you genuinely asking why BBC needs Twitter and Instagram? The last sentence makes it sound like you have your own hypothesis but you're withholding it. In any case, I disclaim any notion that "need" is a relevant verb here. They want to be on these platforms, and their readers want to be on these platforms, and there's no doubt some interrelation between their desire and their readers' desire. I don't think any organisation is ever fully rational, even an organisation the size of the BBC. On the other hand, I think the journalists themselves provide a lot of pressure for themselves to be on these platforms. Ultimately they're where it seems to make sense to be. It would harder to not be where the eyeballs are, than it is to be there. It's like the old saying - no one was ever fired for choosing IBM.