3 ms·

The Twitter hype has really gotten ridiculous since Friday's Oprah. The bottom line is this: I don't know how big Twitter will eventually get but the initial r

The Twitter hype has really gotten ridiculous since Friday's Oprah. The bottom line is this: I don't know how big Twitter will eventually get but the initial rush of people checking it out doesn't prove anything. Statistics show most people will look once and then leave. Put another way, Oprah has an average of 8 million viewers yet 3 days after the broadcast her Twitter follower total is a little under 400k. What's that tell you?

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
simonw 18y ago
That after just three days nearly one in twenty of her viewers are following her on Twitter? That's a pretty astonishing number.
- inerte 18y ago
  And if she likes the service (read: helps her career (nothing wrong with that)), she'll keep talking about, and bring more users.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  By what standard is that astonishing? Or here's another question: If that's such an astonishing number why did the Techcrunch article feel the need to exaggerate it? For God sakes it's a free service. 1 in 20 takers when there is 0 barriers to entry isn't astonishing. Maybe, MAYBE if 1 in 20 became active users that would be impressive but I doubt even that will happen.
  - simonw 18y ago
    There's a huge barrier to entry. First, you need to be paying attention during that particular part of the show. Second, you need a computer and an internet connection. Third, you need to have it nearby when you're watching Oprah - you're not going to remember to do it otherwise. Then you need to figure out what to do. Then you need to go through the signup process. Finally, having signed up you need to find Oprah again (not so easy if you don't understand URLs very well, like most people who use the internet) and click "follow". 1/20 is astonishing.
    - TomOfTTB 18y ago
      By your calculation it's amazing anyone gets anything done. I mean, somehow Oprah's books sell millions of copies on Amazon. Is amazon easier to use than Twitter? I don't think so. Let me ask you this. What proof do you have that any of her followers weren't the people who were already on Twitter? Shaq has 700k+, Ashton has a million. Isn't it possible Oprah's 400k came out of those people? It's possible Twitter didn't gain any users over the weekend (unlikely but possible)
      - simonw 18y ago
        No proof at all. I was just trying to point out that your initial suggestion that picking up 400,000 followers in three days didn't deserve "hype" was unfounded.
ivankirigin 18y ago
"Statistics show most people will look once and then leave." What stats?
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Are you kidding? Look at any website that gets massive exposure and you'll find that most of the people don't stick around. How could someone with a startup (based around Twitter, thank you mr. unbiased) not know that? And before you ask for proof let me ask you one question? When you raised a lot of money for your startup notice how your traffic jumped up based on the coverage. Then notice how those people weren't there the next month. So either your startup sucks (which I don't think is true) or your own experience verifies my statement
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    Experience and anecdotes and intuition aren't statistics.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Verified and audited statistics show that you misused the term to the detriment of your comment. I wouldn't be surprised if these new users churn more than organic traffic. I also wouldn't be surprised if those 8M viewers find the connection to @Oprah more authentic and endjoyable than watching the show, and stay longer than users through organic growth. I suppose I'm using the term organic badly, because Twitter has shown sustained explosive growth, which means organic might actually be the transition to mainstream we're seeing now. If Oprah setup a SMS shortcode, which, when pinged sent a twiter SMS invite, I'd bet she could have gotten 2M signups when the show aired. I think one point you're missing is that huge established media players are pushing Twitter's growth. Considering they are already huge and good at it, there is little reason to think they won't push Twitter mainstream all by themselves.
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Also, it isn't fair to say bias has anything to do with a 2 word comment

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

simonw 18y ago

That after just three days nearly one in twenty of her viewers are following her on Twitter? That's a pretty astonishing number.

inerte 18y ago
And if she likes the service (read: helps her career (nothing wrong with that)), she'll keep talking about, and bring more users.
TomOfTTB 18y ago
By what standard is that astonishing? Or here's another question: If that's such an astonishing number why did the Techcrunch article feel the need to exaggerate it? For God sakes it's a free service. 1 in 20 takers when there is 0 barriers to entry isn't astonishing. Maybe, MAYBE if 1 in 20 became active users that would be impressive but I doubt even that will happen.
- simonw 18y ago
  There's a huge barrier to entry. First, you need to be paying attention during that particular part of the show. Second, you need a computer and an internet connection. Third, you need to have it nearby when you're watching Oprah - you're not going to remember to do it otherwise. Then you need to figure out what to do. Then you need to go through the signup process. Finally, having signed up you need to find Oprah again (not so easy if you don't understand URLs very well, like most people who use the internet) and click "follow". 1/20 is astonishing.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    By your calculation it's amazing anyone gets anything done. I mean, somehow Oprah's books sell millions of copies on Amazon. Is amazon easier to use than Twitter? I don't think so. Let me ask you this. What proof do you have that any of her followers weren't the people who were already on Twitter? Shaq has 700k+, Ashton has a million. Isn't it possible Oprah's 400k came out of those people? It's possible Twitter didn't gain any users over the weekend (unlikely but possible)
    - simonw 18y ago
      No proof at all. I was just trying to point out that your initial suggestion that picking up 400,000 followers in three days didn't deserve "hype" was unfounded.

ivankirigin 18y ago

"Statistics show most people will look once and then leave." What stats?

TomOfTTB 18y ago
Are you kidding? Look at any website that gets massive exposure and you'll find that most of the people don't stick around. How could someone with a startup (based around Twitter, thank you mr. unbiased) not know that? And before you ask for proof let me ask you one question? When you raised a lot of money for your startup notice how your traffic jumped up based on the coverage. Then notice how those people weren't there the next month. So either your startup sucks (which I don't think is true) or your own experience verifies my statement
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  Experience and anecdotes and intuition aren't statistics.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Verified and audited statistics show that you misused the term to the detriment of your comment. I wouldn't be surprised if these new users churn more than organic traffic. I also wouldn't be surprised if those 8M viewers find the connection to @Oprah more authentic and endjoyable than watching the show, and stay longer than users through organic growth. I suppose I'm using the term organic badly, because Twitter has shown sustained explosive growth, which means organic might actually be the transition to mainstream we're seeing now. If Oprah setup a SMS shortcode, which, when pinged sent a twiter SMS invite, I'd bet she could have gotten 2M signups when the show aired. I think one point you're missing is that huge established media players are pushing Twitter's growth. Considering they are already huge and good at it, there is little reason to think they won't push Twitter mainstream all by themselves.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Also, it isn't fair to say bias has anything to do with a 2 word comment