4 ms·
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 exaggera
by 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 agoThere'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 agoBy 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 agoNo 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.