How Twitter could learn about sharing from Buffer



Contributing Writer
Photo Share Key Credit Joe Zlomek


Joel Gascoigne, Leo Widrich and the team at Buffer could teach Twitter how to share.

The widely used social scheduling platform opened their API to developers today, in a move that will inevitably result in some madly creative social integration.  Consider that Buffer is currently integrated with 15 web apps (most prominently Facebook. LinkedIn and Twitter).  Consider that many of the integrated apps can draw from RSS feeds, and one of the channels (IFTTT) integrates many additional channels.   Consider the wealth of mobile Twitter clients and how Buffer’s open availability in the mobile space could be the impetus for some awesome apps.

Suddenly a picture starts to form of possibilities that are limited only to the imagination of developers.

Time-specific and integrated

The unique element that Buffer adds is a time-specific trigger.  They’re not by any means the only app that does this, but they want to be the most integrated app to do this.  This seems to be a lesson that they’ve learned from (old) Twitter.

There really isn’t anything that Twitter does that Google Plus couldn’t do.  Twitter came along first and integrated itself through numerous third-party apps because of its generous open API.  They (like Facebook) developed without a clear monetization strategy because no one demanded it of them.  The thought was that by developing a large audience you could figure out how to make money from them later, but LinkedIn’s successful IPO and Facebook’s disastrous IPO put an abrupt end to that theory.  For Twitter to go public, conventional wisdom is that they have to become more effective for advertisers at the expense of user-experience.  Thus the birth of Bad Twitter.

Dollar dollar bill

In order to make money (now a prerequisite to go public), Twitter has begun to scale back access to its API.  It has adopted an ad model where it needs eyeballs on its site to generate impressions for advertisers, which is completely incongruent with their their previous strategy to gain audience with an open API.

At a glance, Buffer appears to be in a good position to make money.  Their scheduling function is much easier to use than Hootsuite or Facebook and they have a very reasonably-priced premium option offering a lot more accounts with unlimited queued posts for $100 annually (I subscribed when it was nearly $100 a month and it was well worth it at that price point).  Estimating completely out of my hindside (with no basis in reality) with six employees and other costs it seems reasonable that they could break even at around $750K, or with about 7500 premium accounts.  Depending upon the subscribers and the money they need, they could do a lot of creative things to generate money (from advertising to changing subscription costs) while keeping their API open.

For naysayers who think that a comparison between Twitter and Buffer is unfair because of the difference in the services that they provide, their functions are irrelevant.  Their business strategies are the comparison.  Despite Twitter’s de-evolution into a more controlled platform, Nova Spivack makes a compelling argument that Twitter wouldn’t have to abandon open source to monetize, but I suspect that Twitter won’t be inviting him to join their advisory board anytime soon.

What Buffer can teach Twitter

So what is the lesson Buffer can teach Twitter?  Don’t publicly share something you’re going to demand back later.  While Twitter demands its toys back from playmates LinkedIn and Instagram, the possibilities are wide open for Buffer.  Just from my limited interactions with Joel and Leo, it’s nice to see a couple of good guys succeed.  And to do it the right way.

And it’s sad to see Twitter take their ball and go home.  It will be interesting to see how the game changes when they do.

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

Writer and chief of miscellany at leaderswest.com

I aspire to give people something to think about rather than tell them what to do. My favorite Google Alert is “social media research,” I am increasingly compelled by Gen Z, and I appreciate good writers agnostic of where they write. At one time I was Kred’s 12th most influential social media blogger and Klout’s most influential person on the topic of David Hasselhoff. Transplant from Seattle living in Cincinnati. Haven’t entirely adopted the local sports teams yet.

Jim Dougherty

@jimdougherty

Writer about social media and tech at Leaders West, I also tweet as @leaderswest.

Infographic: Which sites did Penguin 2.0 impact most? http://t.co/Uzbp9H2FN7 – 36 mins ago

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

  • Beth McShane

    Great post, Jim! I have to put in my 2 cents and mention another favorite aspect of Buffer vs. Twitter….customer service! I was an early adopter of Buffer, and what I love most about the company is the fact that Joel or Leo themselves, or someone from their Cracker Jack team get back to me promptly every time I have an issue. They have NEVER sent me to a FAQ page, and they seem genuinely concerned that my Buffer experience is the best ever. 

    On the flip side, I’ve been trying to get Twitter to tell me why my Tweets don’t show up in search for 3 months! I’ve sent 4 Twitter help tickets, I’ve tweeted @Suppport and I’ve even had Kred contact Twitter on my behalf (since my Kred score is affected by my not being in Twitter’s firehose)….the only response I’ve ever recieved is 1 (one!) email with a computer generated reply referring me to their FAQ page…..grrrrrrr!!

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks Beth!  I’m glad you mentioned that you don’t show up in the firehose!  That was one of the things I hated about using the Archivist is that I would never get your tweets and I felt horrible about it.  Joel and Leo are great – I had one issue with Buffer’s customer service in the many times that I’ve dealt with them but assume that to be a glitch stemming from their growth.  

  • http://prettygraph.com/ Hrishi Mittal

    Jim, the Buffer team and their execution has certainly been brilliant. But, they themselves are at the mercy of the networks they publish to. What’s stopping Twitter and Facebook from limiting Buffer’s access to their APIs? I wonder if Buffer is secretly plotting its own social network. That would be fantastic.

  • http://leaderswest.com Jim Dougherty

    Thanks for reading and commenting Hrishi – I hope they don’t feel compelled to extend their brand like that. Facebook has already penalized third-parties without cutting off the API so I wouldn’t worry about that – but Twitter is the most useful network to use Buffer in, so you’re right about that threat. I expect because of Buffer’s popularity and reach that it would be very difficult for Twitter to yank their access to the API – but imagine if they did and Google gave them RW access to plus? They could pretty easily convert Buffer fans (I imagine). Twitter is in a unique position to Facebook in that you could convert everyone on Twitter to GPlus and they would have the same functionality (give or take), so I suspect Buffer is safe – though Twitter seems increasingly motivated to go public or sell. Cheers!

  • http://twitter.com/Azerted Adleine

    interesting post I see that twitter has a big opportunity to evolve, from the actual to the next big thing for social networks, respecting its skeleton and philosophy, adding some value to the existing acquired concept! see how 
    http://imaginewnext.blogspot.com/2011/10/twitter-whats-next.html

  • http://cirquedumot.com/new-readers/ Susan Silver

    I might need to start thinking about designing a simple Buffer Application. This is awesome and I cannot wait to see what people come up with. 

Top