Why Twitter Will Never Reach the Mainstream

In the midst of covering cool startup upon cool startup, it’s been a while I’ve done an opinion piece directly from the heart on Rev2, so here it goes. For the last couple of months, I’ve been trying Twitter (follow me pahleez!). This is partly because of having recently been a Mac switcher and being acquainted with the wonderful Twitterific client and partly to join the conversation, break myself from the skeptic image, and to do what the cool kids are doing. And I’ve come to a conclusion: Twitter will never reach the mainstream demographic. But it’ll be hip with us — the Internet crowd — and in the end, that’s all that will matter.

Here’s the thing. Twitter is based around the idea of informing others what you’re doing at a particular moment. By doing so, you’re joining a conversation, interacting with a community (people who you follow), and participating in a global discussion. But there’s a slight detail that that’s left out when someone attempts to describe Twitter: you need connectivity. A laptop, a phone, e-mail, IM, SMS, a client — you need some form of a connection to the Internet.

Now, for us cool, hip, and tech-savvy folks, it’s a given. Either we’re working all day on our laptop, or carrying an iPhone, or visiting an Internet Kiosk at the airport. We’re connected — we’re totally in it. But that 90% of the rest of the world? Err… not so much. A few minutes a day, an hour, two if they’re lucky, is all the tube-time they get. For the rest, they’re either travelling or working (not at or around a computer) or socializing. Of course, this is changing as more people get high-tech phones and phones have Internet connectivity, but generally not a lot of txting is done even now with our early adopter niche (5% is an estimated figure — see the fantastic ReadWriteWeb data survey on the many ways people Twitter.)

So Twitter faces a problem. It’s not like any other website where you can check e-mail or catch up/add new friends and pimp up your profile or watch the five videos grandma sent you. For the idea to work on a mainstream scale, it needs community, it needs conversation — it needs its userbase to be atuned to what’s happening, and add to it. Of course, right now, that’s exactly what’s happening, and as someone who is online at least six hours a day, I found it useful and interesting and exciting to catch up on stuff that my peers have been twittering and say stuff back, occasionally blurting out random thoughts that come to my mind. People like me is whom Twitter is made for — and it’s a great utility for us. But for that mainstream? I’m not so sure.

So let me make a bold prediction. The tipping point graphs that you’ve seen with Wikipedia and YouTube and Facebook and MySpace? Not gonna happen with Twitter. You can argue that it already has — but I think it corresponds to the early adopter/techie/hip crowd, not the mainstream — and hence has been at a much smaller scale than your regular “tipping point.” Instead, what’s going to happen is Twitter is going to continue to see slow growth over its new users and its current ones are going to participate more, in turn making it into a 1/10 of the usual giant Internet website. Anyone who spends their life on the Internet being connected to tubes most of the day is going to use it and love it. And for anyone who doesn’t, it won’t matter.

Most Commented

  • "Never" is a very long time, and we "cool, savvy, and tech-savvy folks" aren't as cool as we think we are.
  • But you have to realize, Twitter from the ground up relies on a system with heavy user-input. And the only people that can possibly keep up with the flow of discussions are us "cool, hip, and tech-savvy folks" -- because we're around a computer or phone half the time! Your grandma isn't going to spend her day "following" her followers and adding to the conversations. And because of that, isn't much use to her. Of course, to us, it's useful, cool, and adds value to our brands and lives.

    I think the problem with Twitter is that it's a wholly different, brilliant concept -- ahead of the curve. So people's expectations are far beyond what it can satisfy at this time. Of course, you're right in that I should never say never, so I guess meanwhile is what you're looking for. :-)
  • "Twitter from the ground up relies on a system with heavy user-input. And the only people that can possibly keep up with the flow of discussions are us "cool, hip, and tech-savvy folks" -- because we're around a computer or phone half the time! "

    Um, what about the average kid going through school now? They are constantly on IM and sending SMS! E.g. my 11 year old niece puts me to shame in this respect. Sure, my mother would have no interest in Twitter. But that is to be expected, just like she doesn't care much for SMS, E-mail or IM. Getting back to Twitter and my niece: I wont be showing her it just yet so that I can be cool for just that little bit longer... Because believe me, the mark of today's "cool, hip, and tech-savvy" is business as usual for tomorrow's average connected (there will always be those who opt-out of staying in close touch) person.
  • That's a great point -- and something I really regret not covering in the piece. Today's young generation is as cool, hip, and tech-savvy as can be. And I guess I do lightly imply them with those words -- but perhaps not as much as I should.

    Infact, the more I think about it, the more that argument overwrites my argument in my head. The problem with Twitter right now is that the idea is much beyond today's generation of Internet users. But as time passes, it may well be a great utility for the up and coming generation. "What are you doing?" is a question teens I would imagine ask themselves regularly -- and why not have a centralized tool you can answer it to. And of course, the web, IM and SMS is going to be their life -- which fits exactly into Twitter's core idea, and I think even less so into today's other top sites.

    So perhaps the title of this post should be, "Why Twitter Will Never Reach Today's Mainstream." Thanks for the comment!
  • Troy
    how about the fact that as we get older/have kids, very few people have groups of people that give a crap about our minute by minute bowel movements.

    To someone my age, who, btw, is always conected, the whole concept just seems pointless.
  • Point noted.
  • "But there’s a slight detail that that’s left out when someone attempts to describe Twitter: you need connectivity. A laptop, a phone, e-mail, IM, SMS, a client — you need some form of a connection to the Internet."

    I don't understand that argument. How is that any different to any of the other services you mention?
  • And that's the basis of my argument. The difference is: Twitter relies on constant connectivity; it expects the community to be in tune to everything that is happening (at least in their worlds) and adhere to the constant feedback loop. If you're not in tune, the value you add to the Twitterverse is close to nothing, and the "community" aspect is non-existant.

    Newsflash: the mainstream is never the kind to be "in tune" with any kind system -- and that's why models like Wikipedia, YouTube, or Google -- where the "connectivity" is really at the user's demise and not a variable -- work well and reach the mainstream.

    Put simply, Twitter needs YOU, whereas YOU need Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, Gmail, or the tens of services that have seemed to acquainted 'the curve.'
  • Still feel this way? Just curious
blog comments powered by Disqus