Comments on: Regarding Nielsen’s View on Twitter http://www.jaephlec.com/regarding-nielsens-view-on-twitter web.social.ppc. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:03:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: jaephlec http://www.jaephlec.com/regarding-nielsens-view-on-twitter/comment-page-1#comment-37 jaephlec Wed, 20 May 2009 15:14:38 +0000 http://www.jaephlec.com/?p=145#comment-37 Thanks for reading. Hopefully someone from Nielsen can provide further insight onto how their data was gathered. If it's anything like how they gather numbers for TV shows, ie. grabbing a handful of college students and asking them if they watch a certain TV show, the results would most definitely be unrealistic of Twitter's user base.<br><br>Unfortunately, Nielsen has the name behind them and people believe their word as truth. Sometimes these big names NEED to be challenged. We can't just follow blindly. Thanks for reading. Hopefully someone from Nielsen can provide further insight onto how their data was gathered. If it's anything like how they gather numbers for TV shows, ie. grabbing a handful of college students and asking them if they watch a certain TV show, the results would most definitely be unrealistic of Twitter's user base.

Unfortunately, Nielsen has the name behind them and people believe their word as truth. Sometimes these big names NEED to be challenged. We can't just follow blindly.

]]> By: jaephlec http://www.jaephlec.com/regarding-nielsens-view-on-twitter/comment-page-1#comment-36 jaephlec Wed, 20 May 2009 15:09:36 +0000 http://www.jaephlec.com/?p=145#comment-36 Excellent point. Having the engaged group is definitely better than all the 'fluff', but then again, Twitter does give the user the opportunity to follow and unfollow whoever s/he pleases. The ability to track specific types of data and collect real time information is invaluable -- and yes I know I'm preaching to the choir with you :).<br><br>What I've noticed from my core group of friends, is after signing up for Twitter, they don't get it. They think it's stupid and doesn't provide any real value. I think they enter in with the mindset that it's not Facebook so it's stupid. However, the light bulb finally clicks on after they witness Twitter's usefulness first hand. It's not Facebook nor should it be used like Facebook. After people can grasp that concept, Twitter will be sitting pretty. Excellent point. Having the engaged group is definitely better than all the 'fluff', but then again, Twitter does give the user the opportunity to follow and unfollow whoever s/he pleases. The ability to track specific types of data and collect real time information is invaluable — and yes I know I'm preaching to the choir with you :) .

What I've noticed from my core group of friends, is after signing up for Twitter, they don't get it. They think it's stupid and doesn't provide any real value. I think they enter in with the mindset that it's not Facebook so it's stupid. However, the light bulb finally clicks on after they witness Twitter's usefulness first hand. It's not Facebook nor should it be used like Facebook. After people can grasp that concept, Twitter will be sitting pretty.

]]> By: Sue Spaight http://www.jaephlec.com/regarding-nielsens-view-on-twitter/comment-page-1#comment-35 Sue Spaight Wed, 20 May 2009 14:38:46 +0000 http://www.jaephlec.com/?p=145#comment-35 Jason - it's a good question and I don't know if Nielsen measures from just <a href="http://Twitter.com" rel="nofollow">Twitter.com</a>. Would be good to research that. Regardless, though, the data didn't really surprise me and I do think there is a retention "issue". Qualitatively, I've known many people who started a Twitter account and just didn't "get it" or click with it, so to speak. Quantitatively, <a href="http://quantcast.com" rel="nofollow">quantcast.com</a> puts 35% of Twitter use coming from 1% of users (the "addicts"), another 41% of the use coming from 27% who are "regulars", and 24% coming from the 72% of users who are "passers by". It's the old standby 80/20 rule. But, to me, that's irrelevant. If it means you have a "smaller" but still significant group of people who are incredibly engaged with the communication tool, isn't that all the better? Jason – it's a good question and I don't know if Nielsen measures from just Twitter.com. Would be good to research that. Regardless, though, the data didn't really surprise me and I do think there is a retention “issue”. Qualitatively, I've known many people who started a Twitter account and just didn't “get it” or click with it, so to speak. Quantitatively, quantcast.com puts 35% of Twitter use coming from 1% of users (the “addicts”), another 41% of the use coming from 27% who are “regulars”, and 24% coming from the 72% of users who are “passers by”. It's the old standby 80/20 rule. But, to me, that's irrelevant. If it means you have a “smaller” but still significant group of people who are incredibly engaged with the communication tool, isn't that all the better?

]]> By: Lori Redding http://www.jaephlec.com/regarding-nielsens-view-on-twitter/comment-page-1#comment-34 Lori Redding Wed, 20 May 2009 14:35:45 +0000 http://www.jaephlec.com/?p=145#comment-34 Jason,<br>As usual, you have thoughtful, provocative insights. When I posted a "Twitter Quitter" tweet yesterday, your response was absolutely accurate....I use tweet deck and would be seen as a "fallen bird" if you will, who no longer uses Twitter based on the reports the Nielson and others are commentating about. Thanks for the insight and update! Jason,
As usual, you have thoughtful, provocative insights. When I posted a “Twitter Quitter” tweet yesterday, your response was absolutely accurate….I use tweet deck and would be seen as a “fallen bird” if you will, who no longer uses Twitter based on the reports the Nielson and others are commentating about. Thanks for the insight and update!

]]>