1. Transparency.  One of the biggest advantages of Twitter is transparency.  It’s a double edged sword for business, but it’s the feature with the greatest potential.  Facebook is less a communication tool than a community tool or an advertising tool, and Myspace is probably an exaggerated form of both.  Twitter, because of it’s simplicity, is a simple communication tool that allows an individual (potentially on behalf of a brand) to communicate in a transparent, open, searchable way.  Blogs are edited, comments are filtered, but Twitter is open which to consumers is something they idealize.

2. Control.  If you aren’t tweeting about it, someone else is.  You want your point of view heard, tweet it.  Advertising is meant to control how consumers think about your product or brand.  Your name is the same thing, and if you want to leave the control up to the crowd, go for it.  I would prefer to hear what people are saying and weigh in.  Especially when it’s about me or my company.

3. Discovery.  Facebook and Myspace are good for connecting with people you already know, and occassionally getting a good friend recommendation.  Twitter is the only place I’ve found where I can follow anyone I like, and the only say they have in it is whether or not they follow me back.  Additionally, I can search for topics of discussion, look at people being followed by other people, and randomly get followed by other people for all the same reasons.  Twitter is about Discovery in a way that is more social than any other social technology from the web 2.0 revolution.

4. Mundanity.  To me, this is the guage of whether or not I keep following someone.  Twitter exposes the mundanity of everyday life.  Some people know how to find the humor in that, and their tweets are entertaining.  If you believe the colloquialism “one mans trash is another mans treasure,” then mundane tweets by interesting people can be fascinating.  On the other hand, if you find someone just blathering on about their trips to the grocery store or another boring ass project they are working on, then dump them.  I love that I can opt out at any time without fear of retribution or hurt feelings.  If someone has over 500 followers, they’ll never miss you.  I really wish I had that freedom on Facebook, but I’m always worried about the emails I’ll receive after un-friending people.

5.  Instant Gratification.  I’ve posted things to Facebook and Myspace before, and for that matter blogged about things before, and received zero response.  Even inflamatory titles meant to elicit a response have been ignored.  Recently though, I’ve seen fights generated from tweets that didn’t even directly name people.  I’ve watched as brands have rolled out marketing efforts or new products that generated enough feedback on Twitter in the first few hours to get a response from the respective company.  I remember this happened once with Palm when they released a netbook style palm device and were subsequently eaten alive by some of the geek blogs out there.  Within a day or so, Palm issued a formal response.  I couldn’t believe it.  It was one of the most amazing moments where the impact of web media became clear to me.  Blogs may be a great device for sounding off, but Twitter provides a way to create an instant focus group of unsolicited, unedited feedback.  The feedback loop has grown smaller and smaller, but Twitter has made the feedback loop the size of a dot.

Twitter is likely the last of the web 2.0 trends, but it’s by no means a fad.  It seems to be the most openly social of all the social networks, and the one with the most immediate impact for brands.  Social networking will fade away if no one figures out how to make money with it, but I think that ship has sailed.  Social networking for business is the new search engine optimization.  Unlike SEO however, Twitter has a higher liklihood to foster creativity and promote those with the best ideas, rather than those who learn how to manipulate the system.  If you think Twitter is simply about Tweeting 4-5 times a day, and mentioning how lame/great your lunch was, or linking to your latest blog post or press release, think again.

Twitter only becomes a fad if people stop being interesting, which I’m confident can’t happen to everyone.

Backlash. (See this….and this….)

One of the earliest negatives people expressed regarding Twitter was the mundanity of many tweets. It was common to hear detractors argue that they didn’t see the value in hearing that someone is watching Lost, or getting ready to dive into a big fat juicy burger, or the very common “I’m hung-over” tweet. But when your favorite blogger is sharing links to fantastic articles, providing insight and thought leadership, and occasionally mentioning that he has the worst gas ever, it’s kinda fun and humanizing. Early adopters liked this unfiltered access to people they liked and respected. People who were building up their brands online liked the ability to keep in contact with people more regularly without having to write an entire blog post. The mundanity was fun, because it was mixed in with valuable information and amusing stream of consciousness.

But as the user-base diversifies the ratio of interesting/valuable information to mundanity/stream-of-consciousness gets out of balance. I am not the only one who feels this way. For those who haven’t see it, out College Humor’s take on Twitter in real life: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1909386

I followed someone recently for a couple months before I realized, this person never says anything of value. In fact this morning I looked at his account and he tweeted 26 times in the last 12 hours and not once did he say anything remotely insightful, interesting, valuable, or engaging…just a crappy twitpic, a few @replies that were roughly 1 word or added no value, or ridiculously lame information about him and his family and their adventures of “driving to work”.

This is why there is a backlash brewing. It’s one thing to occasionally tweet about bad traffic or getting a flat tire or getting pulled over by the cops, when you balance that with links to interesting bloggers, new applications, the latest iPhone rumor, or…anything that might be of value to someone. Keep in mind, I’ve lobbied since day that for Twitter to survive and be successful it ultimately had to diversify and appeal to a broad audience. That means it has to be fun for people who aren’t creating content - just general consumers using it as a social network. That means the good with the bad. General consumers means a shift in the balance of the interesting/mundane.

So Twitter elitists - take a deep breath. This is just a growing pain and ultimately, it will elevate the early adopters as leaders. I’ve learned with media, eventually, quality wins. Broad adoption is not a threat to Twitter, it just might mean you have to be more careful about who you follow back. It means having personal AND professional accounts is likely to be important and apps like Tweetie and Nambu will be increasingly important.

Hold off on the backlash for now, and keep in mind that in order for Twitter to fulfill it’s destiny, it needs the kind of critical mass enjoyed by Facebook. There is a stark difference between using Twitter, and getting value out of Twitter and it’s up to early adopters to help new users find their way.

Now if only we could get Ashton Kutcher to switch to Myspace or something, that would be great.

Recently Charlie Villanueva of the NBA received notoriety for tweeting during halftime of the Bucks vs. Celtics game. For Twitter geeks like us, that was a huge moment. Seriously - HE TWEETED AT HALFTIME. I immediately followed Mr. Villanueva and noticed something about his account: 5000+ followers, and he only follows 78 in return. So I did some more research:

Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) 388,300 followers, he follows 56.
Jimmy Fallon (@jimmyfallon) 359,449 followers, follows 63.
John Mayer (@johncmayer) 253,987 followers, follows 20
Julia Allison (@juliaallison) 8,534 followers, follows 39.
Shaq (@the_real_shaq) 337,000 followers, he follows 470. (Which is actually pretty good, nice job Shaq.)

I mean, Julia Allison is really only web famous (no offense Ms. Allison, I think you’re awesome) and she can’t bring herself to follow more people.

This is the issue - Twitter is not going to work if it’s used as just another broadcast media. John Mayer is hilarious and down to earth (and geeky at times) so I enjoy reading his blog and following him on Twitter. But I like Twitter because I can have numerous ongoing conversations with people all over the world. Twitter works when I reply to someone’s tweet, then they follow me, and then a connection is formed. It’s not realistic to think someone can manage 300K followers and respond to everyone, but a 20 to 300K ration is not going to give anyone a breakthrough experience.

For Twitter to work for everyone long term, and not be relegated to some short term PR fad, it has to provide reciprocal benefit. Following John Mayer’s tweets, while occasionally enjoyable, does not offer me any benefit as a John Mayer fan. However, the occasion may come where I reply to John and he replies back and I will turn into a mush pile of gooey faced man crush. (*Note, I don’t have a man crush on John Mayer, just using it for the sake of example.)

If you want to get more out of Twitter - give more back. FOLLOW PEOPLE, and you will see the incredible viral capability of Twitter unleashed. You will earn fans for life. You will embolden relationships with people who buy your cds, watch your shows, go to your basketball games.

I hope to see some positive changes folks. We’re all in this together. As Twitter grows, we grow with it.

(*Note, I actually do have a man crush on John Mayer.)

We never left, we were just less vocal.  

And so many other people were making plenty of noise.  Cherp is not going to be an also-ran, and we’re not content to be another group of social media experts.  We know and love Twitter, and we still see little creativity and lots of opportunity.  In fact, we’re working on a variety of projects that will come to light soon to demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along - Twitter is the perfect tool to personify brands in the post-web 2.0 internet.

The website and blog are relaunched, and we will continue to keep them up to date and fresh as 2009 continues.  We’re also set to publish our manifesto on personification of brand.  Keep an eye on the site in the coming weeks.

Next up you’ll see us at SxSW.  Come find us for your free Cherp T-shirt.

Americans have innovated during each economic downturn in our nation’s history.  Some significant companies have spawned from the Great Depression such as Proctor and Gamble and our current movie studio system.  (There are plenty of blogs talking about this topic: Fast Company, Business Week, McKinsey.)

What we do here at Cherp is think about Twitter, and it dawned on me today that there is a perfect storm brewing that spells success for Twitter.  The economy will drive two specific activities that will help Twitter.

1. More people are going to have time on their hands and will turn to technology to help them network to find a job.  

2. Businesses will turn to new technology to find ways to acquire customers.  

Both of these will lead to greater numbers of people joining Twitter and networking, and no one else is better positioned (besides Linkedin.com, but it’s a closed network so it doesn’t foster accessibility the same way Twitter does.)  Think about it.  People refuse to give up their phones and their computers - they are essential to finding and applying for jobs, networking for interviews, marketing oneself, and in some cases, freelancing to try and pay the bills.  While they are there, it’s only natural to reach out more and more through social networks.

Additionally, companies will continue to look for new ways to market and in an economy like this they will be looking for less expensive methods than TV and Print.  Media is traditionally more expensive and requires a large distribution to provide a proper ROI.  Blogging has proven to have a phenomenal ROI for companies who do it right because it boosts SEO rankings, builds and fosters community with consumers, and provides a constant voice for the company in it’s respective market - and it does so inexpensively.  Twitter continues to show the potential to be more effective in some ways than blogging because it harnesses the viral loop methods of social networks better than blogs do.

Twitter has the momentum, it has the openness, it’s searchable, it’s easy, and the buzz just keeps growing for Twitter.

So what’s the problem? These people are not built to be early adopters. Corporate America, listen up - stop creating your own social networks. You are missing the point entirely, and it’s going to create a backlash that could harm the real potential of social networking. Sears, just because you partnered with MTV, you are not suddenly cool and creating a stand alone social network around back-to-school shopping just isn’t the right thing to do. Let me explain what you are doing wrong, and why.

There are many social networks out there that have become a part of people’s lives. These web based networks are breaking down barriers and connecting people in ways that weren’t previously imaginable. With all this wonderful connectedness, it’s completely confusing why companies of any size would think that they had a product or corporate brand that was SO fascinating as to compete with the likes of Facebook and Myspace. Besides being blindly arrogant to the point of being comical, why does this matter? Because, the value in social media is creating networks and connecting people - not using disparate social networks to separate people. One of two things is going to occur. Either the site will be wildly successful and build a community of like minded people who worship that particular brand and reduce their interactions on other social networks, OR, an extremely small number of people will join your social network and your marketing team will be forced to say that “social media marketing” didn’t work for your company. Which sadly, will not be true at all.

Think about the missed opportunity when a company decides to forgo participation in the greater social community to instead create their own closed network.
1. They are forcing customers to divide their time among networks. (Bad idea)
2. Consumers who choose to participate in the network are connecting with other people already passionate about the product or brand, with no ability to spread the network virally among their other friends online who might not know about the brand.

They lose the benefit of network effects generated by being able to connect to various people with different interests all over the world. These companies who start their own social networks are saying, “I’m happy just serving our existing customers.” It’s terrible, and it’s a total misuse of the technology.

What should they be doing?

Build on your loyal fanbase within existing networks and social media sites to better leverage the network effects of these larger communities. Build affinity groups within Facebook and Myspace, use Twitter to build a network virally, start or join a group on Linkedin…there are so many different ways to creatively use social networking to BUILD a network that will provide much better results than creating your own closed network. FUJIFILM cameras wouldn’t decide to start their own tv channel because tv advertising was all the rage, so it’s not obvious to me why companies like Fuji are creating their own separate social networks because that’s the hottest new technology to hit the business magazine rack.

Can you list some examples of large brands/companies that ARE doing social media well?

1. People were talking about Microsoft again. And many of the people doing the talking were Mac users.

3. Microsoft wasn’t trying to “outcool” Apple, and they weren’t trying to directly respond either. They were directing their own message, and it was basically - “Hey, we’re people too.”

I referred to it as “Personification of Brand” before, and I stand behind my assessment that Microsoft could succeed by giving their brand a humanity that is lacking in big companies. There is this brand impression left over from the “Pirates of Silicon Valley” days where Microsoft was viewed as manipulative and monopolistic, whose business practices were unfair. But it’s 2008, not 1998 and now Microsoft is fighting against Google and Apple and no longer destroying the Netscapes of the world. This ad campaign wasn’t about Windows, and it shouldn’t have been. The ads were going to get people talking about Microsoft in non-negative ways, and open the door for a more personal connection to the brand again.

The smart strategy would be to butter people up by reminding them that Bill Gates is just this goofy programmer than happened to make the biggest OS in the world at the right time, and he’s human. Because the average person (at least the one who knows who Bill Gates is) probably uses Microsoft and isn’t emotionally connected because his PC is really “personal” the way Mac users PCs are “personal.” Once the brand was human again, and people were paying attention - the strategy should have been to establish how Microsoft was open to the unique needs of a lot of people, rather than the elitist attitude of Macs (and Mac users).

I recall the movie “Antitrust” with Ryan Phillipe about a young computer genius who gets wooed into joining the big Seattle software company that just happens to be eliminating upstart software companies to absorb their IP and clear the path for dominance. As ridiculous and sensational as this movie was, it was possible because of the opinion many had of Microsoft. This impression still lingers with people, although it’s diminished, and Microsoft needs to put a bullet in it once and for all. This ad campaign was on the right path, and I think it would have worked. Instead, Microsoft showed it has no confidence in it’s ability to weather a storm and take the brand in a new direction. They are in fact, a big, conservative software company that makes too many decisions by committee and should have let the creative professionals help.

Microsoft gave up, and it’s too bad because despite being a longtime Mac fanboy and anti-Windows guy, I was rooting for them.