10% Of Twitter Users Account For 90% Of Twitter Activity

[mjfern]

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-of-twitter-users-account-for-90-of-twitter-activity-2009-6

[csbartus]

At the beginning was Pareto with a 80%-20% distribution. Today we are living the 90%-10% era moving towards perhaps the perfect asymmetry 99%-1%.

(According to Stanislaw Lem) Asymmetry is a result of deconstructing “archaeological” power structures as we see today Twitter does with the mainstream media, Napster did with the music industry.

If I were a VC I would bet on two types of startups:

- dealing with adding structure to the unstructured (like Google Waves)

- forcing asymmetry on any market.

[eru → csbartus]

TV is actually much more asymmetrical than most online forms communication.

[csbartus → eru]

sorry, don't get the analogy

[eru → csbartus]

I was trying to say that asymmetry in communication is not a new phenomena and might already be descending.

[csbartus → eru]

No doubt. TV is a monopoly power structure influencing people's life. We can say 99% of manipulation was coming from the classic media structures like TV, newspapers, Hollywood movies.

And yes, it is already descending due to internet.

[friedbaloney]

I think Guy Kawasaki accounts for about 45% of twitter activity.

[growt]

You see this numbers quite often (p.e. regarding digg). I think thats just the way things (people) are. 10% will say something the other 90% will listen. Wenn you start something involving user interaction/communication you should keep it in mind.

[swombat → growt]

Totally agree. The same is true, for example, in viral growth. A small number of users will be the source of most of the invitations going out, as I mentioned here: http://danieltenner.com/posts/0009-how-to-make-your-applicat...

That's just a natural state of things, rather than something to be fought against.

One interesting question is, why doesn't this apply to email or the telephone? Or does it apply to those media too?

[growt → swombat]

My guess is that it applies to telephone conferences and emails with more than one recipient.

[pierrefar]

That's one heck of a long tail! It sure puts into perspective the interesting stats from @scobleizer: http://friendfeed.com/scobleizer/50e673d8/some-stats-from-tw...

[physcab]

"This implies that Twitter's resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service more than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network."

Well, there ya go. There's the business plan. It's just a new way to advertise products. Specific cases like Dell solidify this point as well.

[vyrotek]

Not surprising, I was an active user for a month or two when I first signed up but I quickly lost interest. I haven't posted or read anything from twitter for months now and I dont miss it.

[steve_mobs → vyrotek]

i think that is what a lot of normal users experience on twitter.

Social network contribution by normal people is based on you broadcasting or publishing content about yourself and getting a quick response. for example, with facebook you can post pictures of yourself and get a response from your friends.Which people get addicted to.This is basically called the celebrity affect, where you feel like a celebrity among your peer group.

But on twitter if you are not some sort of celebrity or well known brand you will not get any followers or responses. Since no one sees why you are special or why your social content is interesting.