WEBVTT - The Power of 280 Characters

0:00:03.680 --> 0:00:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Publishing tools. Social Flow has discovered that people are liking

0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:11.200
<v Speaker 1>and retweeting longer Twitter messages more frequently than the traditional

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:15.520
<v Speaker 1>one forty character limit versions. I'm Jonathan Strickland and this

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:23.160
<v Speaker 1>is tech stuff Daily. Earlier in Twitter shook things up

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.200
<v Speaker 1>by doubling the character limit users have when they compose

0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>their messages. Traditionally, once you hit one characters, that was it.

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:35.440
<v Speaker 1>But Twitter's changement, you suddenly had an additional one forty

0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:38.479
<v Speaker 1>characters to make your point. It might not be the

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:41.760
<v Speaker 1>great American novel, but suddenly users didn't need to struggle

0:00:41.760 --> 0:00:45.800
<v Speaker 1>to find a short synonym for words like ginormous. Twitter

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:50.080
<v Speaker 1>rolled out the change gradually. In November, the company announced

0:00:50.080 --> 0:00:53.840
<v Speaker 1>that this switch to characters would become a global feature

0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:58.280
<v Speaker 1>almost It turns out that in the Chinese, Japanese, and

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:01.480
<v Speaker 1>Korean versions of Twitter, you'll still need to express your

0:01:01.480 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 1>ideas in one forty characters or fewer. The character limit

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.160
<v Speaker 1>wasn't just an arbitrary number to begin with, at least

0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:12.640
<v Speaker 1>not completely. Twitter's origins are tied to s m S

0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:16.880
<v Speaker 1>text messages. SMS stands for Short Message Service, and it

0:01:17.040 --> 0:01:19.760
<v Speaker 1>really just means text message, like the type you can

0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:23.679
<v Speaker 1>send on a typical cell phone. In the nineties, standardization

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:27.440
<v Speaker 1>bodies determined that the maximum length of an SMS message

0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>should be one hundred sixty characters. Twitter followed suit, setting

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:36.319
<v Speaker 1>twenty of those characters aside for Twitter user handles. Originally,

0:01:36.520 --> 0:01:40.480
<v Speaker 1>Twitter messages were all sent as SMS messages. It was

0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:43.800
<v Speaker 1>only later with desktop clients and smartphone applications that the

0:01:43.959 --> 0:01:47.760
<v Speaker 1>SMS limitations began to become more of a problem. Twitter

0:01:47.840 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>had been addressing this in little ways over the years,

0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:54.240
<v Speaker 1>incorporating tools like u r L shorteners and other strategies

0:01:54.280 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 1>to take some of the sting out of finding the

0:01:56.160 --> 0:01:58.600
<v Speaker 1>right way to get your point across in limited space,

0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:03.840
<v Speaker 1>but then the expansion into two characters. Some people had

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:06.400
<v Speaker 1>a negative reaction to this, bemoaning what they perceived to

0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:09.520
<v Speaker 1>be an oncoming era of low quacious tweets filling up

0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:13.000
<v Speaker 1>their screens, I suppose, but according to Social Flows research,

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 1>people have been responding positively to the change in policy.

0:02:16.520 --> 0:02:20.240
<v Speaker 1>The company states that between November twenty nine and December sixth,

0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:24.720
<v Speaker 1>two thousand, seventeen, Twitter users would retweet messages below the

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:29.360
<v Speaker 1>old onety limit about thirteen point seven one times on average.

0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 1>For the longer messages, the number was closer to twenty

0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 1>six point five two times, almost twice as frequently. Likes

0:02:37.440 --> 0:02:40.560
<v Speaker 1>the indication that you think of particular tweet is pretty keen,

0:02:40.720 --> 0:02:43.520
<v Speaker 1>but you don't feel the need to repeat it necessarily

0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>followed a similar pattern. Shorter messages were liked on average

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 1>twenty nine point nine six times, longer ones fifty point

0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 1>to eight times. At first, people weren't using those extra

0:02:57.120 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 1>characters very frequently. According to Twitter, only five sent of

0:03:00.320 --> 0:03:05.120
<v Speaker 1>tweets during their test period actually exceeded one characters. Only

0:03:05.200 --> 0:03:08.440
<v Speaker 1>two percent got as high as one nine characters. The

0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:11.520
<v Speaker 1>company used those facts to reassure Twitter users that their

0:03:11.560 --> 0:03:15.079
<v Speaker 1>experience reading tweets would not really change all that remarkably.

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:17.720
<v Speaker 1>I suppose I should take this as an opportunity to

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:20.320
<v Speaker 1>apologize to my own Twitter followers, as I am a

0:03:20.360 --> 0:03:22.520
<v Speaker 1>wordy fellow and I have taken great joy in rounding

0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:25.919
<v Speaker 1>out those two characters more than once. If you want proof,

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>just go to Twitter and follow at John Strickland. While

0:03:29.280 --> 0:03:32.160
<v Speaker 1>the increase and engagement is a good thing, it hasn't

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:35.760
<v Speaker 1>stopped some analysts from viewing Twitter with a cautious eye.

0:03:35.800 --> 0:03:38.560
<v Speaker 1>The Pew Research Center conducted a survey to find out

0:03:38.560 --> 0:03:43.200
<v Speaker 1>which age groups will gravitate to various social media platforms. Millennials,

0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:46.360
<v Speaker 1>the largest generation in the United States, make up about

0:03:46.400 --> 0:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>thirty six percent of Twitter's users. That might sound like

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 1>a lot, but a glance over at Instagram shows that

0:03:52.440 --> 0:03:55.160
<v Speaker 1>sixty percent of their users fall into the ages of

0:03:55.280 --> 0:03:58.400
<v Speaker 1>eighteen to twenty nine years old. Because of this and

0:03:58.480 --> 0:04:02.120
<v Speaker 1>other factors, many tech analysts feel that Twitter is living

0:04:02.160 --> 0:04:05.480
<v Speaker 1>on borrowed time. It's hard to argue that Twitter is useless.

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>Millions of people still rely on this service daily, but

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:13.200
<v Speaker 1>it's struggled to generate revenue and engage with younger customers.

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:16.359
<v Speaker 1>Isn't a great sign to hear more about the Twitter story,

0:04:16.480 --> 0:04:19.000
<v Speaker 1>as well as deep dives on all the major social

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:22.480
<v Speaker 1>media platforms. Check out the tech Stuff podcast. In this

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:26.400
<v Speaker 1>long form show, I explore technologies, companies, and important people

0:04:26.440 --> 0:04:30.360
<v Speaker 1>in greater detail. It publishes on Wednesdays and Fridays. I'll

0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:31.280
<v Speaker 1>see you again soon.