Of course Twitter isn’t mainstream and won’t be for some time

Apr 28th, 2008 | By Steven Hodson | Category: The Social Web

Twitter Kara Swisher must have been having a slow news and opinion day; it is Monday after all, so decided to liven things up a little bit by talking about the one thing that is guaranteed to get you on Techmeme for most of the day at least.

That one thing of course is Twitter. Whether you talk about how in the world is Twitter ever going to make any money to how close it is to hitting the mainstream users. As far as the monetization I still think the best explanation of how Twitter is going to make money has to come from Ontario Emperor where he states in a post titled Twitter DOES have a monetization strategy

Get more funding.

Back to the mainstream thing though and Kara’s explanation as to why she doesn’t think Twitter has become the mainstream hot item that it is in the tech blogosphere. For her it involved an impromptu survey conducted at a wedding she was attending

And I conducted a little experiment among the more than 100 folks gathered for the wedding, all of whom were quite intelligent, armed with all kinds of the latest devices (many, many people had iPhones, for example) and not sluggish about technology.

They were also made up of a wide range of ages and genders, from kids to seniors.

And so I asked a large group of people–about 30–and here is the grand total who knew what Twitter was: 0

Of course Robert Scoble jumped in shortly after to have some fun with his post where he suggests that just because Kara’s friends aren’t on Twitter doesn’t make it a mainstream ghost town that she gave the impression it was. Then during the afternoon Mathew Ingram climbed on the day’s meme suggesting that he isn’t at all surprised with the results from Kara’s informal poll as he has found the same thing.

However Mathew goes on to point out that this situation is no different than from days gone by when people gave you strange looks when you talked about ICQ (I remember those days quite well Mathew) but how that all changed when Microsoft brought Messenger to the table.

As ongoing as this discussion about Twitter is I think that Frederic over at The Last Podcast had the best post of the day when he asked quite simply - Who ever thought Twitter was mainstream? because like him I also wonder

But to me, the interesting phenomenon here is not if, when, or why Twitter will go mainstream, but why so many people are even surprised that Twitter is not a mainstream application.

As Frederic also points out that within the tech blogosphere this is such a common occurrence when it comes to new technology that is discovered and popularized by the early adopters. It’s like once discovered and made a hot property the early adopters expect that it should automatically take the mainstream by storm.

Well it doesn’t work that way because real people have lives and those lives aren’t centered around the newest and coolest technology toys and this applies to Twitter just as it did with ICQ. Besides for Twitter’s sake one would hope that they get whatever monetization plan they have in place before the mainstream discovers it. After all you can only go back to the funding cow so many times before the milk dries up.

[tags]Twitter[/tags]

Similar Posts:

Don't want to miss a single WinExtra post?

Then make sure to grab our RSS feed right here and keep up to date with the cranky old fart of the Internet.


Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I don't think it's about individual apps going mainstream but more the concept of social media/social networking going mainstream. Using Facebook, YouTube and MySpace as examples, yes the sites have become amazingly popular but that is because they fulfil a function or because of the coolness factor as already said. Ask the average person who has an account if they use any social media/social networking services and you are likely to get a blank stare.

    Just saying social media etc. is the next big thing and must go mainstream doesn't work - there has to be a WHY factor. Why should I use this site? Why will it help? Why will it improve my life? It's the old WIIFM thing.

    The chances are that the current apps won't be the ones going mainstream but it will be next gen services that take off after piggy backing on the likes of Twitter etc. to gain popularity. It is the natural evolution of an organic industry. Eventually something has the right spin and just clicks with the masses.
    • ^
    • v
    I tend to agree with you Colin on the next gen social type networks being
    the ones to go mainstream.
    • ^
    • v
    If my boss and most of my friends every jump on Twitter I'll know it's time to leave and find something else. My boss signed up for Facebook last week which is a sure sign it's moved out of the cool sphere. I too remember when I'd ask people if they were in ICQ and IRC and they gave me a weird look. Going back even further, the same thing happened when Netscape hit the scene.
    • ^
    • v
    well I've given up on ICQ but I still do IRC ... even have a couple of
    channels for WinExtra on a friend's network
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for the kind words Steven!

    I think it would be interesting to spend some more time looking at how certain apps can go from early adopter to mainstream adoption - there must be some pattern there, but at the end of the day, I guess any app that wants to be mainstream has to first solve a mainstream problem. FriendFeed, for example, solves a problem only for the hyper-connected - and I'm not quite sure if Twitter even solves a problem for anybody. Anyway - food for thought (or another blog post)...
    • ^
    • v
    Besides problem solving I think any app, widget or service also has to make
    it pass the cool factor and attract the negative mainstream press. The cool
    factor being things like it was once cool to have a MySpace page which then
    to a certain extent transitioned to it was cool the have a Facebook page. In
    some cases MySpace still rules in the real world but if it can hold off
    Facebook among the tweens and high schoolers remains to be seen.

    The other thing that has always been indicative of making it to the
    mainstream is the degree of negative press it gets. And if you think I'm
    full of shit take a second and look at it realistically. MySpace became *
    Mainsteam* on the heels of Dateline and 20/20 and Primetime stories of all
    the adultry, pedophilia and other related evil crimes. YouTube became *
    Mainsteam* on the heels of stories by Big Media about all the ways it was
    being used to brag about crimes that have been commited.

    Will Twitter or FriendFeed ever reach those levels .. I don't know but I
    doubt it.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not sure it's negative press that helps web companies rise to popularity... it's any press. The true indicator here is that the *mainstream* media only likes to talk about the evil, nasty, despicable side of human existence. To take that to the next step: they only report all the garbage because that's actually what most people want... the nasty and shocking. It's a viscous cycle of people badgering the press for reporting only the bad news but then yawning and losing interest when there is no dirt, no proverbial "link bait".

    Let's extend your theory beyond MySpace and YouTube... explain Google's meteoric rise to mainstream royalty? Where was the nasty press, the sick twisted underbelly of algorithmic web search? ;) It was simply talked about and talked about and talked about and talked about... it's a service that is very useful so it started to grow until everyone with internet access was using it (or else overtly avoiding it based on some curmudgeonly grudge or the like, but everyone's heard of it & most people use it)... How about Ebay? Amazon? Facebook? Craigslist? Pogo? I reckon the list goes on... but I'm struggling to think of any more...

    So while you make an arguable case for MySpace and YouTube (though I would be compelled to disagree about YouTube, I credit music video's more than crimes... crimes, to me, are a fairly new YT trend, no?) the theory stops working when you look at many more web companies that enjoy mainstream success. The fact is simply that Twitter is not nearly as useful to someone who does not sit on the internet all day every day like us web geeks... in other words, it is mainstream-proof. It's not the least bit shocking to "learn" that it's not a mainstream application... but as you and Frederic have both rightfully pointed out, what's actually a shocker is that some people feel that this information is actually "news".
    • ^
    • v
    I would suggest that none of the examples you provide can be considered to
    fit the model of a social network. The example you have given primarily
    Google, eBay, Amazon, Craiglist I would also suggest as well that two of
    them have benefitted greatly from the negtive press they have gotten. I
    would bet that every time we hear stories about stolen goods on eBay or some
    other such dastardly things their new visitor count goes up. As for
    Craigslist - which I've never used - I would also bet that new visistor
    counts go up after we all hear stories of how *all* of a person's worldly
    posessions - including his horse - was sold off by some other person who had
    placed the ad.

    The difference between Facebook, MySpace, Twitter et al is that they are
    social sites and are not *destination* sites providing a service as the
    one's you provide as an example.
    • ^
    • v
    phew... i've had a couple few different drafts of a reply comment whipped up... but the reality is: there is not room for healthy conversation on this one... "none of the examples you provide can be considered to fit the model of a social network" ... Facebook, Ebay, Cragslist, Pogo ?? None of these can be considered social networks? Wow. Being a social-network prohibits a site from being considered a *destination* site? Wow.

    Logic has left the building.

    I'll not be conversing in a world where 2+2=5. You can go ahead and "win". (...extra).
    • ^
    • v
    I don't win anything. I thought I had delineated the differences. I clearly
    stated Facebook and MySpace on the one side as social networks whereas
    Amazon, Google, eBay and Craigslist on the other side as being desitination
    / consumer sites. If I am wrong in assuming that Amazon or eBay or
    Craigslist isn't a social network please show me how they are - I'm not that
    much of an ass to assume that I could be wrong after all these are just my
    assumptions which if proven wrong can be re-evaluated and then I learn
    something new.
    • ^
    • v
    Ok. Here's where I got waylaid here... in your initial comment (to which I originally responded) you started off by saying:

    "Besides problem solving I think any app, widget or service also has to make it pass the cool factor and attract the negative mainstream press."

    So I opted to create an opposing view, hoping for a meaty discussion (I love me some discussion... I'm a conversationalist. You know as well as anybody that it might seem hard to avoiding sounding confrontational when arousing confabulation, but an argument is not what i had in mind.). I was unaware that being a "social network" was a prerequisite for your theory as that had failed to have been noted previously. Actually the opposite was flat out stated... "ANY app, widget, or service" ... So I brought up Facebook, CraigsList, Ebay, [All social ... not sure I could explain how so to someone not already convinced, but their social-ness is rather inconsequential to my broader point], Amazon, and Google. To which you did say "NONE of the examples ... fit the model of a social network". I was stunned by the reply as it clearly avoided the fact that these "app, widget, or service"-s reached mainstream popularity without a mainstream-press-hammering. (Ebay's introductions to the mainstream had more to do with laser pointers and pez dispensers than it did negative press about stolen goods appearing for sale. And being as you requested us to "take a second and look at it realistically" I was simply offering the suggestion that you do the same and possibly admit that, "Ok. MySpace has gotten a ton of pedophiles on it, and YouTube has a fair amount of crime tapes... but the web in general is not fodder for journalist's cross-hairs. And sites that enjoy major mainstream success might possibly deserve some credit on their own merits rather than just assuming that they are only popular because of a couple of contrived pieces run by CNN, (who, like all mainstream media, thrive on highlighting the worst of human existence in spite of the fact that it represents a sliver of a sliver of the whole)."

    So my second reply was intentionally snarky because I felt that my point was ignored and that we were simply hellbent on believing what we want to believe. Thus the "you win" statement.

    So I'd just as soon not orate the multitude of evidence supporting my claims of Ebay and CraigsList being social applications... because I believe that takes focus away from the original discussion I was hoping would ensue. But then again, that was under the impression that "ANY app, widget or service" was not intended to include only social networks. So I think it's probably best if I maintain my forfeiture.

    *Note to my friends: I don't want any emails, IMs, or phone calls about my super long blog comments anymore! So what... I'm long winded... I have a lot to say people! Leave me alone!! LOL :-D ... I'm pretty sure word for word the author of this post has me beaten on word count on this page...it's called engaging the web, hmmm kay? ;) (Steve... If I've overstayed my welcome, please say so. Again.. It's never my intent to make enemies... i just see things differently sometimes, that's all. I'm a real opinionated guy and i like to get into conversations, wether they are debates or just explorations of multiple points of view. Agreeing all the time is boring.)
    • ^
    • v
    This is better :)
    Okay I think I undstand where the misunderstanding came in and yes it was my
    fault that it did and you were quite right to call me on it - thank you.
    Additionally while I don't necessarily see how Amazon, eBay or Craigslist
    can be considered to be social networks - if we are using MySpace or
    Facebook as the example of what social networks are - I am more than willing
    to have my mind changed *if* a reasonable arguement can be given to why they
    are.

    It is my feeling that sites like Amazon, eBay and Craigslist made it to the
    mainstream which they did as shining examples of Web 1.0 success stories
    because they provided a direct service. Social networks in my opinion don't
    provide a direct service in the same way.

    As for the web in general being in the crosshairs of journalists I would
    have to say that it does indeed but only if there is a way for them to
    sensationlize what ever has caught their eye that day. and nothing
    sensationalizes better than reports of pedophiles on MySapce or hookers
    doing business on Craigslist or some videos of drug dealers or some kid
    getting the shit beat of of them being available on YouTube. So MSM being
    what is is pumps those up in order to sell more papers or get more viewers
    (and hence make more money from advertising). You don't see feel good
    stories ever causing the same reaction.

    I will admit that expressing the viewpoint that *only* negativism of a web
    service is a prequisite for going mainstream was over the top - to a point.
    I still stand by the fact that things like I have mentioned has *raised* the
    visiblity of said services to the person on the street and therefor bringing
    it *into* the mainstream quicker.

    As for overstaying your welcome - I don't think so. You are more than
    welcome to comment as many times and as lengthy as you like. This is the
    purpose of me doing this .. to engage in conversation about the things we
    use daily. I greatly appreciate your input even if at some point we agree to
    disagree as long as we do it in a thoughtful and friendly manner.

    Again thank you for your input.
    • ^
    • v
    I would not put forth any arguments for Amazon being social in any way (Note that I never did). but Ebay and CraigsList are very much social.

    We will start with Ebay... you have a "profile" which can be "rated" by other members (buyers can rate sellers, other members can communicate with the member base at large about a given product, seller, or buyer.) Members can join groups of other members with interests in the same things... like "Apple" for example. A lot of social activity goes on... if you've ever gotten into a last minute bidding war with someone who you've lost to in the past then there is no denying the social aspect of Ebay. lol.

    CragisList has tons of social... check this out: http://winnipeg.en.craigslist.org/forums/ those are all discussion threads where people talk to one another. And that is just winnipeg... CL offers lists for tons of cities in multiple countries all full of way more socializing than any one person could [should?] ever be able to consume in a single lifetime. Classified ads, open letters where people spill their emotions and wait for email replies, etc... it might not be a "wall" or a "comment on my profile" but it is human beings placing themselves in the arena of communication and interaction. That, to me, is "social".

    So while these places do offer a service that goes above and beyond a "social network" as "web 2.0" would like to see it defined... a profile, a friends list, and the ability to comment back and forth (am I missing anything?) they are indeed, in my opinion, social sites. It grinds on me when people describe Web 2.0 as Web 1.0 with "Social" added... because of these very examples. Web 0.01 (a.k.a. the "pre-web") started as "Social" with things like BBS then Email and IRC... the internet, by it's very nature, is a social medium.

    Let me toss this nugget out there for consideration (perhaps a sprinkling of devil's advocacy for effect, but pretty much how I feel) : The fact that MySpace had already achieved mainstream success is the reason it got MSM attention for all of it's pedophilia. Not the other way around. Now having MSM attention (good or bad) certainly elevates awareness and can add to an already healthy mainstream user base. But creating a useful service that people want to partake in and share with others is the driving force behind becoming a successful company. I'm just eager to see the credit for major success given to the efforts of hard working web developers/feedback of early adopters rather than to the MSM, that's all. I'm a web developer so I'm biased in that way. ;)

    P.S. I wonder if Kara Swisher could have ever in her wildest dreams [nightmares] envision her blog post about Twitter eventually leading to very in depth discussions involving hookers and pedophiles. lol... gotta love social media. :)
    • ^
    • v
    Negative press as an indicator of mainstream success - never thought about it that way, but history sure seems to say so...

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus