Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBaseI can never explain it and I am always asked.

Public: “What is Twatter? Wait. Is it Twittered. You sure? No.. it must be Tweaker.”

Me: “You mean Twitter? Oh it’s just a micro-blogging network where you post information and updates in 140 characters or less.”

Public: “……… So… It’s like a Facebook Status Update”

Me: “Kind of but people use it for all types of learning, sharing, and development.”

Public: “… I don’t want to know or let people know I am taking a shower, seeing a movie, or eating corn puffs.”

Me: “It’s not really….. just try it. If you can’t figure it out for yourself in 30 days …move on.”

This is an example of conversations I have on a daily basis about the use of Twitter and the definition of this awesome tool.

This problem might be a good thing for the current users of Twitter who would rather not have to deal with millions of people. On the other hand, the developers of Twitter have a slight problem with identity that needs resolved (in my humble opinion).

You cannot achieve growth without some semblance of an identity, a universal definition of the tool. Is this right? Are we seeing a shift from a centralized definition of the tool to a massive brand with hundreds or thousands of identities and definitions? Is this a good thing for growth?

The question I have is this:

Do you think the slow mainstream adoption of Twitter is the direct result of our inability to truly define the tool?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]