4 ms·

Twitter may be better than Facebook for businesses

6 points by CalmQuiet 18y ago

jacquesm 18y ago
From the introduction: "If you were to ask “over 200 social media leaders” which social media site they would pay for if they had to, as Abrams Research recently did". But they don't and they won't because both services are free. If you had to pay for air, which is currently free, you probably would, but since it is free you don't have to, and despite the fact that this would make air a better business than say rock it really doesn't matter.
- CalmQuiet 18y ago
  But using FB or Tw for company purposes is not free... there are significant costs in terms of company time. Companies are aware of that: witness those that essentially ban (most) employees from surfing there. Since to use either effectively requires dedication of staff time, whether they would pay should correlat with how willing they will be to using their or a staff member's time. ...and thus relevant to how much we expect to see businesses getting dependent on either site. Zuck has recently said that he invisions FB as "how people will communicate" in future. This article just argues that he needs to keep Twitter's business plan on his radar.
- herval 18y ago
  that's a weird analogy... You'd have to pay for air because it's NECESSARY for you to live. Does any business NEED Twitter or Facebook to stay alive? Also, there are many services which offer free and paid services. In that sense, no one should ever pay because there's a free version available...? Bottomline: of course it matters. Although there's a really huge gap between 'saying you would pay for' something and actually commiting to that...
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    yes, there is the necessity angle, that's true. But still, I think it holds for the most part, if you ask people if they would pay for a free service then that's absolutely content-free. Something like facebook or twitter needs to be free in order to succeed, just like air needs to be free for you to live. Asking if someone would pay for air, facebook or twitter is a meaningless question, if you need it and you can only get it by paying for it then that's what you'll do, but in the case of facebook or twitter a free alternative would spring up overnight and run with your userbase.
    - herval 18y ago
      Facebook/twitter need to be free for COMMON users (the majority of them) - specific users with specific needs could (actually SHOULD - that's what most startups hope, at least) pay, for those are the ones PROFITING from a given service...
  - josefresco 18y ago
    I can think of quite a few people, mostly women who probably think they need Facebook to stay alive.
tokenadult 18y ago
And what do "social media leaders" know about running a profitable business?

6 points by CalmQuiet 18y ago

From the introduction: "If you were to ask “over 200 social media leaders” which social media site they would pay for if they had to, as Abrams Research recently did". But they don't and they won't because both services are free. If you had to pay for air, which is currently free, you probably would, but since it is free you don't have to, and despite the fact that this would make air a better business than say rock it really doesn't matter.

CalmQuiet 18y ago
But using FB or Tw for company purposes is not free... there are significant costs in terms of company time. Companies are aware of that: witness those that essentially ban (most) employees from surfing there. Since to use either effectively requires dedication of staff time, whether they would pay should correlat with how willing they will be to using their or a staff member's time. ...and thus relevant to how much we expect to see businesses getting dependent on either site. Zuck has recently said that he invisions FB as "how people will communicate" in future. This article just argues that he needs to keep Twitter's business plan on his radar.
herval 18y ago
that's a weird analogy... You'd have to pay for air because it's NECESSARY for you to live. Does any business NEED Twitter or Facebook to stay alive? Also, there are many services which offer free and paid services. In that sense, no one should ever pay because there's a free version available...? Bottomline: of course it matters. Although there's a really huge gap between 'saying you would pay for' something and actually commiting to that...
- jacquesm 18y ago
  yes, there is the necessity angle, that's true. But still, I think it holds for the most part, if you ask people if they would pay for a free service then that's absolutely content-free. Something like facebook or twitter needs to be free in order to succeed, just like air needs to be free for you to live. Asking if someone would pay for air, facebook or twitter is a meaningless question, if you need it and you can only get it by paying for it then that's what you'll do, but in the case of facebook or twitter a free alternative would spring up overnight and run with your userbase.
  - herval 18y ago
    Facebook/twitter need to be free for COMMON users (the majority of them) - specific users with specific needs could (actually SHOULD - that's what most startups hope, at least) pay, for those are the ones PROFITING from a given service...
- josefresco 18y ago
  I can think of quite a few people, mostly women who probably think they need Facebook to stay alive.

tokenadult 18y ago

And what do "social media leaders" know about running a profitable business?