Last night, a developer from Twitter wrote in a Q&A on their blog that the service goes down “generally when ‘popular’ users - that is, users with large numbers of followers and people they’re following - perform a number of actions in rapid succession.”
It’s basically a big F-U to the most popular Twitterers.
Now I know it must be frustrating for the folks over at Twitter to have all of these “popular” users calling them out on a daily basis. And however ridiculous it may seem for a single person to have 20,000+ followers, this is the state of their technology. Blaming their users is bad call, especially the ones that have the strongest voice. Bad Twitter.
They need to think before they talk and work with their users instead of against them. Sheesh.
The flood of activity on Twitter has caused consistent problems for the service over the last few months. The site has gone down almost daily, causing members some members to ditch the service while others are going up in arms.
Yesterday Steve Rubel said he’s been hanging out at FriendFeed rather than dealing with the downtime. For months, a slew of people have pushed for Twitter to adopt some sort of monetization strategy to help the micro-blogging service with infrastructure issues. Last week Duncan Riley said its time to move on, urging people to help FriendFeed kill Twitter. Yesterday Jim Long told us we were all crazy for going back after all of the problems.
It’s getting ridiculous. Yes Twitter has gone down during crucial times, but I think we need to give them a little breathing room. Last week, Robert Scoble noticed that they were taking steps to alleviate some of the stress on their system. Yes, it’s just sticking a band-aid on an artery wound, but it’s a step in the right direction.
And let’s be real about this, no one is actually dying when Twitter goes down. Twitter has given us a lot so far and I think we owe it to those twits to let them try to work it out. (Although planning some sort of exit timetable might be in order.)
And, since Twitter is currently down, I have the time to actually write a blog post (which may or may not be a good thing. I’ll leave that up to you to decide.)
If you were at all like me, your first day in high school consisted of you walking the halls, wide-eyed, trying to get your bearings without upsetting any upperclassmen. It was overwhelming. But eventually a routine becomes placed, a core group of friends is found and the learning begins.
Twitter is a lot like high school. People go to it, for no other reason than they think they should but once it’s given a chance the value is discovered. But you have to work at it. You have to seek out friends, follow them and contribute to the conversations.
Tread lightly though, your reputation is at stake. People will read what you post and if you slip up, it’s likened to tripping in the lunch line at a crowded cafeteria. The good thing is, people have short memories these days, so most embarrassing moments are soon forgotten. But sometimes something so bad happens you have to switch schools.
There’s also a wide range of characters on Twitter. The geeks, the bully, the jocks and the cool kid and the class clown. If you’re careful you can get a steady stream of information that ranges from the completely inane to actually handy. It all depends on which crowd you run with.
The Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives hosted a very informative conference today on the Business Applications of Social Networking. FWE&E aligned the conference with the launch of their own online community, a great example of a real world implementation of a social network (I know, gasp!)
Other than that, there was a slew of pertinent information for businesses struggling to execute a useful and manageable social media strategy from a list of speakers that included Ross Mayfield of SocialText (Eastwick is a SocialText customer), Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester and Gina Bianchini of Ning. Here’s the gist:
Social networking is still about peopleRealize the needs of your target audience then decide a strategy that makes sense for their needs
Start smallYou may want to have four billion people in your network, but begin with a core group and build from there
It takes work Social networks do grow organically, but you still need someone to push it along with stimulating conversation, compelling content, radical ideas, etc., etc.
Be patient If you are implementing a useful network and have the motivation chances are it will succeed, just not overnight
There is no one answer Use the other networks out there to your advantage, collaborate and “cross-pollinate”
Sometimes, there is no answer As Gina Bianchini put it today “Social networking isn’t for everyone” and that’s OK. If it doesn’t make sense for your business, don’t push it.
Update: I just realized that my colleague Stuart Froman also blogged about this event earlier today (thanks for beating me to the punch Stu!) Check it out here, he’s a much better writer than I am.
Nearly a week after the enormously popular technology conference ended, people are still talking about SXSWi. Interestingly, not much of the conversation has anything to do with technology. The biggest news coming out of Austin, Texas last week was the ill-fated Mark Zuckerberg keynote that may or may not have been his fault. Other than that we know that Twitter is Robert Scoble’s favorite social network:
Where are the hot debates? Disruptive technologies? Worthless new upgrades?
Apparently everyone is hungover. Maybe that’s what is going on. Now I’m really jealous I didn’t get to go.
After my break from blogging I noticed that some of my videos had been erased from the ol’ HBFS blog. Not really sure why this happened (WordPress?) but rest assured that I will get to the bottom of it. I know you all were very concerned.
Another move by ABC to carve out their space on the web, from TechCrunch:
Sometimes you’ve got to wonder what goes through the minds of TV executives. Today, the Disney-ABC Television Group decided to launch its Web video studio, Stage 9 Digital Media, with the debut of “Squeegees” on both YouTube and ABC.com.
Lame doesn’t begin to describe this three-and-half-minute comedy about the hijinks of a window-washing crew. The acting is horrible and the jokes fall flat—drunk, naked window washer (don’t ask) scares kids in a day care class as he dangles outside their window. It is something that ABC, one hopes, would never put on television. So why subject Web audiences to something like this? In another clueless move, ABC has turned off the embedding feature in the YouTube player. I guess it doesn’t want people spreading the show around.
I wouldn’t be so harsh on ABC, except that in the press release announcing the launch of Stage 9 and “Squeegees” there is this quote from Barry Jossen, the “Acadamy Award-winning short-form producer” who is now the general manager of Stage 9:
While the new media space is loaded with UGC, we feel the audience is missing the quality experience found in other forms of exhibition, and we are answering their need. This creative frontier gives us the opportunity to develop new franchises, discover and develop talent and, most importantly, expand the standard of excellence set by our parent company in creating superior episodic programming with great stories and production values.
Superior episodic programming? Please. ABC/Stage 9 has 20 more Web shows in the works, and maybe it will get it right with one of them. But with “Squeegees” it is not putting its best foot forward, and it is certainly not expanding the “standard of excellence.” I’ll take original Web shows like Rocketboom, WallStrip, or Pop17 any day over something half-produced. What ABC fails to understand is that when it comes to Web video, authenticity trumps production values.
There is nothing wrong with going the “quality experience” route, but you can’t go half way. Because it is ABC, people will expect more from any show associated with Stage 9 than from someone filming in their house. If it is going to try to teach the Web how video is really made, then it should have picked a different opening act.
The propagation of digital cable and digital video recorders is forcing television networks to reevaluate how to they can get viewers to actually see the revenue producing commercials that actually pay for the programming. DVRs allow viewers to speed through commercials, posing a major threat to advertisers and consequently TV networks. NBC and ABC have both recently made two announcements that look to help them maintain their power positions in the digital age.
As reported by Neal at Media Bistro, NBC and Pando have chosen to team up to present - in the not too distant future - a revamped NBC Direct website, complete with the option to enjoy (with superfantastic 90% greater efficiency, according to Pando.com site copy) “free DVD-quality downloads of (users’) favorite shows.” Neal proffered a convenient comment in response to the news, too: “If you were wondering why NBC content was pulled from iTunes….”
Yes, it appears NBC is pretty intent on making its presence on the Web as self-brandedly (not a real word, but I’ll argue for its momentary legitimacy nonetheless) as possible. Apparently Pando has proven itself quite capable of delivering relatively reliable service as compared to other channels and distributors, having already signed deals with Viacom’s Comedy Central, ESPN, and both MLB and NBA.
Looking to strike a blow against the proliferation of digital video recorders, the ABC network, its affiliated broadcast stations, and Cox Communications’ cable systems are establishing an on-demand video service that would allow viewers to watch ABC shows like “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” any time they choose.
The catch: It uses a new technology that disables the viewers’ ability to fast-forward through commercials.
So you are probably thinking to yourself: Doesn’t ABC and NBC already let you watch episodes online and On-Demand. I was thinking the same thing. My prediction: We are in a “Napster-esque” era of TV programming and it will only be a matter of time before networks tighten their hold on their content.
Under the massing pressure of financial strains brought on by the new media revolution, four of the country’s largest newspaper companies last week announced they are consolidating a portion of their online ads through a venture called quadrantONE. Through quadrantONE, the four companies - the Gannet Company, the Hearst Corporation, The New York Times Company and the Tribune Company - will allow national advertisers to reach localized audiences through their newly aggregated network.
Citing Nielsen Online data, quadrantONE says its network can reach up to 50 million unique visitors per month, enticing advertisers by offering highly localized ads in nearly 120 top online publications. Essentially, companies can now purchase online advertising for papers’ websites like The San Francisco Chronicle, The Houston Chronicle and The Detroit Free Press in one convenient place.
Interestingly, left out of the partnership are the heavy hitters in online advertising, Google and Yahoo, who were no doubt left out to avoid their eventual consumption of the entire market. Its a bold move for newspaper companies to attempt an industry-wide alignment of online advertising without the backing and infrastructure of a specialized technology company. Taking a look at quadrantONE’s antiquated website might be an allusion to the company’s philosophy in general.
This isn’t the first time that major newspapers have come together to battle against the online tides. In 1995, nine of the biggest newspaper companies formed the ill-fated New Century Network. New Century was conceived for reasons very similar to those that sparked quadrantONE. New Century didn’t make it out of the 90’s, crumbling under the cumbersome needs and disjointed agendas of its partners.
It will be interesting to monitor the success of quadrantONE as it strives to reverse the ebb of newspaper revenue. The high-level ideas communicated last week at quadrantONE’s launch seem relevant and they have the outlet channels, but it will most likely come down to the execution of delivering relevant and targeted content.
Some interesting developments from the campaign trail:
I may have poked a little fun at Mike Huckabee last week for the endorsement from Chuck Norris, but he is garnering a lot of praise over at techPresident, who says his “campaign has the most effective online operation of any of the candidates.”
And I am inclined to agree. The former Governor of Arkansas seems to be playing online game right at the moment. Huckabee is using all the outlets at his disposal to not only boost his visibility, but also to encourage organic growth of the message he is trying to get out.
His camp’s strategy seems to focus its efforts on a grass roots push supported by some very tech savvy people. His website has downloadable fliers and fact sheets, embeddable banners and a constantly updated blog. Then there are the videos. Huckabee’s use of video hasn’t stopped at the CNN/YouTube debates. He posts sound bites, speeches and originally created content, all of which spur his supporters to create their own videos. That move to let his supporters act independently seems to be the smartest one he has made.
In other news:
Coming from the left side of the campaign is Chris Dodd, who recently posted this question for the Republicans at the next CNN/YouTube Debate on Wednesday:
It’s an interesting move by the senior Senator from Connecticut and it should be even more interesting to see if the question gets used on Wednesday night.
May 30th, 2008 by 
kevin
twitter 
No Comments »
