Twitter’s ability to aggregate and trend conversation is one of its core competencies.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that right now, Twitter’s Trending Topics (TTT) is its most powerful feature.  Where else can you see what millions of people are talking about at a particular point in time?

Despite the powerful mechanism, TTT has become a feature of diminishing value.  Why?  It’s simple:

Twitter’s Trending Topics Promotes Group Think.

Every single Twitter user sees the same exact TTT when they log into their account.  This makes it all too easy chime in to the ongoing debate.  Is this a bad thing?  Not necessarily — but it sure doesn’t help bring fresh, informative content to the forefront.

Additionally, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the number of Twitter users and the overall value of posts.  In other words, as the number of Twitter users rises, the odds of reading a worthwhile tweet diminishes.  This is one negative outcome to the “network effect” that Twitter has yet to address.

Do You Care About TTT?

This screenshot (pictured to the right) shows an example of TTT taken Sunday 7/19/09 22:00 EST.  Sixty percent (6/10) of the topics are related to various TV programs being shown during that time.  Granted, it’s a Sunday night and news stories are not exactly top priority, but still, it would be nice to see some more diversity.

What I Would Like To See:

• group topics
• “location-aware” topics
• more filtering mechanisms
• more diversity

I was a little bit surprised to find a letter from the USTA (United States Tennis Association) and their legal department in my inbox just a few days ago. Below is a small portion of the document:

in view of the importance of this matter, the USTA respectfully requests that you: (i) immediately cease and desist from any and all use of the trademarks as described herein; (ii) terminate the use of US Open or any variation thereof in connection with any domain name; (iii) immediately remove any references to the US Open from the above-referenced Twitter account; and (iii) provide me with prompt written confirmation of your intention to comply.

-USTA Legal Department in reference to my Twitter account

How did this happen?

A few months prior to receiving the aforementioned letter, I approached the USTA, requesting to be a part of their upcoming US Open tournament in September. Expressing my passion not only for the game of tennis but for the annual event in Flushing, NY, I explained how I could add value to their ’social web’ presence. I simply wanted to be a part of the event, explained that I was not looking for monetary compensation, just the opportunity to be a part of my favorite annual Grand Slam tournament.

I had noticed that the official US Open website was lacking a certain social element. I felt there was an opportunity to integrate their coverage with live updates, real-time match commentary, and streaming photo galleries from a fan’s perspective. Being proactive in my pursuit, I created a super-simple Twitter page (@usopentennis, no longer active) using some official US Open logos as well as a few originals. I contacted the USTA’s “Advanced Media” department detailing my intentions and provided them with a link to the newly created account as a frame of reference. After this point, the Twitter page wasn’t touched again, as I was eagerly awaiting a response from the USTA.

Months past by with no reply. I did notice however, that the page was gaining a fairly solid following (atleast for a page with literally 1 update and one that clearly wasn’t yet ‘active’). This behavior continued to where it was not uncommon to gain over 100 followers per month. It was at the time when the follower-count reached around 700 that I was hit with the lawsuit asking me to terminate my Twitter account for, as they put it:

“the unlicensed use of its intellectual property for your social media outlet.”

I was left feeling with a mixed set of emotions.

Why I WASN’T Upset

• The USTA’s charges against me were 100% valid.
• Although not referenced in their official web site, the US Open did already have a Twitter account.

Why I WAS Upset

• The charges were 100% valid, however, I clearly was not trying to deceive anyone. I was in full contact with the organization and disclosed my intentions very clearly and openly.
• I only heard back from them when my Twitter page had surpassed theirs in followers. [see below]
  
  

  Screens taken as of 6/1/09

• Months after my suggestion to overhaul their social efforts, the USTA launched something similar to what I had recommended. The “US Open Series” website now featured a link to their Twitter account, as well as streaming Flickr fan image galleries.

The Overall Takeaway

Companies dream of having customers that evangelize their products and/or services. It’s these individuals that champion the company at the grass roots level, where it counts the most. Business author, Guy Kawasaki, explains the “Art of Evangelism” in this blog post.

That’s why it was a bit of a mystery to me why the USTA did not acknowledge the opportunity to expand their brand…FOR FREE! On multiple occasions, I reached out to the USTA in an effort to deliver the best solution for them, but they resisted at all costs.

Unfortunately for the USTA, they won’t just lose over 800 Twitter followers, they will be losing an evangelist’s voice. I’m certain that I could have been a tremendous extension for the US Open, helping them reach the biggest possible audience.

Just remember, when somene is clearly an evangelist for your company, it is in your best interest to simply enable them. Give these “mega-supporters” the tools that they need to accomplish the all-important act of spreading the word. You will find a lot of things to be true, none of which as important as the following: your fans are your company’s most valuable asset.

An article in TechCrunchIT has raised a pretty spirited debate amongst the technology consumerist community.  TCIT author, Steve Gillmor explains how his Twitter stream has become his de-facto information outlet, replacing his need for an RSS feed.  With a title as dramatic as, “Rest in Peace, RSS,” it’s no suprise at the attention this post has received.  With 500+ comments, it has sparked many conversations concerning the future of RSS and the value of Twitter’s real-time platform.

So are we really supposed to believe that Twitter has killed RSS?  Have real-time tweets replaced the aggregated RSS feed?

Very simply, the answer is NO.  RSS is superior to Twitter in regards to information consumption.

Suggesting that Twitter has killed RSS, is almost like suggesting that Direct Messages (DMs) have replaced email.  Twitter’s platform, at this stage, is just too raw and undeveloped to treat it as one’s primary source of information.  The “noise” is simply too loud, and often overwhelming, making it nearly impossible to find the desired “signals.”  Wading through this noise is not only hard, it’s extremely time consuming.  Until we have the effective search technologies and filters to utilize, RSS remains the simplest and quickest way to consume content from around the web.

Although I disagree with Steve Gillmor’s RSS-ditching behavior, I do believe that this discussion is rather interesting.  Probably because I feel that RSS is NOT the most efficient model for information gathering/sharing.  RSS shows many promising features but lacks certain functionalities that we expect from today’s social web.  So while I will challenge those who claim they receive greater value in Twitter’s platform compared to an RSS feed, I will agree that we have the ability to improve upon RSS’s current offering.  The solution likely lies in an effective integration of both the reat-time and the aggregated feed platforms.

So before we are able to separate the noise from the news, I wouldn’t call RSS dead just yet.

How simple is too simple?  Does simplicity facilitate usability?  Do we sacrifice effectiveness for usability?  I start to ask myself these questions as I log on to twitter.com with far less frequency as once before.  Will this 140-character revolution continue on its meteoric rise, or will it become a nostalgic web property of the past?

I have long praised Twitter for creating a whole new platform for communication.  The service is no short of revolutionary; however, I cannot help myself thinking that there lacks a degree of depth in the service.  For me, Twitter’s charm has worn off quite a bit.  This is due in part to a number of factors, none more important that these two:

1) Lack of Metadata and/or Metrics

For the most part, micro-blogging comes and goes.  The stream of messages (depending on how many you are following) is gone in a number of seconds/minutes.  A 140-character message, in Twitter’s case, holds almost no long-term value.  This is a direct result of a platform with little to no metadata.  Besides embedding links and maybe hashtags, a tweet loses a great deal of meaning after it’s initially sent.

2) Better Web Alternatives

Two web services, Facebook and FriendFeed, have undoubtadly looked to Twitter for some degree of inspiration.  Both serve a more complete and interactive micro-blogging platform, as compared to Twitter’s current offering.  Most importantly, they are in a much better position to combat the issue of meta-data and the shelf life of a post.

So, I’ll ask the questions I posed earlier in the post:

How simple is too simple? — Does simplicity facilitate usability? — Do we sacrifice effectiveness for usability?

Twitter is in danger of being replaced by more robust web services.  Simplicity, in my opinion, may ultimately cripple Twitter.  I have long been a proponent of the service, and still wish them the best.  From an end-user’s perspective, however, I am not getting enough value.  Additionally, the service has remained mostly identical from when I signed up over a year ago.  With massive mainstream exposure and a ridiculous spike in users, I feel as though Twitter could have extended the service’s functionality.  For instance, we still don’t have the ability to create groups!  That just doesn’t seem right!  I definitely understand the appeal of simplicity, but in Twitter’s case, this simplicity may come at a price.

Update: Just hours after posting this article, Twitter updated its user interface for everyone.  Now users are shown Trending Topics right on their Twitter homepage.  In addition, users are able to search tweets and save search results for later reference.  A huge step forward for Twitter.

There is somewhat of a war waging between both the Twitter and FriendFeed services as of late.  More specifically, a “battle” between the services’ users.  For the most part, FriendFeed users LOVE FriendFeed and CAN’T STAND Twitter, whereas Twitter users LOVE Twitter and CAN”T STAND FriendFeed.  So, the natural follow-up to this debate is to ask the question: Who’s right?

Twitter, for better or for worse, has emerged into the mainstream.  FriendFeed, on the other hand, tends to “fly under the radar”, and seems to appeal only to the tech-savvy and early adopter crowds.  Mind you, this is exactly how Twitter once existed to the general public less than a year ago.  So, I guess the first topic to explore would be to see where Twitter went “right” and where FriendFeed went “wrong”.

How much is too much?

The common denominator in both the Twitter and FriendFeed services lie in their ability to facilitate converstation, acting as a “global chatroom,” where users are free to share their thoughts and see what others are talking about.

Twitter does exactly this, and only this.  Twitter remains an extremely minimalist service that has succeeded in creating its own platform for communicating…in short, 140-character capsules.
FriendFeed, on the other hand, takes this style of communication to the next level.  Users are able to bring in content from around the web to share and discuss material with no restrictions.  The platform is the quickest and most efficient “real-time” platform on the web allowing users to have conversations instead of just messages.  The service also boasts an amazing number of tools and filters to help users “cut through the noise.”

So why hasn’t everyone jumped onto FriendFeed?  It’s clearly more robust with features, doing everything Twitter does and much much more.  So why do the majority of people still prefer Twitter over Friendfeed?

The answer is: Simplicity and Familiarality.  Despite the fact that FriendFeed is a lot more powerful than Twitter, there is something to be said about the act of signing up, typing 140 characters, and becoming part of the Twittersphere.  Similarly, it is worth noting the insanely basic Twitter interface that everyone and their mother can relate to.  It’s quite possibly the most intuitive UI…it’s a stream of short messages…and THAT’S IT.
FriendFeed gives users a lot more freedom and little direction after signing up.  This is why the tech-savvy LOVE it, and the less technical CAN’T STAND it.  FriendFeed allows its users to use the service however they please, establish various feeds and filters, post to different networks, and tweak a ton of account settings.  Overall, FriendFeed falls short in the two areas Twitter excels in: Simplicity and Familiarality.  As Michael Arrington puts it, “FriendFeed Is In Danger Of Becoming The Coolest App No One Uses.”

So who wins the Race?

As Twitter’s user base and third party support continues to skyrocket, it would be hard to imagine someone dethroning the popular service.  That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for FriendFeed, however.  The service is way too powerful to die.  I think it is best summed up in a post by Alex Scoble (shown below).  He states, “Twitter is like a pager…friendfeed is like a smart cell phone…”  To which Justin Korn replies, “Not everyone needs the smart cell phone…just a basic one will do.”

Is FriendFeed just ahead of its time?  Will people eventually start to consider leaving Twitter for FriendFeed, just as many of us have ditched our basic cell phones for “smarter” ones?

Ironically enough, it is on these smart phones where a huge number of tweets are sent everyday.  The timing could not have been more perfect for Twitter.  Unfortunately for FriendFeed, it looks like they may have to wait in order for time to catch up with them.

So you have your business idea.  How do you know if it’s a viable one?  According to most venture capitalists (VCs), there is an initial set of guidelines or preliminary questions in which your idea must fulfill or answer.  You can bet that on the top of that list, the following question will appear:

“Do you solve a real problem?”

Outside investors want to understand exactly how your business will solve real-world problems, and subsequently, how your business will add value to your customers and the world at-large.  Obviously, no one would want to invest in a company that is solving a “problem” felt only by 20 people in the world.
I think everyone understands why this question is asked, but is it really the most effective?  Are VCs missing out by limiting themselves to unsubstantial criteria?  Is “solving a real problem” a narrow-minded thinking approach?  I would argue that it is…let me explain.

Take a look at the most successful web and tech companies of late.  I would venture to guess that if you asked them the question, “Do you solve a real problem,” their answers wouldn’t necessarily blow away the VCs that asked the question.  Instead of solving problems, these companies were more interested in creating solutions.  I believe there is a big distinction between the two.  And it is my belief that companies should look towards the latter in order to create an innovative, fresh, and meaningful business.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone sums up my sentiments in one short sentence.  He describes Twitter as, “…the messaging system that we didn’t know we needed until we had it.”  Now, rewind back a few years when Twitter was being developed.  I’m sure if they were to answer the question: “Do you solve a real problem?”, their answers may not have been the most convincing to skeptics.  Most likely they would have been met with rebuttals like, “we already have instant messaging“, “people can already text their friends“, or maybe even “nobody cares about what others are doing“.  Of course, these critics would come to find out they were dead wrong.

The messaging system that we didn’t know we needed until we had it.
-Biz Stone, describing Twitter

Point is, Biz and Co. did not set out to simply solve an existing problem, but instead, took it one step further and created a solution…a solution to a problem that had not yet been defined.

Same can be said about internet giants Google and Facebook.  The fact that Google’s product was simply ‘better’ than the rest hardly meant it solved a real problem.  Taking a look at Facebook, the same can almost be said.  When connecting with friends and colleagues was in its infancy, the naysayers simply couldn’t understand the need for such a service.  Well, Facebook created one.  And it doesn’t stop with these great web firms.  Nearly all successful services go beyond the conventional “problem solving” wisdom.

So the next time you want to gauge your company’s legitimacy, you may want to start thinking about whether or not your company “creates a solution” instead of it simply “solving a problem”.  Doing this will instantly expand your company’s scope and have you thinking laterally, instead of horizontally.  When it comes to being innovative:

Look to create instead of simply solving

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”

-Charles Caleb Colton (1780 – 1832)

There is an obvious trend that exists within today’s internet-based businesses.  Companies are “stealing” other companies’ ideas, concepts, and functionality.  Well, stealing may not be the most accurate description.  I believe the term borrowing may better sum up what is actually happening.  In any event, this post discusses the recent events of companies like Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed, and Google; and how these internet giants and revolutionaries play an integral role in each other’s future development and innovation strategies.

Facebook to Stream “Real Time”

New Facebook: Twitter + FriendFeed + 175 million users

-VentureBeat Headline March 4, 2009

Perhaps the most noteworthy example of “Valley borrowing” involves the redesign of Facebook’s homepage.  In an effort to remain fresh, Facebook has taken a page out of Twitter’s playbook and will now be augmenting users’ ‘News Feed’ to incorporate a “real-time” stream of actions, comments, etc.

Twitter has garnered massive attention for their real time communication platform, and for good reason.  It seems as if everyone is now re-focusing their sites on incorporating some level of “real-time” communication.  It will be interesting to see how Facebook incorporates this microblogging functionality within their huge social network; and most importantly, how users will react and take to it.

FriendFeed Offers Up Free R&D

I had dinner with Scoble and Louis Gray, they both said that Friendfeed was Facebook’s R&D Department. Interesting, I think there’s some truth to it.

-Jeremiah Owyang

Maybe the biggest victim of “Valley borrowing” has been felt by FriendFeed.  So much so that they have even been referred to as the R&D department for several web-based companies.  This aggregation/life-streaming service has been imitated by various internet companies, but none more popular then by both Facebook and Google.

So What’s the Takeaway?

Imagine, for example, Nike, Inc. (NYSE: NIKE) released all of its product details, manufacturing processes, and company resources to the public.  In other words, everybody would have the ability to see how Nike manufactures any particular product, the costs associated, and where the resources are coming from.  This is a pretty wild concept for most.  But this describes how a web-based business exists to the general audience, and most importantly, to current and potential competitors; completely open and virtually barrier-free.  In essence, everybody becomes a source for research and development.

This illustrates why the web have matured so quickly.  Web businesses constantly feed off of their surroundings, augmenting, tweaking, and innovating on top of previous platforms.  And this is exactly why certain web technologies are adopted in such large quantities.  Imagine, again, that all companies operated like the Nike example above.  What sort of companies would take shape from this freedom of information?  Most likely, they would be some of the most efficient, and cost effective companies ever created.  And that is exactly what we are seeing in today’s web firms; some of the most productive “web hybrids” to date.

It boils down to the remaining open and transparent.  And we have seen the benefits in doing this.  Twitter’s open application programming interface (API) standard allowed the service to reach audiences well beyond its initial reach.  We are starting to see more and more web firms gravitate towards open API’s as a result.

The type of comeptition created by “Valley borrowing” is unbelievably fast-paced.  In just a matter of months,  a successful web firm may find themselves forced to shift focus in effort to keep from becoming obsolete.  Web firms are now expected to create the most complete platform possible for their customers/users.  And isn’t that what business is all about?  Creating the best most efficient product for the customer?

Which scenario would you rather face as the CEO of your recently launched startup company? :

• Scenario A | Not being able to keep up with customer demand

OR

• Scenario B | Having scaled your business to meet expected customer demand

Well, personally, the answer is a no-brainer … it’s Scenario A.  You may think, “Well why would you rather be unprepared and unable to deliver?  Wouldn’t it be better to forecast and prepare for the future?”
Quite frankly, I don’t believe that it is.  Remember, I’m talking about a startup company, where cash is king, and it’s a matter of survival.  Odds are, you just do not have the resources to blow on hiring more employees, more office space, and the numerous overhead costs associated with growing a fledgling startup.  More importantly, your conservative projected forecasts are likely wrong anyways, so why scale up before you really need to?  Instead of worrying about the future, heed this simple (and most likely, obvious) advice:

1. Treat cash as your company’s oxygen; if you run out, your company will suffocate and die.  This will cause your company to operate as scrappy as possible, making you think twice about spending hundreds on those rad new business cards and gold-foiled company letterheads.
2. Focus on your core product/service.  It’s easy to get caught up in adding extraneous product features or unrelated services to an existing company’s business offering.  Worry about the extras after you have achieved 50% of your first year sales projections.  [This will take longer than 6 months, by the way].
3. When it’s ready, ship [or release, launch, open...depending on your business].  Don’t ship when it’s perfect, because your product will never be perfect.  It’s impossible to be perfect without having a single customer.  It’s more important to release and start amassing customers.
4. Continue to gather as much customer feedback as possible, then, collect more.  Your customers are the lifeblood of your company, and they will have insight beyond your biased viewpoint.  The customer will likely see your business in a completely different light than you do; it is crucial to understand their sentiments, digging and mining for the gems that will help you improve their experience.

These points are not revolutionary by any means, but they are easy to overlook in your pursuit to change the world.

It’s understandable why companies would prefer to be in Scenario B.  CEO’s [founder, owners, whatever] don’t want to give their customers the sense that they are running an amateur operation.  To combat this, they will, in my opinion, overcompensate to create the perception of an operation that is well beyond its true size and/or capabilities.  While creating this perception, companies are apt to spend money outside of their core competencies.  This is the beginning of the end for startups.

Micro-blogging revolutionary, Twitter, shows startup companies a very important lesson: Being underprepared and/or overwhelmed with the amount of new customers will not demolish your business. In fact, it could result in the opposite effect.  When Twitter’s user base began to climb, the service was unable to scale quickly enough, creating a series of service downtime.  During these times, Twitter would feature the now iconic “fail whale” overcapacity image.  Many stories and posts were written about Twitter’s shortcomings and their inability to handle the influx of users.  Despite a brief period of negative press [depends how you look at it] and some annoyed users, Twitter is now one of the hottest new services to date.

Twitter "Fail Whale" Screen

The “fail whale” did a few things for Twitter:

1. It gave Twitter press [positive or negative, you be the judge].
2. It showed that their was enough people signing up and using the service to sporadically bring it down.
3. It allowed people [especially their early adopters] to rally and root for their underdog.
4. It expressed honesty and gave Twitter legitimacy among its users by not hiding behind its deficiencies.

Author, entrepreneur, and venture capitalist, Guy Kawasaki writes the following in his book titled ‘Reality Check’,

I have never seen a company fail because it couldn’t expand fast enough.  I have seen many companies – I won’t mention their names to protect the guilty – die because they “invested in the future” and “spent ahead” to avoid missing an opportunity.  Once in my career, I’d like to invest in a company that can’t scale fast enough for its orders.  That’s an easier problem to fix than lackluster sales and adoption.

-Guy Kawasaki

How will you surpass your projections?  How will you outperform the limits of your business?…

How will you achieve your “Fail Whale”?

What is the Real-time Web?

If you’re not quite sure what the ‘real-time’ web is, maybe you’ve heard it called life-streaming, micro-blogging, or tweeting.  It really doesn’t matter what you call it.  The ‘real time’ web (RTW) is all about one thing: the fast transfer of knowledge.  It’s really as simple as that.  How fast can I notify, update, and/or interact with a community of like-minded individuals?  It’s a direct extension of the blogging format, with far less barriers, a constant stream of information, searchability, a much larger audience…and we are just at the BEGINNING of this phenomenon.

We are just at the beginning…

At the forefront of this RTW revolution is Twitter.  What this once modest, still barebones service was able to do in such a short time is truly astounding.  It has surpassed that “trend” phase and is slowly creeping into a [dare I say it?] mainstream service.  You may think to yourself – “So what, who cares if people use Twitter?”

What’s the point?

I guess the point that I want to hit home the most is that this really is the future of our web interactions.  It took us a few years, but we are finally leveraging this technology and connecting with other human beings instead of relying on computers, algorithms, and search results to deliver our online data (hmm…Google).  The RTW has enabled us to connect with individuals who we would never of been able to connect with otherwise.  People, for the most part are pretty amazing and you’ll be surprised how much people will give back.  Perfect example: After following theCRICKETtoy on Twitter (accidentally, I must admit),  I receive an instant direct message from the company’s owner asking if I would like one of their CRICKETtoy™ products for FREE.  Not really expecting anything out of it, I direct messaged my address back, and received the little guy in the mail in just days! (Thanks Jeff)  Point is, people want to connect with people, and the RTW finally allows us to do just that.  It doesn’t matter if your promoting a company, a service, a blog, or a product; what the RTW forces you to do is promote yourself first.  People do this by helping others, giving advice, offering their services, whatever it may be, people want to be part of this amazing ‘real-time’ exchange of ideas and information.

What does this mean?

I made a slight cut at Google before…kind of joking, but kind of serious at the same time.  Google searches are great for historical and static pages on the net, but when it comes to current and news-breaking events, nothing comes close to the RTW.  I find myself gravitating towards Twitter Search for various information now.  There is so much power that lies in the RTW and its huge community of people that conventional search engines tend to seem “old school”.  Before pages are indexed in search engines, and even before a blogger can create a post, someone from the Twitter community has already wrote a 140-character gem that will be retweeted, discussed, and spread virally throughout the internet instantly.  So powerful.

What should I do?

Get on Twitter if you haven’t already.  Create an account and start connecting with people that interest you.  Guy Kawasaki has some great articles on how to get started on Twitter.  Read both, here and here.

Once you have built up a solid community of twitterites, I recommend utilizing the power of FriendFeed.  Check out the RTW jedi himself, Robert Scoble, on how to get started with Friendfeed.

Most importantly…

I want to hear from you guys who are part of the RTW.  I want to get your feedback and your opinions.  I would like to do a more comprehensive follow-up and would love to hear back from the community

• What are you thoughts about the future of the RTW?
• More useful: Friendfeed or Twitter?
• How should companies embrace the power of the RTW?
• How many third party Twitter applications do you use?
• How do you get your news?

After recently rejecting Facebook’s $500 million buyout proposal, micro-blogging phenomenon, Twitter has moved forth acquiring and hiring former O’Reilly CTO Rael Dornfest. This adds fuel to the debate on whether Facebook and Twitter are rivals competing for the same online attention, or if they are instead, two totally independent online communication / information outlets. These are two very interesting platforms, no doubt, with large and promising futures ahead.

It’s very interesting to analyze these two successful (not always measured in dollars and cents, mind you) businesses, and how very different they are. Most notably are their different approaches to openness and complexity. Facebook has operated, so far, in a complete “bubble,” remaining fairly separate from the rest of the web. I believe that this community that Facebook was able to build on the internet is one of the biggest draws, especially at its inception regarding the college campuses that it was penetrating – it served as a virtual campus, sheltered from the “real world,” or the web, in this case. Now, compare this to Twitter. Twitter embraces the web and everything it has to offer, and operates with virtually no boundaries. This coincidentally, has been one of Twitter’s greatest factors to adoption; its openness.

Facebook boasts a very complete, complex profile system chock full of applications, photos, videos, albums, messages, status updates, news feeds, you name it…chances are Facebook has it. The brilliant execution of all these features has made Facebook the top social network to date. As we take a look at Twitter, they retain a completely different mentality, taking the less is more approach and focus on simplicity. And it is this structure that has contributed to Twitter’s success.

It’s very interesting to see how two platforms such as Facebook and Twitter can both be so successful and yet operate so differently. Now, obviously, Facebook is far larger than Twitter, so a true comparison of the companies may be a bit premature for Twitter’s-sake, but it is definitely worth keeping an eye on…and Facebook clearly has. One look at Facebook’s ‘Status Update’ feature and its introduction just shortly after Twitter started to develop a following is testament to the very simple, yet effective platform that Twitter has developed. Which brings me to my final point: What Twitter has that Facebook Doesn’t…

And the answer, is quite simple : Twitter has the ability to connect an individual with anyone, anywhere, at anytime. The same cannot be said for Facebook, or most traditional social networks for that matter. Twitter has removed the need to “Add Friends” and effectively connects individuals regardless of specific networks or communities. To give a very small example of what I mean, Google Analytics reports 8% of my Facebook “Friends” have visited my blog off of a facebook.com referral. Now that number jumps to just shy of 60% when comparing visits off of a twitter.com referral. The point is, Twitter is designed to communicate, network, discuss, and share content on a much more individual level. The stripped-down, bare bones service helps Twitter break the boundaries often created with complex networks.

I think the most interesting thing is that both of these services can coexist without necessarily infringing upon each other (for now at least). It would be hard to find someone without a Facebook account that is on Twitter, and rightfully so. Facebook is an absolutely ridiculous social network that will continue to grow and dominate mainstream. With that said, I can see Twitter accounts being distributed as commonly as email addresses are today — something that Facebook accounts just don’t have the flexibility in executing.