How Oprah hurts Twitter

Ever since celebrities and news organizations hopped on the Twitter bandwagon, new signups have skyrocketed. The blue bird has been featured on news networks, late night talk shows, and probably even found its way into a few sitcoms.

But with that popularity has come a backlash. People are leaving Twitter at a rate higher than MySpace. It’s been called narcissistic, boring, useless…

I blame Oprah.

Okay, Oprah doesn’t deserve that much credit.

But it seems that the popular media icons that are pimping Twitter right now are the same ones that are generating the popular misunderstanding about what it’s all about.

I don’t presume to be able to dictate how any tool is used, sometimes the best tools were never invented for their best purposes – duct tape makes a fine prom dress. But what makes Twitter unique is its simplicity.

No matter how you use it, Twitter is about dialogue. Dialogue requires engagement, and without engagement, Twitter IS silly and useless.

The majority of these popular media icons, companies and brands that are trying to use Twitter are using it as a broadcast medium. They aren’t engaging with their followers, they are talking at them.

I suspect the average experience of a new Twitter user goes something like this.

1. Sign up
2. Add some celebrities, news networks and a few friends that have previously gone through this list
3. Make a few tweets about what they’re doing today – much like a Facebook status line
4. Refollow spambots, companies and “Social Media Experts” that are following 6000 people and have 24 followers
5. Get bored
6. Leave
7. Tell friends how stupid and boring Twitter is

With pop media recruiting for Twitter so heavily, it’s no wonder this experience is so common.

Following celebrities and companies on Twitter is like signing up to be on their mailing lists. At first it might seem interesting, but impersonal and irrelevant messages quickly become noise.

Oprah can get the attention of millions, but without actively participating, she has no chance of holding it in an engagement-driven medium.

It’s not entirely her fault that she can’t engage. Celebrities can attract hundreds of thousands of followers extremely quickly. It would be just as difficult for them to engage with their followers as it would be to get to know everyone in a mob of fans.

Celebrities and companies are frequently the least-engaging users on Twitter and yet with their ability to reach out to so many people, they have become the role-models for how it’s used.

60% of new users don’t ‘get it’ because it isn’t very exciting to be just one in a mob or on a mailing list. And who would care what THEY have to say the way people care about what OPRAH has to say?

I wouldn’t be surprised to see celebrities and popular personalities abandoning their accounts sooner than later. Without being able to engage, they are acting as spokespeople for a product they don’t – and often can’t – use themselves.

That must feel silly and useless for them too.

Why Twitter?

At Podcamp London, I attended a session by Will Spaetzel called Twitter For Newbies. Will did a great job of explaining the What and the How of Twitter to people that were interested but weren’t sure how to get started.

I didn’t go to learn how to use Twitter – I’ve been cheating on my beloved LiveJournal with it since last Fall. I went because the popular disdain for it confuses me. I wanted insight into the 60% attrition rate and the seemingly evangelical dismissal by those that have left (or never even tried it).

The problems / concerns people have with Twitter seem to be:

• It’s narcissistic
  • Nobody cares what I had for lunch
  • I don’t have anything important enough to say
• I don’t “get it”
  • Isn’t it just like a Facebook status without the rest of it?
  • Isn’t it just for PR people and celebrities?
  • I can call/text/email someone if I have something to say
  • I tried it once and wasn’t interested
• What about privacy?
• I only know a couple people on it
• My ideas can’t be limited to 140 characters

With these in mind, I’ve been struggling to answer the ‘Why?’ question for people that don’t “get it”. I don’t think the challenge is explaining what Twitter is. The challenge is defining Twitter’s position in the social-media landscape.

It’s easy to see how online social space emulates real-life social space. Dating sites, career pages, meetups, and professional blogs correspond to clubs and speed dating, job centres, networking and social clubs, and newspapers respectively.

I would even argue that Facebook is little more than the annual Christmas update letter – an impersonal way for users to ‘keep in touch’ through generic life-updates and pictures.

And Twitter is the online coffee shop.

Using this analogy, I think the ‘Why’ becomes much clearer and the criticisms above are easy to address.

The Why?

Coffee shop dialogues and Twitter conversations have:

Focus on Dialogue
Twitter is a dialogue. There are no pictures, no movies, no quizzes. Just ideas.

If 140 characters seems like too little to ‘express yourself’ ask yourself this: how many words do you say at any one time in an average conversation? Probably no more than 140 characters worth.

Organic conversations
Conversations come and go, subjects change, people move from discussion to discussion depending on their interests. Sometimes a fiery debate will spark – sometimes you just chat about weekend plans. Sometimes nobody else is there so you leave.

New relationships are natural
In a public space others can be overheard. You don’t need to be talking to be part of a conversation. Distant acquaintances might get drawn into a discussion. Instead of reading about a person and asking their a/s/l and what music they like – social engagement is easy and natural.

Enhance relationships
Relationships evolve through engagement with people. “Going out for coffee” is synonymous with “sitting down and talking to people”. Discussion might be trivial or it might be profound – but there’s something irreplaceable about a good discussion.

Twitter fulfils the ideal third space online (maybe more on this later).

Addressing the ‘Why Nots’

If we accept that Twitter is the coffee shop of the web, the common ‘Why Nots’ become easy to address.

It’s not all about you
Talking to yourself is boring. Tweets are contributions to the dialogue. Sometimes they are disjointed from the existing conversation (maybe there is a lull in the conversation), often they respond to the ongoing discussion.

Twitter profiles are remarkably sparse compared to most social-media sites and for good reason. On twitter, you meet people by talking with them, not talking about yourself.

Twitter is public
Being able to hear what people around you are talking about can be an invitation to engage – but it is also not private. If you wouldn’t say something in a public space, don’t say it on Twitter. Simple.

Twitter is not a broadcast medium
A Facebook status is a statement, a tweet is a piece of a conversation. Tweeting without participating is like talking without listening. A few people may hear you, most will ignore you, and none will engage with you (hear that, Oprah?). This issue is a post in itself, but without engagement there really is “no point” in twitter. You can make coffee at home too.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t know anyone
It’s always nice to go to a new place with a few friends in tow. But it’s not a requirement – you may even meet more people that way. Unlike adding someone you don’t know to your address book (Facebook) you can introduce yourself on Twitter – as long as you have something useful to say, there’s usually room in a conversation for one more.

Twitter is extremely social. Business people can meet clients, existing friends can catch up, new friendships can be found and communities can be strengthened and created.

It isn’t for everyone. But there is something fundamentally authentic and real about the relationships and discussions that take place in the Internet’s new cafe.

That’s Why.

Podcamp London!

Podcamp London was this weekend.

I’ve been looking forward to this event for a while. It was the first of its type in London and it was a fantastic opportunity meet people, talk with people I already knew, and think about ideas and stuff.

I also got a wordpress temporary tattoo…things that make you go wtf?

One session in particular that resonated with me was Rewiring the Homosapiens with James Shelley

Once the whirlwind of the weekend is over I hope to take some time to write a real post about some of the questions I think came out of that discussion.

There was also a lot of discussion about Twitter and I came to the conclusion that I love Twitter for the same reasons I’ve always had a soft spot for LiveJournal. Despite their drastically different images, the fundamental way users connect and interact is strikingly similar. I might explore that later too…

The day went a bit long I think – after telling 3 people they sucked for leaving early, I went into a session only to come out 15 minutes later to learn the suck was contageous. There was a mass exodus in those 15 minutes and the thunderstom was rolling in. What a sudden change in atmosphere inside and out.

A number of people ended up coming back for the afterparty which was great. Spent a long time talking to Will Spaetzel of Castroller.com about potential future events in London and I’m excited to see what might become of that. I’d love to help out with bringing another event with the same spirit to London.

I Still feel like I’m still in way over my head with people that are so much more experienced and knowledgable about this stuff. But I’d rather be the least experienced/skilled person in the room than the most.

Here are some pictures taken by Jason Fredin who was nice enough to respect my aversion to the camera and got a decent shot anyway.

The rest on Flickr