…r to what many of the teens that I study see, especially black and brown urban youth. For starters, their Twitter feed doesn’t have links; this is often shocking to journalists and digerati whose entire stream is filled with URLs. But I’m also bothered by Andrew’s depiction of Twitter users as first and foremost doing so to “co…
i.e. Millennials use Twitter for communication/conversation, as opposed to Baby Boomers who use it for discovery.
If this is true, the demographic decomposition of Twitter’s user data has major implications for the app’s own identity and future direction. It’s a choice between competing broadly with either Snapchat or Facebook.
If this is true, Twitter needs to fork into 2 different apps (it matters a lot less whether they create app constellation or an aggregator, than they address the specific needs of specific user groups)…
1. Messaging (for Millenials): align more purely with “communication,” “real time,” “citizen journalism,” “new media” ideals.
2. News (for everyone else): chiefly concerned w content discovery & curation.
If this is true, the market will more naturally pull product/market fit out of Twitter. No more schizophrenic oscillating between platform and media company.
If this is true, Twitter’s 300M users can comp a lot better vs peers (e.g. Snapchat’s 100M and Facebook’s 1.6B).
The data actually do support the narrative of Twitter’s highly fractured user-base. That’s a byproduct of the company’s schizophrenia. It’s also the beauty of human ingenuity: you hand people a simple tool and watch in awe as they each retrofit it to solve their respective problems and meet their respective needs.