Seth Godin Thinks Twitter is Worthless

Nov 24 2008

And he says so in this post.

Not really, but I’m sure some have misunderstood it that way (a too perfect irony). His actual point is that the shorter the delivery of the message, the greater the chances that a reader will get it wrong.

Misunderstanding gets easier as you move from Books -> Essays -> Articles -> Posts -> Tweets.

The obvious reason for this is that there is less space to work with, less space to explain, but there’s more to it than that.

The shorter the medium, the more it lends itself to cursory readings. I’ve never tried to glance at a book and then suppose I know everything it is trying to say, but I do it all the time with blog posts and Twitter tweets.

So the shorter mediums face a two-fold challenge: It’s saying less to people who are listening worse.

*****UPDATED*****
So I think Seth and I are wrong, or at least, I’m wrong. It’s not that the shorter mediums are inherently more likely to be misunderstood, it’s that they are worse at communicating complexity.

Since Twitter is almost never used for complex ideas, it probably has a smaller chance of being misunderstood. That being said, if anyone tries to use Twitter for a complex idea, send them to what I wrote above.

396CommentsSeth+Godin+Thinks+Twitter+is+Worthless2008-11-24+17%3A00%3A46Chuck+Westbrook

churchpunkmom
on 24 Nov 2008 at 1:14 pm

lol.. ’saying less to people who are listening worse’.. so true.

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Glad you liked it.

Rarst
on 24 Nov 2008 at 1:17 pm

Yep, amount information that fits in 140 symbols is short. But so is information density. twitter is hardly used for sharing deep complex insights. Don’t need book to share what you are doing or thinkig this evening.

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Right, but if someone misunderstands what you are doing this evening, that doesn’t usually matter much.

Sonia Simone | Remarkable Communication
on 24 Nov 2008 at 1:18 pm

Twitter is a mosaic, though. Each individual tweet is just a tile in a much larger picture. The message doesn’t live in any single tweet, it lives in the body and the flow.

That said, there are really things one should never try to explain on Twitter.

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

That’s a great metaphor for Twitter. So if that’s the approach, it doesn’t matter if a Tweet gets misunderstood.

Kristin T.
on 24 Nov 2008 at 1:30 pm

I think you’re probably right, with your “saying less to people who are listening worse” observation. But it’s also possible that when we say a little, we’re (ideally) being very clear and direct, and when we’re saying a lot, we have the luxury of fully explaining ourselves. For me, it seems like it’s that mid-range that causes problems. I begin to approach a more complex concept, but don’t have enough time/space for the detail needed to pull it all together. (Maybe that’s why I write tweets and longish blog posts, but can’t seem to pull off a 150-word post. Sigh)

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

The short blog post can be a discipline, but there’s a place for them. It’s a nice change of pace.

The key is just taking one small idea and saying it rather than explaining an entire line of thinking. That’s the whole crux of this being misunderstood issue, too.

Chuck F.
on 24 Nov 2008 at 2:29 pm

I dunno, I think any communication suffers from this dilemma. Long books allow you to flesh out all the details, but run the risk of having readers get lost in those details and not follow your larger point.

So whether it’s Twitter or a long novel, we always have to both strive for clarity and still expect to be misunderstood (or, to put it more neutrally, interpreted in a way other than intended). It’s neither good or bad, it’s just the way communication is.

On another note, I feel like the exercise of fitting a complete thought into 140 characters has improved my writing generally, has made me cut to the chase and be more concise.

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Being misunderstood in literature may be neutral, but being misunderstood in communication is quite often bad.

While all writing has to deal with this, I think it does get harder from medium to medium.

Chuck Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

While all writing has to deal with this, I think it does get harder from medium to medium.

Sure, but I don’t see how you can draw a straight line where misunderstanding descreases and you go from shorter to longer. In fact, in my head, I associate brevity with more clarity.

Different mediums might be more or less clear, but that’s going to vary by what medium the content is most suited to, the teller’s skills/preferences, the hearer’s skills/preferences, etc.

[Reply]

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

It’s okay that we disagree, but I think if we had a longer conversation, we’d be more likely to see eye-to-eye. I have a feeling that’d be the case, at least. ; )

Chuck W. Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

As you see below in my reply to Vicki, I think you’re actually right. There’s a trade-off when it comes to trying to explain complexity.

dlyn
on 24 Nov 2008 at 2:55 pm

For sure some validity to the idea – but you just have to work harder to convey your meaning. Some may seek out more if it’s available, others will be happy with the 140 character surface. Out of your control once you put out it out there whether it’s a long blog post or a short tweet – they do with it what they will.

Chuck Westbrook Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

But even if you work really hard and do a great job of writing something clear and direct, someone will often misunderstand.

If you go read the post that kicked off my project, you’ll see it very clearly lays out the plan. Still, I had dozens of people thinking that each blog that commented would get a visit.

It just happens–you can’t control it, as you say, but you can improve the odds or worsen the odds. That all depends on what your goal is.

dlyn Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 7:04 am

I did notice that many people seemed to be misunderstanding the idea behind the project, whic I thought you had explained quite clearly. Length and detail are apparently no guarantee of the readers’ understanding.

Vicki
on 24 Nov 2008 at 10:10 pm

I guess I don’t follow the same people you do Chuck. I can’t imagine that I have “misunderstood” any of the tweets I’ve read in the past year.

True, occasionally, I don’t get one. Usually that’s because I’m missing context (e.g. I don’t get tweet replies to people I don’t follow.)

As a technical writer by profession, I’ve more often found that shorter is more preferable to a lot of people. The longer something is, the more my readers complain that they don’t have time to read it. And when they don’t finish, they miss a lot.

I don’t think the length, per se, is really the issue. I think it’s what’s being said. To pull out an old chestnut (and add to it) – does the medium fit the message? And do the medium and message fit the audience?

Chuck W. Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

On second thought, I may agree with you more than with what I wrote originally. I’m okay with that.

Expressing a complicated idea in too few words is where misunderstanding can enter in. Tweets, though, tend to be very simple ideas, so it is generally not an issue.

In any case, it depends on the reader making it all the way through the text. A short message gives up detail in exchange for greater odds of the person reading it all. Longer text does the opposite.

Again, though, I think this applies mostly to complexity.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website