Say It Ain’t So, Twitter

Posted by Ben Berkon on January 26, 2010 12:16 PM

Checking or posting on Twitter has become a habit for more than twenty million people every month.

While the social networking site has enjoyed a tremendous level of success, its number of visitors hasn’t changed much since the month of June -- and hasn’t quite reached the impressive heights it achieved in August. It would almost be taboo to use the words “Twitter” and “peaked” in the same sentence -- but could it actually be true, and is it much of a surprise?

Let’s take a look back at some old social networking sites. Take Friendster, for instance. It started back in 2002 -- just eight years ago -- and became the most popular social networking site on the Internet. Similar to Facebook, Friendster enabled users to “friend” other people, upload pictures, and join common interest groups.

But, how many of your friends and co-workers still use Friendster? Not many. Even the Onion made a parody news video about the once-popular site, claiming, “Internet Archaeologists Find Ruins of ‘Friendster’ Civilization.” Could there be a similar view of Twitter in five or so years?

Even Facebook, often seen as an unmovable force in the world of social networking, took a noticeable hit when Twitter became popular. Facebook’s rebuffed offer of $500 million to buyout Twitter was seen as a historic moment in social networking history.

There is no doubt that Twitter’s success has been remarkable and revolutionary, but its current stagnant period has everyone speculating -- what’s next?

More about: Twitter, Facebook, Friendster, The Onion, Tech

Jatinder Vijh says:

Nothing remains permanent. Initial figures just project enthusiasm but for permanence, continuous engagement is required.

January 27, 2010 05:14 AM #

Brad Hart says:

Twitter without a doubt has hit a peak, but not its final peak. The service won't peak for another three or four years when the kids around 1997 hit their mid to late teens. Whether twitter holds its dominance after that peak is going to be a question of what comes along next and how twitter competes against it.

January 27, 2010 09:35 AM #

Tracy says:

I like Jatinder's Vijh's "continuous engagement."

How about "continuous stable engagement?" I would rather see Twitter maintain its numbers and its brand over time rather than experience meteoric growth before inevitable sad decline (and Onion jokes).

Growth is important, don't get me wrong -- and maybe Twitter is the wrong forum to make this point -- but too often we're obsessed with growth, growth, growth / more, more, more NOW (otherwise you're, you know, "stagnant")... at the expense of the long-term. Yes, there's no permanence, especially in technology but a focus on nothing but increasing users instead of evolving the service is shortsighted. What's the goal? Get everybody with an internet connection signed up? Then what? You have this bloated thing with diluted value that will become the next Friendster. Social networking sites come and go, falling victim to new fads and users' changing lifestyles and attention spans. Why not try to beat that system?

January 27, 2010 09:37 AM #

Michelle says:

yes! 100% agree

January 27, 2010 09:57 AM #