If you were to ask “over 200 social media leaders” which social media site they would pay for if they had to, as Abrams Research recently did, Facebook would come out on top, with 32.2 percent saying they would pay for it. (Yeah, right). LinkedIn was second, Twitter was third, and MySpace and Digg tied for last place (with only 1.5 percent of respondents saying they’d pay for those services). But if you ask, which one would they recommend for businesses to pay for (if they had to), Twitter beats Facebook by more than two to one (39.6 percent vs. 15.3 percent). LinkedIn again comes in second. Why did Twitter come out on top... [more]I'm skeptical. I think that Twitter can't match Facebook for marketing, though I get why the social marketers think it should. Twitter delivers concise messages, via mobile applications, to hungry audiences. But it's a should thing. Twitter just doesn't mix their media with video and images. There's also more contexts like groups, events and Facebook Pages, to spread the word. The marketers like Twitter's focus, but I like Facebook's mix of options.
Once Fbook goes mobile, the way Twitter has, that's the game for Twitter. Heck, Facebook could integrate Twitter traits (threaded status updates) within the year, then what happens to Twitter's position?
What sort of fool am I to cut against the masters of Social Marketing? Join the commentary below.
