Please Twitter, Don’t Sell to Google or Facebook


According to sources quoted by the Wall Street Journal in a story published late Wednesday night, Twitter has been having what the paper called “low-level” discussions about a possible acquisition by either Google or Facebook, at a valuation of between $8 billion and $10 billion. Obviously, the company’s financial backers — which include VC firms like Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers — are looking forward to a potential exit and a hefty return on their investment. And both Google and Facebook could probably make use of Twitter in some form or another. But would an acquisition by either web giant be good for the messaging service or its users?

It’s worth noting that the Wall Street Journal’s report is filled with the sort of caveats that suggest Twitter investors shouldn’t start banking their Google shares or buying Facebook hoodies just yet. In addition to calling the talks’ “low level” (although it’s not exactly clear what that means) the newspaper report says that the talks have so far “gone nowhere” and that both companies have only expressed what the WSJ called “latent interest,” another phrase whose meaning is unclear at best. The general tone is that no deal is coming any time soon, and the Journal spends most of the piece talking about whether the valuation of the company implies there is a bubble in Silicon Valley. Some observers, including Valley legend Bob Metcalfe, saw the piece as a marketing effort by Twitter.

That said, however, would Google or Facebook be interested in theoretically buying Twitter? That seems like an obvious yes in both cases. Although the company is substantially larger than any of Facebook’s past acquisitions, and a number of observers have argued that this makes it unlikely the social network would be an acquirer, it’s not really that far-fetched an idea. Facebook bought FriendFeed in part because it wanted to get Bret Taylor, who is now the chief technology officer and the brains behind the network’s open graph API and other offerings, but it also clearly wanted to build the kind of real-time conversational elements of FriendFeed into Facebook — which it has done with its unified social inbox and the recent rollout of real-time commenting.

Twitter would arguably fit perfectly into that strategy. But the biggest problem for Facebook is the valuation — the company doesn’t have the cash to buy something for $8-$10 billion, and to this point the social network has done primarily small cash deals (although it has reportedly also issued stock to FriendFeed and others as part of those acquisitions), in part because it doesn’t want to push the company over the 500-shareholder mark and trigger public reporting of its financial results.

Google, meanwhile, desperately needs an injection of social features, as we have written a number of times, since it has completely failed to get much going in that area with ventures like Google Wave and Google Buzz. Buying Twitter (which it could easily afford to do) would give it a massive boost in terms of real-time social communication. But the search giant’s acquisition history isn’t likely to fill anyone with confidence about how Twitter might fare under the Google umbrella. Twitter founder Evan Williams knows that better than anyone, since he sold Blogger to the web company, and CEO Dick Costolo knows a bit about it too, since he sold Feedburner to Google before he joined Twitter.

For every acquisition that has paid off, like YouTube or Keyhole (which became Google Earth), the company has made a whole series of purchases that have gone absolutely nowhere. In at least three of those cases, it bought interesting social applications that could have easily become something huge — Dodgeball, the company that Dennis Crowley started before he founded Foursquare, the Twitter-style micro-blogging service Jaiku and question-and-answer service Aardvark — and did absolutely nothing with them. Twitter is obviously a lot larger than any of these, but that’s still no guarantee that Twitter wouldn’t be smothered by the Google-plex, and gradually lose momentum.

One of the best things about Twitter, despite all the problems it has had in the not-too-distant past with reliability and other issues, is that it is totally, 100-percent focused on being a real-time communications network. Being bought by either Google or Facebook might bring a big payoff, and substantial financial and operational resources, but it would almost certainly dilute that focus — simply because it would be a small part of a much larger company — and that would be a shame just when the service is starting to show its real potential.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

Post and thumbnail courtesy of Flickr user Refracted Moments

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


Comments have been disabled for this post