Facebook vs. Twitter Influence on Techcrunch

Personally and professionally, I find posts that “compare” Twitter and Facebook as if they were competitors largely off-base and useless, but I weighed in on this one on Techcrunch. My thesis is that these venues only “compete” if you care about fickle mass adoption and don’t care about each site’s underlying value proposition. Facebook and Twitter are very different, so comparing them doesn’t make much sense in most cases. In 2009, however, mass media in the United States especially was having a field day talking about Twitter “knocking Facebook off its pedestal,” which was silly. Here’s Techcrunch’s take on it. My response and thoughts are below.

Although this post will be of interest to some, the numbers as presented are not very important unless you have a mass advertising mentality. It’s tiresome to see the comparisons between Facebook and Twitter, even though it does grab headlines. I will grant you that the sites do compete in certain areas, but the post you present doesn’t do the topic justice. One is a social network and the other a microblog.

From Main Street perspective, Facebook is much easier to use than Twitter, so of course its growth will persist as all Web 2.0 sites continue to mainstream. It would be much more useful to see a comparison between active users of each site, as most Twitter users barely use the site. Most of its 2009 growth was “Oprah tweeters” and the like. Twitter is more specialized than Facebook and requires more imagination and knowledge to use. Very few people know how to use the site, @guykawasaki ‘s efforts notwithstanding ,^)

I have found your posts comparing the two in terms of the “battle for the status” much more insightful. Status and mobility are Twitter’s DNA, and I believe it will continue to add value there.

I also like your coverage of Facebook’s desire to open due to Twitter’s traction with search.

All the best-