Some interesting thoughts on Twitter and Friendfeed

December 7, 2008 By

Before you get back to work on Monday (or for some reading before you get down to working), there have been a few interesting and thought-provoking posts I’ve spotted:

Robert Scoble posted 10 reasons why Twitter direct messages suck, which I expected to disagree with, but he made a lot of sense in explaining why the amount of messages he receives means that he realistically has to ignore them – he can’t autorespond, file, filter, or mass delete, so it becomes unworkable.

Stowe Boyd then takes it and runs further, to outline how the problem could result in an opportunity to earn some revenue for Twitter, around improving the integration and functionality of direct messaging for those willing to pay $5 a month.

My thought is that it’s a very small group who need these features as an absolute necessity, but a larger number might be persuaded they need them. It’s certainly something I could see Twitter exploring, and I suspect that by offering it as a Freemium service, they could avoid some of the ‘sell-out’ accusations that display advertising will generate.

I’m not sure it’s enough to please the VCs and justify the valuation of Twitter – but I’m increasingly convinced that there isn’t a sole revenue stream that provides a complete solution – and it could be a mixture which becomes the answer.

The other thought piece I thought was worth repeating was Dave Winer on The Space Between Twitter and FriendFeed. Is there room for something that exists with a more graphic and visual system than Twitter, but without some of the complexity of Friendfeed which can put users off?

Obviously this wasn’t Pownce. But could it be a direction for Plurk, which already has a far more visual interface? Or one of the services I have to admit to overlooking a little in the influx of clones, copies and variations, such as Rejaw? And would it be enough to achieve the most important and challenging part of taking on Twitter – getting critical mass? Friendfeed is different enough to fulfill a slightly different function and have an identity away from microblogging, but would something in the Friendfeed/Twitter chasm be cursed by being too much of one or the other?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Clay Shirky the biggest celebrity of Web 2.0?

August 18, 2008 By

Because ‘The Rock Stars of Web 2.0‘ list on Ditto.net certainly seems to think so! (Disclaimer – I work for Bauer Media, who created Ditto, and help with some marketing…)

At the moment, Clay Shirky tops the list, followed by Doc Searls, Stowe Boyd and Wayne Sutton. The top female web 2.0 celebrity on the list is Veronica Belmont, who is in joint fifth place with Euan Semple, JP Rangaswami and David Weinberger.

Right at the bottom of the list, with a minus score, is Jason Calacanis! And he’s joined by some pretty big names, including Robert Scoble, Mike Arrington (Techcrunch), Tom Anderson (Myspace), Bill Gates and Barack Obama!

If you don’t think the order is right, get voting at ‘The Rock Stars of Web 2.0‘. And if there are people missing from the list, let me know in the comments, below.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Two interesting posts on blogs

July 13, 2008 By

And neither of them are mine sadly! Stowe Boyd has posted two posts on /Message about two aspects of blogging, and I have to say I pretty much agree with both of them:

The A-list is dead: Long live the A-list. Covering the idea that the possible falling star of Robert Scoble and the retirement of Jason Calcanis from blogging does not mean there is an end to an A-list, or the short head of the long tail.

David Appell is Andrew Keen Jr: Covering the idea that blogs are worthless because they’re not written by specialist experts after months of research.

And I totally agree. I keep coming back to the idea that Chris Anderson made explicit in The Long Tail. It’s an AND change, not an OR change. The retirement of one prominent blogger, or the fall in buzz around blogging, does not mean that there will not continue to be some individuals or groups who will dominate the space. Either the names will change on the A-list, or the location of the fame may change e.g. Twitter or Seesmic, for example. After all, tech and social media bloggers always refer to traditional brands needing to evolve and stop relying on the reputation they built up by broadcast mechanisms before the internet – and yet we expect the popularity of prominent bloggers – and blogging, to be set in stone?

And the A-list will continue to change. Emarketer recently measured over half of U.S. internet users reading blogs – if it’s true, it’s a big number. But it’s going to keep growing by huge amounts – especially if you imagine the global growth possible from 50% upwards.

There will always be value found in blogs, and many of them will get that value by linking to an A-list. What is going to change is the names on the list – and if they’re located on a blog, microblog, video or alternative platform.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Interesting post explains Twitter isn’t for conversation…

June 24, 2008 By

Just read an interesting post by a colleague of mine about Twitter, and his belief that it really isn’t a service for conversation. It’s an opinion aired by Robert Scoble, who sees it as a broadcast mechanism for his 20,000 followers.

But David thinks differently, and explains why he believes it’s around communities of purpose in a guest post on the /Message blog.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,