I often hear friends and colleagues say – “I’m already on Facebook, so why do I need to be on Twitter?” Considering how common this refrain is, let’s try to set the record straight: Twitter and Facebook are very different each serving unique purposes and providing distinct benefits to its users.
Twitter and Facebook share one important characteristic – whether you call it micro-blogging or status updates, both allow users to share short-form content with friends/followers. It is this commonality that leads many to mistakingly perceive Twitter and Facebook as interchangeable substitutes.
Although the content format may be similar, the distribution and consumption paradigms are highly distinct and differentiated.
Facebook is all about sharing with friends. Everything about Facebook is oriented around replicating the real-world social graph. In fact, it was Facebook’s early focus on creating ‘trust-communities’ of people who know each other (in it’s formative days at the University level) that distinguished Facebook from other early social networks and set it ahead of the pack. As a result of this focus, when you share and consume content on Facebook you are deliberately doing so with and from a select and contained group of trustworthy friends.
In contrast, Twitter is all about shared interest. Unlike Facebook, the Twitter social graph is not rooted in real-world relationships but rather in real-world interests. I follow people and people follow me because we are interested in similar subjects and we share content that is thoughtful, informative and relevant to each others lives. Case and point, of the ~400 people that follow me and the ~120 people that I follow, I would estimate that only ~20% are real-world friends.
The ‘openness’ of Twitter has powerful implications for both consumption and distribution of short-form content. With respect to consumption, it is often the case that individuals in my social circle and thought-leaders in areas of personal interest are not one and the same. Despite this disconnect, Twitter provides on-demand, real-time access to follow the thoughts and musings of people who are interesting and relevant in my life (professional or otherwise) – thus providing a highly personalised channel for information discovery regardless of my relationship with the person projecting the content.
Similarly, on the distribution side, Twitter allows one to share content which is personally interesting and relevant with anyone in the world who cares to listen. Compounding its distributive power is Twitter’s Retweet feature which exponentially expands the distribution capacity of a given tweet by allowing anyone to instantaneously share content created by others. In this capacity, Twitter serves as a mechanism through which to form and cultivate ones (increasingly important) digital identify and is a pipeline to plug-in and actively participate in the global online conversation.
I hope it is now clear that the issue is not which company/platform is better and which is worse, it is simply that they are different. Twitter and Facebook are imperfect substitutes, and in fact, are quite complementary. I go to Facebook because I care about the lives of my friends. I go to Twitter because I care about topically-oriented conversations. These are different use cases and both value-additive in my life.
Read more at The Sisqokid.