13 Comments

Summary:

Twitter seems to be a company in turmoil — not just on the product side, but on the management side as well. What it needs more than anything is a consistent and tangible vision for what it wants to become, and someone who stands for that vision.

Leader-image

Even as it fends off what are rumored to be multibillion-dollar acquisition offers from the likes of Google, Twitter seems to be in turmoil — not only on the product side, where it has brought in co-founder Jack Dorsey to try and right the ship, but on the management side as well. A recent Fortune magazine feature paints a portrait of a company being pulled in different directions by its board, by its founders and by its senior executives. So what is missing from this picture? A consistent and tangible vision for what Twitter is, and what it wants to become — and a single person who can stand for and champion that vision.

Who does that sound like? It sounds a lot like Apple. More than almost any other company in recent memory, the iconic computer-maker-turned-consumer-appliance company has a compelling vision of what it stands for — and it doesn’t really have anything to do with a specific product, as Apple has shown by moving into completely new product areas like phones and tablets. It’s more a way of thinking about what your purpose is, and what benefits you bring for users, regardless of what you do. And Steve Jobs is the icon that represents all of that, both for users and for investors. Mark Zuckerberg, for better or worse, has arguably done the same thing at Facebook.

So who fulfills this crucial function at Twitter? Part of the company’s problem is that no one really knows. It used to be co-founder and CEO Evan Williams — but he has been sidelined, whether by the board or by his own desire to move on, or by some combination of those factors. Dick Costolo took over as CEO in October, and there were jokes at the time about how he had planned this coup since joining as chief operating officer a year earlier, but the reality is that within months of his arrival, Williams was taking on less of a role in Twitter’s evolution and now he is effectively gone for good.

The perception is that Costolo was brought in to turn what was an interesting social experiment into a business, with revenues and profits — to justify the millions of dollars that venture capital groups have poured into the company, and the billions that the company is now theoretically worth in the private market. Rightly or wrongly, he has also been blamed for all sorts of product mis-steps, including the ill-fated “Quick Bar,” as well as for the crackdowns on companies like UberMedia and the tightening of restrictions on the company’s API and its relationships with outside developers.

Costolo may be making some headway on the revenue and profitability front, but for a social network or social utility like Twitter — which depends so heavily on the goodwill it has with users and with the broader market of web apps and services — a mission statement like “we really want to make money” isn’t very compelling (saying “Hey, we don’t go down as much as we used to!” isn’t really much of a sales pitch either). And as we’ve seen already, in many cases the pressure to monetize the network directly conflicts with the first goal, which is to maintain and grow the network itself.

What Twitter needs more than anything is compelling features it can add to the existing experience (and hopefully make money from). In some ways, the service hasn’t changed much at all in the past several years, apart from getting larger, and only recently has it started adding related services — in part through partnerships with companies like DataSift, which does analytics, and Sulia for smart aggregation — that it arguably should have had a long time ago. There still isn’t anything approaching a useful Twitter search function, which is a fairly gaping hole for a social information service to have.

So if Jack Dorsey, who came up with the idea for Twitter as a side project at Evan Williams’ company Odeo (along with colleague Noah Glass, who is only now getting a small share of the public profile that Dorsey and Williams and Biz Stone have had as Twitter founders) is rejoining the company to look after product development, does that mean he’s going to be the product visionary? Is he Twitter’s Steve Jobs? As more than one person has noted, one of the big challenges for Dorsey is that he’s already co-founder and CEO of another fast-growing startup, the mobile-payments company Square. And according to Fortune, he doesn’t see his assignment with Twitter as being long term. And what happens when he clashes with Costolo over something like the Quick Bar?

One of the aspects of the Facebook story that hits home when you see the movie The Social Network is that founder Mark Zuckerberg didn’t want to try and monetize the network before it had a chance to grow — before he and the rest of the company could figure out what it was. That was part of his vision. Twitter doesn’t have that luxury any longer: it has to figure all that out soon, and in-fighting over who gets credit for what, or who the board has confidence in, is not helping. But more than anything, the company needs to find that consistent vision and make it obvious.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Scott Maxwell

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Twitter’s problem is simple: it wants to sell what it is already giving away. Tweets are ads:

    http://tinyurl.com/3v3sywg

    That’s going to be a tough thing for vision to fix.

    Cheers,

    BW

    1. That’s a great point, Bob. Thanks for the comment, and for the link.

      1. Agreed, Bob is spot on. What is absolutely utterly amusing is that despite what Bob is saying, Marc Andreessen thinks he walks on water (and much of the Silicon Valley press don’t challenge Marc and essentially kowtow to him because of his brilliant past, but a brilliant past does not always translate to brilliance in the current context or futures context). What I means is that Marc Andreessen a few years ago was interviewed by Sarah Lacy and was hyping up his private investment in Twitter alluding to a factor of 20 swing in the economics in the year 2009 compared to about a decade before. Well, that’s all fine and dandy but it doesn’t mean that Twitter still doesn’t need to know what its business model is (otherwise Marc may as well have invested in quick sand)!

  2. Twitter could eat Facebook’s lunch if they did two things. Embed (display) media directly in the stream and enable Flash apps to expand into a secondary page (bookmarked on the initial dashboard). Instantly they would be a credible breakout source of traffic to Zynga, et al and ramp their user base. How to make money off that route is obvious … Twitter Credits.

  3. Building a parallel internet based on universal messaging (tweets) is the vision.

    But they took in lot of VC money, now the vision is promoted ads.

    1. Yes, and I think the clash between those two things is the source of the problem.

  4. The secret sauce of twitter was the asymmetric follow model and the fact that each user has a unique handle. The asymmetric follow lead to the creation of the beginning of an interest graph. The unique handle fueled promotion.

    They raised a lot of money and the expectations are very high.

    They are now facing 3 large challenges:
    1) Monetization
    2) Onboarding and churn
    3) Facebook is aggressively pushing the concept of facebook pages (their asymmetric model) and developing incrementally the notion of unique handles. Facebook has a unique advantage is that facebook pages have reacher support for images and videos and their built in comments systems makes engagement more viral.

    The more twitter will focus on monetization, the more they will allow facebook to catchup regarding the creation of the interest graph.

    It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  5. Really inspired writeup. As in, inspired by TechCrunch… http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/14/twitter-consider-this-your-intervention/

    1. Just as their idea was inspired by an article in Fortune magazine. I am sure that is what you meant. :-)

      1. Just as Fortune was probably inspired by Sarah Lacy’s interview of Marc Andreessen two years ago (carried on Yahoo Tech Ticker under the auspices of Henry Blodgett and Aaron Task et al)) about Marc’s private investment in Twitter and hyping it up to high heaven eh?

    2. Thanks, Lou — my post was finished before Sarah Lacy’s post was published, just FYI.

  6. founder@ww.ws Friday, April 15, 2011

    Mathew Ingram’s item as to what is required in connection with visioning at Twitter somwhat misses the mark. Mr. Ingram uses the phrase “social network or social utility”, apparently to identify what Twitter “is” as distinct from what it does, the absence of the latter which is thereby held to account for apparent confusion about the former; in other words, Twitter’s “vision”.

    We ask: “What does Twitter do?” and the answer seems elusive.

    First off, whatever else Twitter is, it most assuredly is not a social network or social utility. I’m not sure what Mr. Ingram means by “utility”, as in, for example, an electrical grid or a water pipe.

    Nonetheless, the term “utility” is germane, because what Twitter amounts to is an “information utility”, where utility reminds us from the standpoint of “form follows function” that a “vision” as to what Twitter does best, or would like to do best if it had such a vision, would sooner or later reduce to delivering useful information, hopefully to many people and where the presence of such can be leveraged by advertising, which thereby amounts to a business.

    That’s the vision thing! It’s not terribly complicated. That’s what Twitter “does” and does rather well, if and only if the form of the information ramains faithful to the intentions of its users, rather than, say, the intentions of VCs whose only and ultimate interest in Twitter is to exploit the well-known tendency of crowds to self aggregate around, for example, “news”. Crowds have been doing this since ancient Greece.

    Accordingly, to ask ourselves “where’s Twitter’s vision”, as if there’s a formula somewhere, if only we knew where it was, is exactly the wrong question, if that’s what Twitter’s turmoil detailed in Fortune Magazine is intended to explain.

    A better question which to his credit, Evan Williams has been mightily trying to grapple with in his apparent attempt to identify from the standpoint of ontology Twitter’s “identity” for its end-users, is to ask not what Twitter “is” or even what it does (since that’s the circular reasoning error made by Mr. Ingram).

    Rather, and hence Evan’s next task, and regardless of what speculators believe he is up to, is to forgo rumination about what Twitter “is” and replace it with something more useful, which is its logical next phase.

    That’s where Evan is actually headed. Phase 2 might not be a commercial success, which means the end of the VCs, all of whom will hold Evan back if he’s foolish enough to court them moving into phase 2.

    That next phase might well be a game changer, as was Wikipedia and without VCs, if only Evan has the courage to reach beyond his present circle.

Comments have been disabled for this post