Twitter is DEAD! Long Live Twitter! Thoughts on Scott Fox's Recent Post.

Great post and great series of question from Scott Fox regarding Twitter and if it has "jumped the shark"...making itself irrelevant in the future of online communication and marketing. Entitled Twitter has Jumped the Shark, Mr. Fox lists five reasons why he feels that Twitter is "over" and this is the beginning of the end. His reasoning is very interesting...and includes (along with the great Among his reasons are:

1. Twitter's usability threshold is too low: Basically, the combination of 140 characters, zero cost, and semi-legal moral standing has overwelmed the benefits of the service.

2. Twitter's value assumes synchronicity...where in reality, it rarely is. In short, Twitter requires both parties to be actively involved to be valuable. That is very hard to do given the world we live in.

3. Twitter is ruled by the elites: Those that "have" thousands (or millions) of followers get proportionally better clicks / follow-up. Those that don't...well, don't. Given that no one auto-follows anymore growing beyond a few thousand users is an almost impossible feat.

4. Twitter is F*ing everywhere: Twitter's APIs are awesome...but the tools that have spawned from this level of access are almost out of control. As Mr. Fox notes, "it easier than ever before to pre-schedule, re-tweet, and manage multiple Twitter accounts with little added value (or human presence!)."

5. Twitter things it should advertise too: It was one thing when individual Tweeters made money through the likes of Sponsored Tweets or Be-A-Magpie, but now Twitter itself wants in the game. All that means is more noise in the already crowded Twittersphere.

So...what do you think? I think Mr. Fox has done a great job asking if the Emperor really has no clothes, though I am not sure I would declare Twitter dead just yet either. From a business standpoint, I find great benefits with Twitter in finding new ideas, sharing thoughts / articles / blogs and finding new contacts and professionals in my area of expertise. Yes, a lot of this communication is "one-way"...though that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Frankly, I don't always want (or need) a two-way conversation and Twitter helps me share information in a reasonable manner. While occasionally I may "miss" something on Twitter, I have learned that the most interesting things tend to show up more than once...and sooner or later I catch on.

That being said, do you agree with Mr. Fox? Is the future what he stated: "Will Twitter evolve to be just another alerts service? Or simply a quick delivery mechanism for 140 character teasers of meatier content posted elsewhere?"

Having Ideas Versus Having a Vision. Thoughts on Roberto Verganti's Recent Post

Just wanted to share a great blog post that I recently read on Harvard Business Review. Entitled "Having Ideas Versus Having a Vision," Robert Berganti in one short article breaks down the difference among those of us that have "ideas" vs. those that are truly "visionary." In Mr. Verganti's article, the difference is quite explicit, though often, we fail to see that difference in our daily actions. 

Specifically, Mr. Verganti defines "ideas" as something that occurs "fast" and are very "numerous" where the more occurrences, the better. Whereas in contrast, "visionary leadership" requires a relentless exploration of one direction with a "deep and robust understanding" of the issues and direction. More specifically, he makes clear that this profound difference is not only in the process, but the very way in which we think. Especially when it comes to making real change. In short, he believes that to be a visionary you must do things completely differently. That thought is neatly summed up in the following quote:

To generate fresh ideas we have been told to think outside of the box and then jump back in; vision building destroys the box and builds a new one. It does not     play with the existing paradigms; it changes them.

What struck me as most interesting about this article was the way in which it highlighted the "trap" that many employees and employers fall into regarding change in an organization. While many of us like to think of ourselves as visionary, the fact is, most of us are simply throwing ideas at a problem hoping that one answer "sticks" and solves the problem of the day. The implication of this fact of course, is that rarely does an organization spend the time to deeply understand an issue, putting all concerns (or sacred cows) on the table, in order to effect change. This happens even in the face of real and substantial challenges that organizations face. 

In my personal experience, I couldn't agree more with the way in which the definition of ideas and vision. Frankly, much of my day job is filled with proposing ideas to problems and only rarely do I seek to develop a true vision. In fact, there are probably only three or four situations that I can honestly say I acted as a visionary in the way Mr. Verganti defines. Interestingly, those experiences are the ones that I consider to be the most fulfilling...where I have seen real change, real opportunity, and have really made a difference.

So how about you? Are you an "ideas" person? Or a "visionary?"

Why the iPhone User Experience Really Struggles. Response to Ars Technica's Recent Analysis.

 VS 

Great article last week from Ars Technica postulating on one of the other major reasons why iPhone users are having problems with their network service and performance. Entitled "How smartphones are bogging down some wireless carriers," Chris Foresman hypothesizes that the real cause of the iPhone problems on the AT&T network can be traced to the way in which the iPhone pulls information in "short bursts" from the AT&T network for texting, web browsing, etc. According to Mr. Foresman's theory, it is this move among active and dormant state...which also helps to preserve battery life...that results in the widely recognized poor user experience that many iPhone users (especially in large cities) complain about.

As for what I think of this article, from a purely theoretical basis, I think it is a fun read. It draws on some interesting tidbits regarding the deployment of the iPhone globally and an interesting engineering-level perspective on how wireless networks operate. It also draws out some nice commentary regarding network design.

From a practical level however, I think that the proposed hypothesis is frankly, bogus. Blaming the atrocious experience that some iPhone users experience in cities like New York and San Francisco with the way in which the iPhone moves among active and dormant communication states on the AT&T network is not grounded in the reality of wireless networking. This opinion is centered on three main facts. 

# 1...If the problem was this simple, it would have been fixed by now: If this network switch was the real cause of poor performance, don't we really think that AT&T or Apple would have made adjustments by now? Especially given the incredible pressure to improve user experience? Fact is, wireless carriers and their device suppliers spend an inordinate amount of time stressing over the balancing act of performance vs. battery life. If the powers-that-be could fix their performance issue with such a relatively simple fix, it seems to me that they would have done that already. Yes, it might impact batter life of the iPhone, but poor battery life is a whole lot better than poor service altogether.

# 2...Why aren't all iPhones (throughout the US) having this problem? By all accounts, the worst iPhone experiences are in the largest US cities like New York and San Francisco. iPhones in Tampa, Washington, D.C., and Poughkeepsie seemingly have no issues. Frankly, if Ars Technica has found the magic iPhone glitch, then one would assume that all iPhones everywhere would have the same bad experience. Since they don't, it must mean that there is some other cause.

# 3...But wait, what about O2's network in the UK? I am no expert in the O2 network, but the fact that their users in the UK (specifically London) are experiencing the worst service speaks most strongly to the fact that this is not an active / dormant state issue. In fact, this seems to prove the idea that there is combination of other impacts that are resulting in bad user experience. In particular, network capacity and management (combined with high numbers of users) resulting in network stress.

So, does that mean the switch among active and dormant state is not an issue at all? In fairness, there is probably some kernel of truth, but I would offer that it is probably one of the smallest impacts related to user experience. More likely, this is a classic case where the writers are making the mistake of concluding that correlation implies causation. Yes, it sounds a bit strange that AT&T and O2 would have similar issues...but it is highly doubtful that the iPhone's switch among active and dormant state would be the reason. 

In fact, the more likely reasons for service problems with the iPhone can be gleaned from where the biggest complaints occur. After all, the common denominator with this problem is not the iPhone...but the use of the iPhone in a large city, with lots of users, challenging spectrum / coverage models, highly centralized user base, limited RF spectrum, and difficult economic considerations impacting network upgrades. These characteristics are all things that New York, San Francisco, and London share...and likely the cause of the poor experience for iPhone owners in these areas.

Learnings in Twitter Advertising: Be-A-Magpie

This is part two of a series exploring the use of Twitter as an advertising medium. In particular, I will focus on how individual Twitterers can become part of the advertising movement. Comments, ideas, suggestions, or corrections are all welcome.

Be-A-Magpie (BAM): 

The Basics:
1) No minimum requirement for followers or age of account.

2) Must have Paypal account (for payments)
2) Every post will include some type of notification that it is sponsored. Everything from "#Sponsored" to "#ad" can appear. This is a requirement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
3) $50 minimum balance before you can withdraw money. About average for this kind of thing.
4) Can be paid for multiple different types of tweets: Pay-per-view, Pay-per-click, Pay-per-lead and Pay-per-sale. 

The Pros:
1) It works. In short, yes, you will get paid for tweeting someone else's ads. Almost free money.
2) Account settings are simple to establish and update.

3) Pay-per-tweets generally increases as your followers increase. Assume $1 per tweet per thousand followers.

4) Often receive a "series" of tweets from advertisers as part of a program. In other words, it is common to receive 3-5 tweets from the same advertiser spread out over time.

5) Can set frequency of tweets (from 1:5 to 1:100) as well as, pre-approval / no-approval necessary.
6) Easy to set account to approve / delete or edit actual tweet. The advertiser always provides initial wording, but you can put the actual tweet in your own words. This is a great advantage if you are trying to ensure the tweets are consistent with your other tweets. Of course, you still only have 140 characters to work with.

7) Customer care organization is very responsive.

8) Advertisers do not seem to favor accounts with very large followings. Twitter accounts with small followings get opportunities too.

The Cons:
1) No option to opt-into ads. Only Be-A-Magpie knows why you are selected or not selected. As with Sponsored Tweets, it sometimes feels like you are waiting for one of the cool kids to pick you for kick-ball.

2) No ability to set keywords or category. In theory, you will only get ads related to what you are tweeting about. That process is a bit of a mystery however.

3) BAM does not share state (e.g. clicks) related to tweets. You have no idea how successful or unsuccessful your tweets are.
4) No control over price per tweet. All pricing is done by BAM / Advertisers.
5) It can be a long time between paid tweets. Best to keep in mind, that this is free money...not instant money.6) BAM Will suspend any account found to be using a "Twitter adder" (aka tweettrain, etc.). Be careful on this one.

The Verdict: 
Join Be-A-Magpie. I do wish I could get a little bit more information regarding my account through BAM, but on the whole, they treat you fairly and professionally. It may take you a while to grow your account to $50, but given the level of effort, opportunity to present your account effectively, and the results, BAM is worth your time.

To sign-up, you can click HERE.

Why Google Wants to be Your Home Broadband ISP

Based on the recent announcements coming out of Mountain View, one might think that the folks at Google are in a race with Proctor and Gamble to launch new products. In one six-month period, Google has entered more new markets than it probably has entered in the last 5 years. First it was being a mobile provider (Nexus One), then becoming a TV advertiser (Google.com / Super Bowl Ads), then their entry into Social Media (Google Buzz), and now, they want to be an Internet Service Provider (ISP).

So what does this latest announcement mean? Well, there is certainly an element of publicity, but I do think they are making these moves to try and ensure a stake in the larger question of where the Internet is going and (hopefully for them), drive other carriers to improve their infrastructure / speeds. Given whom they are partnering with, and the relatively small number of potential end-users, they will not make a big dent in this space…at least on a nationwide basis (For comparison, Comcast alone has ~13M broadband subscribers), but that isn't why Google is making this move. In fact, I would postulate that they can disproprotionately influence the market simply by showing what is possible (1G speed! HD Video! Etc.) and use those successes in public discussions around Net Neutrality, etc. In this way, they hope to improve the US Internet as a whole…and by extension, the services that they can provide to Google-users everywhere.

So what are the top 5 reasons for Google becomming an ISP? Here are mine.

1) Google has lots of money, so why not experiment: This effort may costs billions, and will likely be heavily subsidized, but it won't be free (Google defines it as "competitively priced") and even so, Google has the money to burn. In fact, one of the truisms of technology is that there is only so much that can be done in a lab. Now, if that "lab" has 50,000 - 500,000 users, actively using the Internet / applications / technologies, well, you can certainly learn a lot. To a certain extent, you will only create a Disney World-like environment, but that is certainly a valuable way to learn.

2) Google doesn't want to be your ISP, they want your ISP to be better: As PCWorld correctly stated, the goal of Google is not to become the underlying broadband provider for the US, but to show what is possible from an Internet delivery standpoint.  The fact is, even if they had 500,000 customers (high end) for this experiment, they would barely be in the Top 10 of ISPs in the US. So...what is their goal? Well, I believe a main driver for this activity is that they want to "show" the world (and the FCC) how backwards the US broadband market it and try and drive its improvement. And if they succeed, Google is betting that any improvement to the Internet (especially in speed and quality) will ultimately benefit them by allowing for more and better uses of the Internet (that Google believes it will lead).

3) Don't be Evil is just a Guideline, not a rule (at least when it comes to making money): Back in September 2009, a small but very important change occurred in Google's traditional DbE rule. Specifically, on the corporate web site, Larry Page posted a document entitled Ten things we know to be true that outlined Google's official philosophy on a number of core assumptions and ideas. Most were the same as we know, but # 6 was the most interesting. Specifically, it stated "You can make money without doing evil" and then went on to outline how (shock!) Google, is a business...and like any business is out there to make money. Google Broadband (and the Nexus One, and Google Buzz, etc.) are examples of that.

4) Influence the Net Neutrality debate: Google has been one of the strongest proponents of Net Neutrality, but time will tell how successful they are on this issue. Fact is, Net Neutrality is has a lot of detractors...and those detractors are among the largest companies in the US. At best, Google may get only some broad principles approved and not real change. One way to change that trajectory? Become an ISP and show the FCC how other ISPs are BS-ing the establishment. After all, if Google can show it is possible to consistently deliver 1 Gbps of capacity to the home...why can't Comcast offer 50 Mbps? Or 100 Mbps?

5) Learn what it means to have actual customers: I don't mean to say this lightly, but Google's greatest weakness is that they don't have many customers of their own. Sure, they have millions and millions of users (me being one of them), but they don't really have many that fit the legal definition of a customer (that is: "some one who pays for goods or services"). In fact, the only real customers they have are those that pay for Google Aps or Advertisers who use AdWords to push ads to folks like you or me. In theory, this means that at any point, an individual could stop using Google and only Google would suffer. One of the great learnings that could come out of this exercise is how to directly engage with their customers, provide good customer service, and also, generate new services that are then available elsewhere. To-date, they have not done well here (see: One, Nexus)

Has Google Lost its Mojo? Google Buzz is Another Misstep by Google

The last few months have been very strange for Google. For an organization that has been admired by many for their success in execution and product development, they seemed to have well, slipped a bit. Sure, they have continued to be embarrassingly profitable, and if anything, their advertising business has been growing and growing, but what about the rest of their business? Well, those efforts have not been nearly as successful.

In fact, if it was any other company that had made these misteps, the blogosphere would be all over them (not to mention, Wall Street). So what have those misteps been? Well, first there was the launch of Google Wave: (which sure sounded cool, but alas was not), then the very blah launch of the Nexus One, and then the whole "China is spying on me" episode, followed by the realization that in wireless, customer care is critical and now, we have the announcement of Google Buzz.

What is Google Buzz? Well, according to Google, it is what social media is supposed to be...at least from Google's perspective. What does it do? Well, some neat things like sharing photos with friends, interfacing with Twitter, etc., but I gotta admit, I don't see this as particularly earth-shattering. Still, you can decide for yourself by watching the video below.

So, what is going on? I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems like Google has well, forgotten what made them Google. In fact, even their competitors seem to sense that based on the latest responses to Google Buzz. For me, as an outsider, it is hard to say why this is the case, but my two cents is that Google is falling prey to two mistakes. 

The first, is the classic big-company problem of thinking they are smarter than everyone else. Don't get me wrong, Google is very smart (and has lots and lots of smart employees), but that doesn't mean they are infallible. More importantly, for these new lines of business, the details really matter and just being smarter than everyone else doesn't mean you have a good product.

Second, I think there is a real challenge among the vision of the Google leadership team. Schmidt, Brin and Page are deservingly gods in the search and ad space, but they have limited / no experience in wireless, customer care (until today, anyone ever tried to call Google?) and even collaboration / social media. Already, a lot of writers are declaring that Buzz is "boring"...and worse, out-of-touch with what customers want.  Personally, I agree. And in fact, I am much more excited about the recent update in Google Aps that allows you to share files!

So are the wheels falling off in the Googleplex? Of course not...but they still need to stop and rethink some of these recent efforts and new business areas. In business, past success does not beget future success and the recent track record has been pretty ugly.

Why Handwriting Is Dying...which is both a good and bad thing bad thing.

In an outstanding essay last week, Anne Trubek explored how the art of handwriting may have died...but that it is not going away anytime soon...nor is it a bad thing. While historically, hand-writing has been associated with intelligence, education, and position in society (aka the "good hand"), today, that is no longer the case. None the less, as she notes in her essay, "handwriting is not going away anytime soon, but it is going" and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

On this topic, I am truly torn. For starters, I truly value the speed, efficiency and capabilities that modern technology has brought to communication. Everyday, I use a cellphone, internet, instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, email (about five accounts), and of course, this blog. Unquestionably, these mediums have allowed me to do more and communicate better and more efficiently than ever before. Yes, I occasionally also send a letter or two...but that is usually because the person I am communicating with doesn't use one of the above options (call this the Grandma rule). In fact, Ms. Trubek rightfully notes that it is speed, and to a certain extent democratization that these new mediums have given us and we should not forsake the benefits of these technologies for some nostalgic view of handwriting.

On the other hand, I do agree that the loss of good handwriting is a bit sad. For starters, we still write things all-of-the-time in our daily lives. One example, some of my notes when preparing for this blog. Additionally, there is still something to be said about sending a hand-written note for correspondence, etc. For me personally, I view my lack of skilled handwriting as embarrassing. Sure, I still manage on a daily basis, but I do regret never learning to properly write in cursive and instead, reverting to a lazy (and barely legible) print every time I need to write something down.

Frankly, I do have a bit of jealousy for those people that write well and ummm...attractively. The irony all of this is that the reason I never learned to write well was that during that class in Elementary school, when every one else was learning proper penmanship, I was pulled out for a "gifted and talented" class. Yep...at my elementary school, if you were GT, you basically were not taught how to write.

In my opinion, the real challenge to the brain of the youth today is not handwriting vs. technology...but how the advent of the spell checker eliminated the need to know how to spell. Maybe that is the reason why we have all embraced technology. After all, no one has invented the spell checker for handwriting. Perhaps a topic for another day.

LINK: Miller-McCune: Handwriting is History