Twitter: Takedown or Turn-Around?

It seems as though every passing week brings a new negative news cycle for Twitter. In the last few days, there has been immense fluctuation in stock price due to buy-out rumors starting to take shape due to the plummeting valuations coupled with poor performance metrics.  Recently, it was announce that four key members of the leadership team were moving on with some ambiguity about whether or not the departures were voluntary or mandated. Before that, there were poorly received changes that portrayed them as less of a legitimate competitor to Facebook, and more of a poorly executed carbon copy. This came on the heels of Jack Dorsey’s highly publicized return to his role as CEO, despite the fact that his focus and intentions had clearly diverted from Twitter to his newer, hotter venture, Square.

The simple truth is: Twitter never quite made the jump from niche social media site to mainstream. Usership never quite blossomed as predicted, and the buzz and identity of the company has been waning ever since the firm went public. Going on Twitter these days feels like watching a Dick Clark New Year’s Eve special towards the end of his run. There’s still some life and energy, but Twitter is a shell of its former self, reminiscent of Mr. Clark, coated in makeup and false pretenses, with its star fading and identity at an impasse.

User engagement and positive publicity, the two most integral aspects of a social media platform, have all but evaporated. The question now become, Is Twitter salvageable? Beyond that—is it even worth saving?

Sourced from graphiq

The failings of Twitter seem to lie in the fact that it has always been a novelty, rather than becoming a necessity to its users. Facebook has used its entrenchment to steal Twitter’s lunch, moving into diverse spaces and becoming nearly impossible for members of my generation to imagine living without it.

With its newest trick, Facebook is intending to take on Twitter when it’s at its lowest. The main differentiator is that Twitter has always felt alive, a presence that sparks engagement and interactions with immediacy to a generation of people who are all too eager to consume. Facebook, on the other hand, prefers to work retroactively, as a resource and modern day forum, rather than a location to flock to when the excitement of an event or phenomenon unites the userbase. But now, with Twitter in a coma, and seemingly on life support, Facebook is launching a new attempt to end Twitter’s confusing life cycle once and for all.

For me, as well as members of my social circle, the ‘live-tweeting’ of sporting events and noteworthy media events has been what has drawn us to the platform, even if we no longer tweet constant updates using hashtags, or favorite/retweet with a disconcerting intensity. Facebook Sports Stadium will now attempt to usurp this niche from Twitter, and if all goes according to plan, eliminate their final frontier of competitive advantage.

One of my favorite phrases is “hindsight is 20/20;” looking back, it seems that Twitter should never have gone public. While my colleagues and I have focused on several case studies of companies in a similar conundrum during the course of our graduate studies, including GoPro and even Jack Dorsey’s own Square, it seems this is a similar failing of Twitter. While many say that going public hurts the firm because of investor-focus on revenue streams and profit, I think that the larger issue is that somewhere along the line, Twitter lost its identity. But even more so, it looks increasingly like as Twitter went public, it tried to become something it’s not—akin to a na?ve 18 year old trying to get into a bar with Facebook’s fake identification.

The constant attack of criticism and negative press has surely hurt engagement, as has Twitter’s own missteps; and Twitter, more than any other social network, thrives off of this constant, live user-ship. A social network is only as strong and interactive as its user base—so an argument could be made that millenials, or Internet users as a whole, even if they didn’t necessarily kill Twitter, are lowering it to its grave. Even as the world collectively gasped while reading the erroneous tweets between Kanye West, Wiz Khalifa, and Amber Rose, with wide ranging reactions and buzz that recalled the days of yore, this felt more like a dead cat bounce than a spark for the company once characterized with much higher regard, as a unicorn, due to its multi-billion dollar valuation.

 But can Twitter change its own fate? In a word, I believe that the answer is yes. I believe that if it returns to its position as a niche social network, with unique features and character, then there would still be user interest. Twitter seems to have fallen into the dangerous trap of many upstart technology firms, where they grow too fast, too quickly, and oversaturated clientele while forgetting who they are along the way. Nowadays, if a friend uses a hashtag, or tweets a meaningless update, they are skewered and mocked, whereas before this was commonplace and lauded. The fact remains, however, that people are increasingly expanding their presence online and are interested in the mundane, day-to-day operations of their peers. The fact that people pay for apps to follow members of the Kardashian family is proof enough of this phenomenon.

 What Twitter needs to do is make meaningful changes, rather than these surface-level changes and attempts to save face in the media. Maybe the members of the team did walk away willingly because they lost faith in the project, but if Mr. Dorsey fired them in search of new people and ideas, that should be discussed transparently. I know that I, for one, would appreciate a leader admitting that the current formula wasn’t working, and taking ownership of his decisions in an attempt to right the sinking ship.

Beyond this, I think one potential solution is staring the leadership team right in the face. Square, too, is failing, and they are attempting to pivot to more profitable ventures such as consultancy services and diversification of use. Why not link the two ventures, as after all it is much easier to tread water with a team of two than it is to be stuck out in the ocean alone. This is the same type of tactic that Dell/EMC just used in their forthcoming merger. If Square became the Paypal to Twitter’s Ebay, then Twitter could create its own ecosystem; and rather than erroneous ads, promoted posts with ease of payment could become a norm for the site.  Additionally, with their video subsidiary Vine, Twitter is poised to create brief, consumable advertising content to further aid in developing several revenue streams.  

Furthermore, I think that it is time for Twitter to start paying for better content. Ride sharing services such as Uber or Lyft use all sorts of measures to attract users and drivers, and this results in positive word of mouth advertising, a staple for a social site. By offering rewards to friends who draw other friends to the site, incentives for increased tweeting activity, promotions for those who retweet business-related content, or significant financial reward for celebrities who interact with the site and their fans, Twitter can reverse the negative news cycle and bring users back to the currently dormant format. And while they are at it, they should get rid of the heart and “liking” and return to the favoriting and retweeting that made them famous in the first place.

This post was edited by LinkedIn Campus Editor Andrea Reeves. #StudentVoices