
Twitter Needs New Leadership - jkestner
https://stratechery.com/2015/twitter-needs-new-leadership/
======
hrvbr
Twitter's website has so many annoyances it is no more a pleasure for me to
check it. For example:

\- Photos are very badly cropped and clicking on the tweet does not diplay
them full size anymore. We have to click a second time on the photo.

\- Photos are now displayed above the text which somehow makes the bad
cropping even worse.

\- People who want to post photos have all moved to Instagram anyway. Twitter
is an actor, not a victim, of this move. They seem to consider photos as a
feature for advertisers, not for users.

\- Embedded tweets (retweets with a comment) don't have functionnal links.
Clicking them opens the tweet's page in a way that ruins the auto-scrolling of
the main stream. The trick against that is to right-click on the embedding
tweet's time and open the link in a new tab. WTF, designers?

\- If one wants to post a longer text, Twitter leads them to create an account
elsewhere. Twitter could easily just display the title and hide the longer
text behind a click. WTF, strategists?

Twitter definitely needs a new leadership.

~~~
at-fates-hands
Your post is interesting.

Your first three points are about photos, and then the third point says
anybody who wants to post photos is already on Instagram. This is ironic
considering most of the people I follow post their Instagram photos - on
Twitter.

I do agree however on the embedded tweets. In a world where apps go to great
lengths to minimize the amount of clicks people have to make to get to their
content, it seems Twitter is incredibly behind the times in this regard.

As for longer tweets, I've read several interviews with the founders and they
said they will steadfastly defend a limit on the amount of characters for
posts. They say this is what separates Twitter from other social media
platforms. As a user, if I have something I need to write about, I never do it
on Twitter, there are an abundant other options to do this.

I do agree they need new leadership. As other social media platforms have
morphed to keep pace with the changes their users want, Twitter has
effectively done nothing to help make their platform any better than when I
joined almost five years ago.

------
austenallred
The bigger problem with Twitter is how damn hard it is to use the service
well. Twitter's value increases or decreases along with one's ability to
curate his or her feed.

It seriously took me years of careful tweaking to get my feed (and lists)
where I want them. Now Twitter is absolutely incredible; Twitter lets you be
in a room with anybody in the world you want to. That's really, really cool.
For me, that's startup legends and tech geniuses. I not only get to see what
they're saying, but often what they're reading and thinking about. Because of
that I wanted to see the feeds of some of the top tech investors look like, so
I created them in lists. They're fascinating to watch (lists are here
[http://theireyes.austenallred.com/pages/viewlist](http://theireyes.austenallred.com/pages/viewlist))

But I look at so many of my friends who don't use it, or who have an account
and don't log in, and it's almost always because they haven't taken the time
to follow the right people. That's hard to do. Facebook is easy - my grandma
knows me so she'll accept my friend request. Twitter, by its nature, forces
_you_ to be proactive in creating and culling that list. That's an action that
most people don't take.

So Twitter is trying something new - what if we put together lists of what
people want and had those available as the logged-out homepage, letting people
quickly get involved? It's an admirable effort, but look at the categories
available: It recommends I search for stuff like #NationalDayOfPrayer or
#BadBloodMusicVideo. The top categories right now are literally politicians,
high-end fashion designers, nascar drivers, and hotels/travel agents. I get
that they're trying to show you variety, but talk about shots in the dark.

I don't know what the solution is. But I think Twitter's biggest problem is
that it simply takes too much work before anyone gains value from Twitter.
There are a lot of people on this planet who will never put that much work in
before expecting something of value back out of a service.

~~~
ihnorton
It boggles my mind that Twitter _still_ does not provide a built-in way to
follow a hashtag.

~~~
apetresc
The day they implement that is the day that hashtags stop being useful.

"JOIN OUR SWEEPSTAKES TWEET US FOR A FREE IPHONE #apple #gameofthrones
#facebook #mylittlepony #android #sex"

That already happens now when the only incentive is to hit some random
searcher. When you're guaranteed millions of eyeballs instantly? Twitter's
spam-detection services are not up to the task, and that's not even counting
the non-spam but over-eager users.

------
yesbabyyes
Three things about Twitter's advertising:

F-Secure's Mikko Hypponen explains data mining and Twitter's ad targeting at
re:publica 2015:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbF0sVdOjRw&t=12m42s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbF0sVdOjRw&t=12m42s)

Here are two recent ads ("promoted tweets") on Twitter:

weev tells white people they need to stand up and defend yada yada. White
supremacy is apparently a-ok with Twitter:

[https://twitter.com/ReginaSmall/status/595211478648651776](https://twitter.com/ReginaSmall/status/595211478648651776)

Apple has an ad in Swedish. It's gibberish. Here is my best shot at
translating it (if it makes no sense, my translation is good):

"the good news is for the inhabitants of Sweden now can get iphone 6 set price
at 10 kr, beatings not until late"

[https://twitter.com/ehsanfadakar/status/596304927724548098](https://twitter.com/ehsanfadakar/status/596304927724548098)

Let me just say I'm not surprised if it doesn't work out for Twitter
financially, 'cause if they have all that data Mikko is talking about, and
they can't do better than spreading nazism and basically 419 scams, they
deserve bankruptcy, so as to make room for someone who can do it right. That's
how, I understand it, capitalism is supposed to work.

~~~
nicky0
You realise that's not a real Apple ad don't you.

~~~
yesbabyyes
Sorry, yeah, it's obvious _to you and me_. That's part of the problem, of
course. Why do they take money for actual spam? They're dragging both Apple's
and their own brand in the dirt.

------
ams6110
At some point I think people will start to realize that there is no
"investment" in social media. It's too fad-driven. And internet speed has
greatly accelerated the pace at which fads rise and fade. Nearly by the time
something appears to be getting popular, the new users are already looking at
the next thing.

Twitter is slowing because it's just not "the thing" anymore. Facebook also,
though both services have millions of users, they're not attracting the
younger users anymore. They've already moved on. I predict that in less than
10 years, both services will be seated at the "MySpace" table in internet
history.

There's only so many ways you can create interest in a proprietary package
around "sending notes and pictures to friends" which is all these services
really offer the average user as a value proposition. As soon as it becomes
too heavy, too bloated, too ad-infested, or "what my parents use" then the
next batch of users moves on.

The "value of the graph" which is what these services claim is the true value,
is meaningless to the average user. They don't give a shit about the graph,
beyond their own little piece of it. And if the users go elsewhere, the graph
ceases to have any value beyond academic.

~~~
jkestner
That's why Facebook has bought Instagram and Whatsapp, and tried to buy
Snapchat - to make sure they're riding the wave. What has Twitter bought? Vine
and Periscope are good, but seem like features to their existing network. Will
they bring in a new audience?

------
lhnz
I would bet that in 20 years time many other social networks will not be
standing yet Twitter will.

Maybe it makes less money and grows slowly, but I check Twitter every day and
can't see myself stopping. On the other hand, Facebook is a ghost town. Many
social networks explode into the scene but most burn out quickly.

It's nice to find a way to make a quick buck, but I think they should be
thinking of the long-term, too.

~~~
untog
I assure you, Facebook absolutely isn't a ghost town. It is transitioning into
something very different than it used to be, though. Back in the college days
it was a cool service that people were passionate about. These days it's
practically a utility - some social glue that helps to hold your life
together. That's no bad thing - I certainly don't expect Facebook to go
anywhere anytime soon.

Aside from anything else, I value the past content I have on Facebook -
photos, mainly. By contrast, Twitter content is almost all ephemeral.

~~~
droopyEyelids
I think at this point everyone has already heard the "social utility"
description and it dire straits add much to the conversation, particularly
because phone books were a social utility too.

------
wpietri
Reading this, I can't help but think how much of Twitter's job has shifted
from doing the work to tap-dancing about the work. So much of this is about
failure to meet "expectations", failure to meet possibly-arbitrary comparisons
to possibly-relevant things.

I also hate, hate, hate the cult-of-the-CEO viewpoint here. It could be that
Twitter's CEO role is so central that a) all the issues trace back to its
current occupant,and b) all problems can be solved by installing a new
occupant. But if that's really the case, then I'd call that a very badly
designed system. In what software would replacing 1/4000th of the code solve
all the performance and user interface problems? It seems like the model is
less, "creative, involved, self-directed workforce" and more "3rd-world cult-
of-personality banana republic".

~~~
austenallred
I think you're underestimating the power of leadership. Of course, replacing
one person in a large organization isn't going to make a huge difference
statistically, but it makes an enormous difference if that person is directing
all of the other people. If there are 4,000 people towing a ship, a change in
the captain could change which way they're rowing.

~~~
smitherfield
Or, to use a real-world example, does it matter who is President of the United
States? The federal government employs 4 million people, and the President has
far less control over them than a CEO has over their employees.

------
rifung
Can someone explain the value of Twitter to me? I certainly can see its value
for advertisers, or even to get breaking news, but I have a Twitter account
and don't use it at all.

What do you guys use it for? What's the target market for this exactly? I
certainly don't expect people to follow me, some random guy on the internet,
so there's no incentive for me to tweet myself. Besides news articles, what
interesting things do you read from tweets?

~~~
austenallred
Imagine if you could be a fly on the wall at a party. You could invite anyone
in the world to that party, and they'd come. Your heroes, the smartest people
in the world, the best people in your field, your friends, the funniest people
you know, etc. You get them all in a room and get to listen to everything
they're saying, thinking about, reading, etc.

That's Twitter.

~~~
rifung
Ah I think I am just not the target market as most(all?) of the people I
admire don't use it.

Thanks for the explanation though!

------
themeek
On the flip side of all of this, I think its important to recognize that
Twitter has - of most of the large social media platforms - been the best with
regard to resistance to censorship and propaganda initiatives. Twitter will
take down specific accounts, but as far as I can tell this is the state of the
art for them - they do not have automated reasoning that 'accidentally'
prevents spreading unwelcome news articles and leaked documents, etc. This of
course makes Twitter a viable target for propaganda efforts by AQAP, ISIL,
Russia, Israel, the US and others - but it also frees the service from being
controlled by any particular group (I suppose either is bad).

It is likely that with a change in leadership these policies will also change
and Twitter will become another Facebook/Reddit.

------
sensationaltru
Twitter's principal prob is information overload that users experience
inevitably on as they dedicate or spend more time on the platform due to the
reality of its non filtered laissez-faire stream of tweets[0].

The second most nagging prob for Twitter is the blurring line between its FB
page-like accounts and real/personal ones. Both unfortunatey stand on an equal
footing in the platform unlike the situation on Facebook where everything is
distinct and clear and the line is drawn quite obviously between groups,
pages, personal accounts ...etc

([0]: I like that it way as I am not in favor of FB's authoritarian policy of
curating/dictating what content should I consume. I'm very OK with rationing
and having full control of my TW time the way I see fit)

------
signaler
I have decided to make a small list of posts out that talk about Twitter in
recent times. Some are more cogent and authoritative than others.

\- [http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2015/04/30/twitters-
multi-b...](http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2015/04/30/twitters-multi-
billion-dollar-mistake-happened-five-years-ago/)

\- [http://john.do/twitter-quit/](http://john.do/twitter-quit/)

\- [http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/22/twitters-
dilemma](http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/22/twitters-dilemma)

\- [https://alexgaynor.net/2014/oct/30/i-hope-twitter-goes-
away/](https://alexgaynor.net/2014/oct/30/i-hope-twitter-goes-away/)

\- [http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/why-twitters-
engage...](http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/why-twitters-engagement-
has-fallen)

\-
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-eulo...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-eulogy-
for-twitter/361339/)

------
mschuster91
I'd love if there was a universal way for me to pay a central distributor e.g.
10€ a month and then distributes the money to the websites I visit, with the
same financial result for the website operators.

Like an optout for ads, because let's face it I won't be buying a Porsche
because of an Instagram photo or a tweet. Ads are just fucking annoying, and
it sorta works for pay tv.

~~~
pricechild
Something like this:
[https://www.google.com/contributor](https://www.google.com/contributor) ?

~~~
mschuster91
I hope that this takes off but unfortunately it'll only be for Google ads
which aren't obtrusive like layerads or youtube video ads...

------
pinaceae
the ad-based business model is as toxic for quality as being a public company
dependend on quarterly results. if you have no other fallback revenue, you get
pushed in a very specific, user-hostile direction.

google search as case in point, banner ads, etc., all broken promises.

why not do what linkedin does? offer paid premium accounts. the 'verified'
badge is already much coveted, so mark affluent users. re-sell short, unused
twitter handles. cap the number of followers at say 500, above needs to be
premium. want to persist your tweets longer than x months? premium. want to
connect an official 3rd party app? premium. remove fucking ads? guess...

and i am not talking about making this expensive, it does not need to be. earn
enough money to keep the lights on with premium users.

twitter has the best content on the net, so they're like HBO - but trying to
make money like network TV.

tl,dr: build a premium and 3rd party connector paid system, a mix of LinkedIn
and Slack's models.

don't like my idea? discuss.

~~~
wpietri
I generally agree with you on the issues of advertising. The value of an
eyeball or a click has been dropping for 20 years. The point of most
advertising is to distract, which puts it in direct opposition to the point of
most content.

But I think search-related ads are a different thing. When people are actively
looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value
instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with
Twitter's in-stream ads.

I think premium accounts could be great, but it's a tricky thing to get right.
Part of the value of Twitter is audience, so anything that might reduce the
audience is dangerous. You list several premium features that might have
worked from the beginning, but now would be perceived as a loss by non-premium
users, surely driving some from the platform and creating a wave of negative
comment.

~~~
ksk
> When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant
> somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with
> Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads.

Can you explain how twitter's in-stream ads are any different? You can apply
any number of arguments that are identical to your Google one. "If I'm
following News Outlet XYZ, telling me about News Outlet PQR can create value
as they might have another take on this particular story". "If I'm following
Pop artist M, telling me about similar Pop artists Q might be useful". You can
also apply the other argument - "I know what I'm looking for just feed me the
data and get out of the way" to both scenarios.

You can break the activities down to - 1) Are you 'exploring' or 2) Are you
just wanting to 'go to a particular data source X'. If you're exploring, of
course you're going to be more open to other inputs, and in that scenario, ads
- well not ads - but recommendations, are useful.

~~~
wpietri
Sure. Search is me actively looking for something. E.g., I want to buy a
replacement keyboard for my computer. My goal is to find something that
somebody is selling. There, ads may be relevant to my direct intent.

If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a
topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal.

Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching
for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular
set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of
relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses
that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the
advertisers.

Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully
curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some
brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my
feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help.
Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my
purchasing behaviors.

I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but
I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively
infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit.
I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need
to hear.

Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more
relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were
really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots
of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly
intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid
of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want
them.

------
nvk
2¢;

Twitter needs to learn how to let me, as a small company advertise at
affordable prices. Facebook learned this, even though we all know bots click
on "Boosted" posts. Give us, millions of small companies lots of amazing tools
and charge for it. (Start with multi user support for the corporate handle,
buy Buffer and get back to respecting developers)

~~~
josefresco
Have you tried their advertising products?

[https://ads.twitter.com/login?ref=gl-tw-tw-twitter-
advertise](https://ads.twitter.com/login?ref=gl-tw-tw-twitter-advertise)

I have on a very small scale so I can't speak to the effectivene4ss, but it's
(advertising options) been available for quite some time.

------
firebones
Some of these advertising-related problems seem to be related to Twitter's ad
delivering mechanism offering too much transparency into the effectiveness of
the advertising, while other networks profit from opacity. In other words, by
letting advertisers be more efficient, Twitter should have a better handle
(and perhaps later, collect a premium) for the value inherent in better
matchmaking and conversions.

Is there a path for an efficient social network that has the right buyers and
sellers on it transacting in highly efficient ways, but which isn't beholden
to conquer-the-world MAU metrics that have it scrambling to attract the masses
at the lower end of the Facebook curve (e.g., old high school acquaintances
who find it the perfect outlet to display their self-betraying views on
conspiracies, politics and race?)

------
lessthunk
Facebook has millions of real people on it -- for sure also bots, while
twitter has a much smaller hardcore fraction of people, next to too many bots.
Advertising performs better on FB.

------
jbob2000
Twitter just has way too small of a scope to be useful for most people. I
imagine most of their growth was hype-train growth, not really true usage
growth.

Not only that, but I'm quickly realizing that having a public record of short
little quips I've made is actually a really bad idea.

------
XLDRT
Twitter needs to create a better platform for international social media. That
will save it's bottom line and place itself into a completely new market for
enterprise accounts.

------
tdeang
Wait, there is no mention of Periscope or Meerkat in this post. Have I been
moved to a parallel dimension?

~~~
monkbent
[http://stratechery.com/2015/twitter-
might/](http://stratechery.com/2015/twitter-might/)

------
sjg007
Twitter should adopt deep-linking in app install ads.

------
igl
Yes. And a redesign. And a paid premium (200 chars) account. And a enterprise
(500chars + in-tweet-auto-playing-video) option.

There is clearly not enough advertisement on twitter, no wonder the users are
running away.

