All this social networking can be intimidating. In the struggle to stay on top of the two major sites Facebook and Twitter, it has been increasingly common for the same status to serve both services. I’m all for it. In fact, I do this for our company page and personally. Yet, most get it all wrong!
Like I said, I’m all for implementing a “touch it once” philosophy when it comes to posting to Facebook and Twitter. However, I’m all for it being done correctly. You may be asking yourself “there’s a right way and a wrong way?” I’m here to tell you that indeed there is a wrong way and a right way.
First, the wrong way. It seems simple enough to enable the Facebook to Twitter application. Using this application, offered by Facebook, posts your Facebook status to Twitter. However, when it posts the status it also posts a link. The link directs users to your status on Facebook. No more information is obtained by clicking on the link. Fundamentally, links should be informational, and the use of a link to direct me to the exact information I just read is inefficient, and inconsiderate of your reader’s time!
Now, the right way. You should be posting from Twitter to Facebook. Why? Because Twitter is set up to share 140-character messages (similar to a status in Facebook). Using any number of applications – Selective Tweets, a Facebook app; Seesmic, a standalone social network app; and my favorite TweetDeck, a standalone social network app – you can update your Twitter status and your Facebook status (even multiple accounts – I have both personal and work Twitter and Facebook accounts) from one place. You can easily share links that give context to your status and not send readers to links that share no more information.
Why is this important? Because, when providing me with links that offer no other information, it’s like crying wolf. I eventually tune out your links, and stop clicking on them all together. Which means, when you do provide an informational link, I’m likely to miss it altogether because you’ve cried wolf so many times!
Take a serious look at how you’re implementing your social networking. If you’re using Facebook to update Twitter, you need to understand what the Twitter user is experiencing, and how you’re negatively impacting their experiences! If you’re trying to reach both social networks and their users, you need to act like you belong.
Right you are.
Robert, thanks!
but yet you post the same thing twice to facebook!!!!
dan, yep. once as a status, and once as a note. thought about flipping that switch off, but decided against it because i get commentary here. If I'd get rid of one thing it'd be the status here on facebook with each new post. not sure. any thoughts?
Always on point. This one is going in the Facebook for Auctioneers file.
Actually, I think updating from Twitter to Facebook is wrong too (though I do it sometimes), because links brought over via Tweetdeck, Seesmic (which i use on Android), Hootsuite (which i use on web) etc. usually provide far less information than they do if you post a link in FB. In addition, hashes have no function in FB, so they’re meaningless clutter. Better to do each in its own ecosystem.
Carl, I tend to agree with you. The best is to update each from their respective ecosystems. However, I often want to share similar information with my Facebook and Twitter ecosystems (btw, I like your use of that word), and Twitter to Facebook is the only way to go for that sharing.
Facebook to Twitter is wrong. Twitter to Facebook is acceptable. Twitter to Twitter and Facebook to Facebook is ideal.
RE: Hashes. I rarely use hashes, but when I do, I let them carryover. The whole idea is the hash is a topical index, if you will, of the status, and I don’t think it hurts the Facebook conversation. But from a minimalist standpoint, they are clutter.
Thanks for the comments, and engaging!
The beauty of Twitter is the simple understanding that no one wants to read a status update longer then the 140 characters. It forces one to craft a succinct message with meaning, or no meaning if that is the goal.
After being a regular twitter user (over 5000 tweets), i've found my writing style changing. I'm able to write content with meaning in short bursts.
It’s not Twitter vs. Facebook. It’s Twitter vs. Facebook vs. Cliqset vs. FriendFeed vs. LinkedIn vs. everything else.
I’ve found a need to have one service update my status. I don’t have the time to update two, and I certainly don’t have time to deal with all the clutter that is Facebook. Using Twitter lets me update Facebook, Cliqset, Friendfeed, LinkedIn and others all from one update. When faced with the choice of which network to use primarily, it’s clear. They all support input from Twitter, and Twitter is becoming a distribution system for status updates to the other, larger services. If someone who is already putting up with Facebook’s clutter sees a hashtag, it’s not nearly as annoying as junk links polluting my Twitter stream.
Bigger issue I see these days is people not understanding the most basic difference between Twitter and Facebook. Twitter is best at getting targeted messages to large, targeted audiences, which I why I advocate hashtags, because people now are following defined channels. This is especially true geographically. Facebook, OTOH, is far better for conversations and building relationships, but not so great for reaching out easily beyond your followers/friends.
@aaron, excellent points! Although for me, TweetDeck has become the launching pad to the other social media sites.
@carl, interesting points. I mostly agree with you, except that I strongly believe Twitter is just as good, and, I think, better for conversations and building relationships. I often am involved in conversations about various items on Twitter with a wide variety of individuals who I’ve built relationships with online, and turned into real world relationships.
I believe it’s more of how you use each service. If you’re just broadcasting targeted messages on Twitter, you’re spot on, and you’ll not have conversations or build relationships. However, if you’re being social, you’ll have conversations and build relationships.
My Twitter and Facebook audiences and personae are too dissimilar to use verbatim status updates.
Since almost everybody is one either Twitter or Facebook, I don’t understand why you’d spawn your feed to lots of other sites without niche business needs requiring it.
Traffas is right, though: if you’re going to use one platform to talk to others, Twitter is probably the best primary launching pad. My company Facebook page and personal LinkedIn page automatically sync-tweet.
The more I think about it, the more I’m being convinced about posting different information to both sites… Although, I think some messages can be cross posted w/o changes.
I’m starting to give more insight, and commentary to our Facebook followers, as compared to our Twitter followers. The most information is given to our web users, then our email users, followed by Facebook and then Twitter.
The frequency of updates flows the other direction. First Twitter, then Facebook, then emails, and then our website. In many ways, it’s all inter-connected and used together makes for a fantastic information distribution system!