When it comes to Web 2.0 technologies, I-ve long been a fan--wikis, blogs, team spaces and, lately, social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn all clearly deliver business value, each in its own way. I've been especially enamored of Facebook as a way to get to know my virtual colleagues on a more personal level-not just fellow Frost & Sullivan analysts, but clients and employees at the companies with whom I work on a regular (or even occasional) basis. Over time, I've been able to piece together random bits of data about these people, as well as uncover refreshing senses of humor, surprising political leanings and myriad hobbies and interests. Sometimes I comment, and hopefully deepen a connection; mostly I don't, but the information fills in the gaps all the same.But It took me a while to join the tweeting frenzy, but I finally succumbed when my esteemed, and plugged-in, colleague, Vanessa Alvarez, effectively told me I had to by revealing that hundreds of IT industry analysts are tweeting all day long. So I joined the fray.
But that's the problem: it's a fray. I'm only following a few dozen people, and already I have to wade through tons of information I don't really need to get to the stuff that I do--and this is a carefully selected group of people who cover or work with the same technologies as I do. Further, much of what I read are re-tweets--and given the incestuous nature of my Twitter group, that means I end up reading the same thought several times over. Throw in the fact that, as Eric discusses below, some of what's tweeted isn't even true (and much of what's true is spin), and the value of tweeting is less clear to me than ever.
Meanwhile, there's the nagging sense of having to constantly tweet-that somehow, if I'm not sharing dozens of insightful ideas every day, I'm letting down my followers and negatively impacting my reputation.
It's hard to see how anyone but day traders and emergency responders could possibly need to know 99 percent of what's tweeted the second it hits the net. I know we live in a fast-paced world in which decisions are (supposedly) made on a dime, but we could all stand to spend more time thinking, and less time reacting. Furthermore, most of us already have trouble juggling information and the devices on which it resides. Thanks to a constant barrage of information, from a variety of sources, we live in a society in which everyone appears to have ADHD-and now, according to this depressing New Yorker article, even those who don't are taking neuroenhancing drugs just so they can stay current on all there is to know and do in the 21st century world.
I understand the argument that Twitter can be a boon for discrete business teams, because it allows people to post questions and get answers immediately, or share relevant information as soon as it hits. But even putting aside the security and intellectual property issues, how is that any better than forming like-minded groups on IM? There you have the added value of presence information, too.
Lest you think I'm being too harsh-or naive-let me refer you to recent numbers from Nielsen, which show that 60% of Twitter users don't return after their first month. Clearly, I'm not the only one who fails to find value in an endless stream of information.
I'll still tweet, of course-and please do follow me if you'd like (@melanieturek). I promise to keep my posts (mostly) relevant to the business of UC&C, and to limit them to times when I feel like I actually have something valuable to say. But if you want a question answered right away, message me directly. And if you want to get to know me better, find me on Facebook.
