Live data from Hacker News

74% of Twitter users have 10 tweets or less

mediamemo.allthingsd.com

1–10 of 48 posts

Re: 74% of Twitter users have 10 tweets or less

#7
post #5

26% producer/74% consumer is more than the 10%/90% I expected. Not everyone has something interesting to say and that's all right. I don't really want more people tweeting what they have for lunch.

26% aren't necessarily producing though it could be under 10% and the others just tried it for a day or a week and saw no use.

Re: 74% of Twitter users have 10 tweets or less

#8
I just can't get bullish about Twitter for the long haul with mainstream adoption. I know I might get flamed for this, but I'm trying to give some observations:

* Tech inclined, but non-industry friends just don't see the value of Twitter. The word pointless is used almost every time.

* Those that try it leave very fast. That's where the 10 tweets per person seems to be about right.

* The engagement just isn't there. I know someone mentioned the whole 90/10 ratio, but that's different here. Imagine if only 74% of Facebook users posted something or updated their profile. That's really really bad.

* I asked a room filled with 30 college seniors who come from good backgrounds / fairly smart / business students etc if they used Twitter. One person tried it and one person uses it for their job, not personally.

I'm not saying Twitter is horrible or Twitter is going to die. I just don't see it being the huge monstrosity of a multi multi billion dollar company a lot of people expect it to be. That's okay. I'd rather see it stick around for those that do value it, rather than die because it tried to become something it just can't be.

Re: 74% of Twitter users have 10 tweets or less

#9

I just can't get bullish about Twitter for the long haul with mainstream adoption. I know I might get flamed for this, but I'm trying to give some observations: * Tech inclined, but non-industry friends just don't see the value of Twitter. The word pointless is used almost every time. * Those that try it leave very fast. That's where the 10 tweets per person seems to be about right. * The engagement just isn't there.…

My impression is that Facebook stole a lot of the potential Twitter thunder. For communicating among your Facebook friends, Facebook status updates are at least as good as Twitter, maybe better. A lot of my friends are on Facebook, more every day; far fewer are also using Twitter.

IMHO Twitter is a tool for following interesting people who aren't close enough to you to be your friend in something like Facebook. But what makes someone interesting on Twitter? Being a celebrity is not it: Most celebrities aren't famous for generating Twitter-type content. They're famous for acting or sprinting or golf or good looks, none of which translates well to Twitter.

Being an important company is not it, either, unless you enjoy reading press releases or are a serious power user.

The people I follow are hackers, writers, artists, and good linkers. People who are otherwise hard to follow via mass media, but are not close enough to be personal friends. It doesn't surprise me that the audience for that is large but not gargantuan, just as it doesn't surprise me to know that the market for novels is an order of magnitude smaller than the market for sitcoms.

It also doesn't surprise me that the Twitter audience skews older. Isn't catering to kids what the rest of the media is for?

Post reply on HN