What exactly does Google have to fear from Twitter?

Twitter is the darling of the social media world, with many bloggers saying Google should fear it, if not buy it. But what threat or opportunity does Twitter actually pose?

Yes, yes, another blog about Twitter, the Web 2.0 service of the moment. You are bound to have heard of it; if not be sick of hearing about it. The fact remains, however, that it is enjoying stellar growth -- reputedly 900% plus over the last year, although exact user numbers are hard to determine as Twitter itself is secretive. Further, around 80% of users access the service through third party software, like TweetDeck, so don't appear on statistics showing Twitter website usage, as they go in through the API (so straight into the database rather than through the website).

This week saw Google add its own Twitter account, which has got the blogosphere wondering whether it has merely acknowledged its importance; or whether it may be circling for acquisition. Others believe that Twitter poses the biggest threat yet seen to Google's core business of search.

So what does Twitter offer that Google should be worrying about?

1) A compelling search alternative

Google owns the search market, delivering the vast majority of search results and having seen off well established encumbents such as Alta Vista, Yahoo!, Ask and Microsoft's Live Search. It has also done its bit to see companies like Yell booted out of the FTSE100. Few people can name another traditional search engine that offers a chance of threatening its hugely dominant position.

But search as Google does it is flawed. I wrote last June on the dubious value of getting 67,000,000 responses to a search query when perhaps just a few would be more useful, especially if what you get back is very much more relevant -- and by my definition, not about those who have spent a fortune on SEO.

I had a forum debate with the managing director of a business directory, a company that arguably sees itself going head to head with Google, about whose site was better: his directory or my business lead and referral site. I'll spare you the tittle tattle, but his assertion was that his site was better because if you typed "accountant" it came back with 22,000 entries. I said WeCanDo.BIZ was better because it came back with a handful, but within those you could see which of those was used and endorsed by your own business contacts. Few people actually have a need for 22,000 accountants, but if they did then his site would be better. I believe a person would be likely to choose one business over any of the 22,000 others if came with a recommendation from someone they know and trust.

You can move the same argument to Google and Twitter. I see Tweeple already asking questions of their Twitter followers that in LBT (Life Before Twitter) they would have gone to Google to post as a search query. Why do they use Twitter to ask questions now? Because someone they have a relationship with will give them a knowledgable, qualified answer to "where do I find a good accountant", rather than them having to sift through 33,900,00 (seriously!) responses to "accountant" in Google (of any other search engine for that matter).

Yes, Twitter has its own search facility hidden away at http://search.twitter.com, but there is rarely a need to use that because your network probably holds many of the answers. As I said back in June, if I want a good accountant, one name recommended by a contact is many times more useful to me that 33 million listings where I carry the risk as to how good any one of them is. Twitter is as valuable for finding out what good resturants, the exchange rate for the dong, or the name of the main character in 1970's sci fi drama 'V'.

It's power is in your answers being people powered, not matched by a bot and easy to cheat by the SEO savvy.

2) Better engagement with visitors

At this point in time I don't doubt that most web site traffic comes from Google. But what is that traffic worth? Spend any time on forums heavily populated by so-called 'SEO experts' and you'll find their currency is page rank and whether you get listed on the hallowed Page 1. But many think their job is done if you rank well on Google, with a token nod towards compelling content on your own website to draw visitors in and to get specific engagement. Even if your website is hugely engaging, what is the conversion rate for most businesses on clicks to contact? If anyone betters 5% they are doing well. 10,000 visitors a day who never contact you is worth nothing that any business can measure.

And here is a key way in which Twitter beats the old way of doing things. Visitors to my Twitter profile will make an instant decision on whether I am worth following, based not only on what I say about my own business (not all of which you could find on my website), but also what I comment on, Tweet and ReTweet from the rest of the web. They'll consider whether I can save them having to find stuff they're interested in. If they see me Tweeting enough of value then they'll follow me -- and I get one more name in my opt-in marketing list. I currently pick up ten followers a day (join them: @wecandobiz), but how long would I have to wait for my website to pick up the same number of opt-in newsletter subscribers, for example?

But being given permission to send to new followers is, literally, only half the story. Through Twitter we also have a mechanism for conversation. It is easy for any of my followers to comment on my content -- how many people reply to newsletters or fill out contact pages with thoughts, good or bad? And I also get to see what each of my followers is interested in and passionate about. Twitter can be conversational, but if you just read what your contacts share you can learn a lot about your customers, prospects, market and industry. With newsletters, this sort of stuff just never happens.

Where Twitter isn't so good

OK, it isn't perfect. It shows enormous promise as a method of driving your business objectives forward, but Twitter is too hard to use today; too disorganised. The search almost feels like it's on a different website. And many of the most useful Tweeting tools are provided by third parties that you only get to hear about once your network has started to grow. And, more often than not, each third party app does one or maybe a couple of things well, but you end up using a bunch of tools to monitor tweets, add new followers, thank new followers, schedule Tweets, automate RSS feeds as Tweets... at this point in time I use TweetDeck, TweetLater, Twitterfeed and Twollo. I use them well, but it's still four apps to maintain my Twitter presence.

But Twitter has grown to well over 6 million users, many of whom are big fans (there are business people who love it as well as Stephen Fry), IN SPITE of it being a pain in the arse to use. If Twitter went beyond the geeky "What are you doing?" focused website they launched in 2006 and better reflected the way most Tweeple actually use it, then Google would have real grounds to get worried. That needn't be a move towards 'slicker' that might alienate existing fans, but just a wizard which helps new users recognise the best way of using it (I mean, come on, how many of your Tweets are an answer to "What are you doing?" Recognise that no-one cares!), an easy way to follow and build followers; and perhaps each Tweet also bringing back details of other people Tweeting on the same subject -- ooh, a bit like search results...

I'd love to read your thoughts.

Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz