Doubts About Twitter the Business | Hacker News Reader

Doubts About Twitter the Business

twitterrati.com

5 pointsbuckpost28 comments

You know what is most amusing about this? I have more doubts about Facebook's long term business plans than Twitters. Twitter seems easily monetizable, and the fact that others are already doing it outside (twitpay, etc) is some validation. Facebook seems to be monetizable only through ads. Annoying, annoying ads.

Both companies have potential valuation issues, however.

But isn't it trivial for Facebook to offer Twitter's functionality (or do they already? Not an FB user ;)) and instantly have about x30 (AFAIK) larger userbase?

They don't offer exact functionality (they're not aimed at the same market), but they've got something close.

Facebook already has ads, though, and they're evolving a business plan constantly. Twitter has nothing. So they have less experience with raising money and they've got more to lose.

I disagree. Twitter is already testing its adverts, and masterfully so imho.

I've clicked on those ads that they have now already. And since they were interesting things, I'm likely to keep an eye on that area for the foreseeable future, to see if anything else neat crops up.

Seems like an excellent way to roll-out ads... first, make the users look at the area where you'll place the ads, by putting interesting stuff there, and then put paid ads there.

So long as most ads remain relatively interesting/targeted, I'll keep looking. And probably clicking, too.

Consider also that Twitter users are very used to clicking on external links, because we do it all the time for links tweeted by others. I am much less likely to click on an external link in FB than on Twitter.

Huh! I didn't know Twitter was rolling out ads at all.

Facebook has some excellent targeting. I've gone to a few Facebook links and if I wasn't broke I'd have bought some products, too. (Right now they insist on showing me the Twilight DVD, though, which irritates me.)

Click here to see the ads: http://skitch.com/swombat/beiik/twitter-now-with-ads

Those are not ads. Those are just little promos for twitter features. By this logic, every link in the topnav and footer of twitter is an "ad".

http://www.itworld.com/business/64445/twitter-house-ads-appe...

And you really think they're not going to use that piece of prime real-estate for text advertising? Wake up and smell the coffee :-)

I don't doubt that they are, but these are not ads.

HN has a lot of prime homepage real estate to the right, but if they put a link there to the submission form, it's hardly an ad :)

Yes, and so my point is, this is a masterful approach to pave the way for placing ads there.

The standard way is to place ads and juggle them about until you've figured out where they attract the more clicks. Twitter's way appears to first manufacture a high-interest area (by putting cool twitter stuff there), then, once people are used to seeing nifty stuff there, start selling that nifty space to others.

Actually, they are very real, internal ads. They rotate and point to different sections of the site, sometimes it's widgets, other times it's the search, etc.

The new design is very twitter like. Your facebook homepage is essentially a "life feed" - kind of twitter on roids.

50% of twitter users aren't even using the twitter UI. Half their users aren't monetizable (By them).

Is the same true about FaceBook?

I wouldn't think so...pretty much everyone on FB is using the FB ui, either web or mobile.

Right... which means FaceBook has far better chance of monetizing users than twitter does.

I was just responding to your comment, which sounded like you were making the point that, like twitter, half of facebook users don't use the FB ui.

hehe I should have been clearer :)

If Twitter is "monetizable" through twitpay, then Facebook is much more monetizable through something similar.

The issue isn't being able to make money - its the ability to make profits.

Yeah... it's a matter of scale.

Twitter has 20 employees, a cash burn rate of $5m a year according to the article.

Facebook has hundreds of employees and servers... probably a lot harder to make a profit.

comparing apples and oranges. google has way more expenses than the coffee shop next door, but that doesn't mean it's harder for google to earn a profit.

my personal opinion is that facebook users on the whole are a lot more engaged than twitter users. i know an awful lot of folks on twitter who use it as a broadcast medium rather than a place for conversation and connection. facebook seems to be a place where people actually connect with each other more. granted, this is all anecdotal.

Last numbers I heard for FB were 800+ employees, and 10,000+ servers. Both just a tad excessive, although I guess you have to spend the VC money somehow.

many others are monetizing over facebook as well - how is that a validation for twitter?

The fact that we have invented the term "monetization" to delineate the point at which fun web projects try and become true businesses only underscores the fact that much of Web 2.0 is about getting rich (relatively) quickly, rather than building sustainable businesses.

Favorite quote: "Sanford Bernstein’s bearish approach is based on its belief the Web 2.0 model of building something and then figuring out a way to make money is no longer valid."

IIRC, that was supposed to be our lesson from the dot.com bubble :) The early hype about "Web 2.0" was that this time around we're doing it for cheap and with a revenue model...

I disagree. The lesson from the dot.com bubble was that anything put on the Internet could be monetized and would become profitable. That was (and is) silly.

The "Web 2.0" mindset, at least the mindset I've seen most often on HN, is build it fast and get it out there to see if it has value. I also think there is some thought to how the solution can be monetized, but plans change in response to changing environments.

Yes, but how do you judge if it has value? It seems that, as in the dot.com era, it's still not judged by income, but by number of users (or just level of hype - Twitter only has ~6 million users).

Current technology does make this valid in some sense - you can launch very cheaply and, if you attract enough interest, get bought by a larger company. As I understand this is YC's general approach. But it seems that Twitter tends to refuse buyout offers, so I they are more of a classic dot.com.

The "Web 2.0" mindset, at least the mindset I've seen most often on HN, is build it fast and get it out there to see if it has value.

Sadly, this is not the Web 2.0 mindset. If it was things like Twitter and Facebook would have been "monetized" a few months after their launch, when it was abundantly clear that they offered value to people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com