TECH: Twitter Takes The 'Social' Out Of Social Media

Twitter seems to be repositioning itself as a rolling news operation.  That’s not a surprise exactly, but it’s a shame.

Its new ‘Moments’ feature, so far only available in the US, seems to be a digest of the most tweeted about stories of the day.  A bit like a Twitter version of Flipboard or Google’s Play Newsstand. (Being UK-based I’m sorry if that’s not a fair description of a feature I’ve not used.  But that’s definitely what it sounds like.)

 

Twitter's 'Moments' feature

As a new direction it seems like an admission of defeat from the company – they’re giving up on trying to persuade more people to interact with each other and want to be yet another online news source.

It’s not a surprise though.  Despite the large amount of accounts out there, there’s a significant proportion of people who have never really used it at all.  And daily use is on the wane with a lot of people who to check it every minute, let alone daily.  Meanwhile, Facebook continues to thrive.  As an experiment, post exactly the same thing on Twitter and Facebook – a random bit of silliness, a link to a news article, whatever you like.  I am willing to bet that in most cases the level of interaction and debate with other people will be much larger (and faster) on Facebook than on Twitter. 

For most casual users of Twitter, if just one person replies to your tweet these days, I’d say you’d be doing very well indeed.

That’s a shame.  It’s a company that used to thrive on millions of strangers interacting with each other, discussing common interests with people from all around the world.  It felt like a threat to Facebook at one point.  It was certainly cooler and trendier than Facebook, which was yesterday’s news.  (I’m aware that using words like cool and trendy makes me look like last week’s news.  I’m in my mid-30s with a baby on the way.  Sue me.) 

The Twitter experience has changed a lot since I joined.  It seems a lot less irreverent and amusing, for instance.  The balance between humour and silliness/current affairs and politics is a lot less balanced, on my timeline at any rate.  It’s news, famous people, journalists, more news, interspersed by the odd lonely and ignored tweet from a ‘normal’ user, sitting there forlornly unretweeted and unfavourited.  I suppose I could change my experience by unfollowing some people and finding some new followers.  But the novelty’s worn off now and that feels like it would be a chore I haven’t got the time for.

Twitter nowadays feels more corporate, more adult.  That’s because it is.  A lot of teenagers have moved on to things like Snapchat and other things that parents and politicians don’t use.  The journalist Grace Dent said that when your boss follows you on Twitter, Twitter is over for you.  Well if you’re a teenager and your parents sign up I expect this is even more accurate.

But leaving that to one side, the democratic feel of Twitter vanished when a Twitterstocracy emerged.  There was at some point a distinct drift to the dominance of power users (a mix of already famous journos, celebs, comedians and politicians with a handful of early adopters who gained prominence through heavy use and controversial/witty tweeting).  People stopped following new people as much and settled for the groups they already had.  (If you are a casual user, ie not using Twitter to promote your business, when was the last time you gained a load of followers who weren’t real life friends or spam?)

New users joining after this point would realise quickly they weren’t going to get followers very quickly without putting in a lot of effort. Their voices just weren’t going to be heard unless they turned into attention seeking controversy machines or were a company that could employ dedicated social media experts to create an online presence.

Even people who have been on Twitter for quite some time find that their tweets will be read by a relatively small amount of people if by anyone at all. More and more people have become passive users, reading but not interacting, not creating, sometimes only promoting.  And even at promotion, without a lot of followers it’s not actually that great.  For instance, I have always posted links to this blog on Twitter and I can tell from my stats that I don’t get any traffic from Twitter anymore.  I used to, but not anymore, nothing.  I get more from Google + for God’s sake!  Whether that’s because I don’t tweet enough on Twitter to have a presence on it I don’t know, but it’s not really encouraging me to continue to use it as a promotional tool.

It feels like the glory days of Twitter being a fun place to natter and chatter have gone, except perhaps when there’s a live television event.  As a company it is being steered  towards having a serious purpose, which isn’t as fun.

Loads of my freemium apps have started getting adverts telling me to use Twitter for all the latest news. This morning I had a Twitter alert about some “latest news” being retweeted.  I opened the link which went to a 2007 Guardian article about Martin Amis’ comments on Islam.  Hmm.  Might not be using Twitter for all the latest news just yet…

MUSIC: Joanna Newsom Attacks Spotify

I like Joanna Newsom a lot.  Joanna Newsom is cool.

Joanna Newsom is also the latest artist to complain about streaming eating into her bank account – she specifically mentions Spotify, but her music isn’t available on any streaming service.

 

The lovely Joanna Newsom

After some typically eccentric comparisons to bananas she said:

“Spotify is like a villainous cabal of major labels. The business is built from the ground up as a way to circumvent the idea of paying their artists. The major labels were not particularly happy with the fact that as the royalty money dwindled more and more, their portion of the percentage split agreed upon in their licensing agreement got smaller and smaller.”

Now she does have a point – but unfortunately, fairly or not, these complaints from artists are beginning to annoy music fans.

Essentially the problem for artists is that Spotify pay all the royalties, the labels take a massive cut, and the artist gets a fraction.  Spotify responded to Newsom’s complaint by tweeting that they pay 70% of their revenue in royalties to labels, $3 billion to date.  They make the point – and I believe it’s a fair one – that the problem lies with the artists’ contracts.

Who would’ve thought it, the music industry screwing over artists?

And that’s the point – it’s the industry screwing them over.  It’s not us.  I read a rant like that and my gut reaction is “well, what do you expect me to do about it?”  Or more succinctly, “boo hoo”.

Artists need to start getting their managers to renegotiate contracts with the labels instead of washing their dirty linen in public because it’s not a good look for them.  It’s like when bankers complain about not getting big enough bonuses – it pisses off the larger part of society that are struggling on minimum wages and hiking rent prices (soon to be exacerbated in the UK with the loss of tax credits but that’s another story altogether…)

Home Streaming Is Killing Music?

The fact is people who pay for music are going to go for the most cost-effective option.  If you have to live on a tight budget, music is going to come under the ‘luxury item’ category.  I used to spend a fortune on music, even though I was shopping in discount places like Fopp.  But I couldn’t really afford to do that, to the point where my love of music was getting me into financial trouble.  Spotify seemed like a good compromise – paying for music without pirating, and at the same time actually staying in the black (well, sometimes).

So when people I respect and admire – Thom Yorke is another – come out in force against streaming, it doesn’t make me think “right on, tell it like it is”.  It makes me think they don’t understand my situation, or that of a lot of their fans.  It especially seems like a U-turn from Yorke, who was willing to let people pay whatever they felt was fair for ‘In Rainbows’ in 2009.  Well Thom, a lot of people have decided that £9.99 a month is fair given their circumstances, and your response is to have a little moan and take all your music away from them.

As far as I’m concerned it’s not a good look.  People who are streaming are paying for music legally – it’s not realistic to tell customers they should pay more.  Because frankly, there’s a significant amount of those customers who will call your bluff and go back to torrents.  Look at this comic from The Oatmeal – it’s about television rather than music, but the principle’s the same.

This is all reminiscent of the ‘home taping is killing music’ scare of the 80s.  But this time it’s not the big bosses (‘The Man’), it’s the artists who we like to think of as being on our side.  Like I say, I’m not saying artists don’t have a point about being ripped off, but they need to take this up with their labels and managers instead of slagging off the streaming companies because when they do that the implication is that people shouldn’t be streaming.  Which means that they are blaming their own fans, that somehow it’s our fault.  It paints the user as the bad guy, forgetting how much we actually have to pay even for downloads, let alone CDs (and ticket prices, and all that shiny pricey merchandise…)

Not engaging with streaming is starting to make artists look out of touch.  Streaming as a medium is staying.  If Spotify closed down tomorrow (and they don’t make a profit, so who knows?) that wouldn’t change.  Apple Music has further legitimised it as the future, as downloads from iTunes slowly and softly vanish away.  Artists need to deal with it in a more positive way, at least in public, or risk alienating their audience.

PS Joanna Newsom's album, Divers, is out on Friday.  I've pre-ordered it because I like her.  But there are going to be an awful lot of people out there who will be torrenting it and perhaps her entire back catalogue.  I don't condone that in the slightest.  But it is a fact that that is what will happen.  Attack those people Joanna.