Who Will Be King of the LIVE Wars?
“This is the end. Hold your breath and count to ten…”
Sorry I could not help myself. The intro from Adele’s Skyfall just fit the mood.
And so it begins, the LIVE Wars.
The Book of Faces vs the 140 Chars of Tweets #BraceYourselves — @findTroy
(In my Eddard Stark voice though full disclosure, I have never seen a full episode of Game of Thrones ever, but I digress.)
First off, for those who are not aware that Twitter does Live video too, well it does, through an app called Periscope (which is also owned by Twitter) but you can only use it via mobile. Facebook recently updated and expanded its Facebook Live capabilities by allowing users to go live from their desktops. As far as I know, there is no set timetable to be able to go live from a PC on Twitter anytime soon considering Periscope is only for mobile use and is not accessible for desktop.
Media organizations and advertisers will be able to stream live video directly on Twitter using professional camera equipment, a person familiar with the matter said. Anyone can stream live video using the Twitter mobile app already, but broadcasters currently have no way of streaming with professional equipment unless they strike a deal with Twitter directly. — Alex Heath, Business Insider
Twitter’s plan to open up its live video platform was first reported by The Information last week, and Business Insider independently confirmed Twitter would announce the change today! (At the time of this piece originally being written on Tuesday, March 21.)
If you used Twitter lately, you have seen them have live events including NFL’s Thursday Night Football and this relatively new (at least to me) financial news program called Cheddar as well as from Bloomberg. According to Business Insider and assumedly Twitter as well, it is unclear if these agreements in airing these shows live on Twitter will remain a vital part of Twitter’s strategy moving forward, especially with the ushering in the capabilities of going live from professional cameras. I would think CBS, ABC, NBC, or FOX would be interesting in broadcasting live on Twitter. (Considering CBS & NFL had a deal in airing Thursday Night Football, CBS would be my first guess.)
QUESTION: Are these moves by Twitter going to compete with Facebook?
ANSWER: I think it depends on how you look at it. Facebook was first obviously in trying to compete with YouTube & Snapchat (which they cloned in their updates to Instagram recently). Facebook has the upper hand being first because they promoted it like crazy at the end of 2016 and even more so in 2017. If you have a Facebook, then you are regularly notified if a friend of yours goes live. You see people use it all the time now and it has quickly become an accepted way of life it seems for people to share direct information with people. It is especially for B2C brands.
I see Facebook Live winning from a consumer brand and B2C perspective. I see Twitter Live making strides in the B2B space. I think it would be smart to make a particular target niche use for your live platform vs. trying to compete with Facebook in every type of niche use. However, I think Twitter will have a slight edge in that you can get a bigger audience impact more immediately vs. using Facebook. However, this leads me to my next question which changes the whole game once more.
QUESTION: What about Instagram Live?
ANSWER: Instagram has the presence of Facebook, the immediate reach of Twitter, and now the capabilities to tell stories just like Snapchat (Instagram Stories). So the audience is just there for the taking. Bye Bye Facebook & Twitter Live, we hardly knew you. Can Instagram now take the thrown as the “ultimate” live platform now right? Again, it honestly depends on how you look at it. Here’s the caveat of using Instagram Live.
The biggest difference between the new Instagram live stories feature and that of Facebook and Twitter via Periscope is that Instagram’s live stories is once you stop streaming, the content is gone. So your fans cannot rewatch to relive the glory and those who missed it, well they are out of luck. Being exclusive isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does make me go “eh” as a marketer. I think of it as I want to get the most out of the content I create whether live or not. So having the ability to after I embarrass myself complete, forget my lines, stall for trying to get some assistance, and pray I do not make a total fool of myself and however minutes later do pretty decently at the end, I want to make that into more content. You never get everyone in the first wave. Timing is everything and having access to content later for me is key. So I feel that is Instagram Live’s bigger kryptonite from what I can tell.
QUESTION: Why is LIVE streaming so popular?
ANSWER: Snapchat definitely helped with that with its on-the-fly, “YOLO” implied, in-the-moment, instantaneous content. We desire authenticity. We demand it. Sure Facebook & Twitter (Periscope) may get all the buzz on “going live,” but let’s not forget Twitch, Live.ly, YouNow, and YouTube Connect just to name a few.
QUESTION: Why Go LIVE at all?
ANSWER: Our society lives and breathes off of a tweet, post, snap, and video. We are extremely sensitive and want to feel like what we are reading and seeing is true. There’s so many bots, trolls and don’t even get me started on “#fakenews,” that we as a society want to know is this real. What better way to convey honesty to all audiences alike than to simply hit the record button and talk to them in real time. You get to catch them talking straight through, mistakes and all (hopefully not too bad), to come across as sincere and genuine to an audience. Besides, as we are scrolling, and we see a video, we are 38% more likely to watch it vs. clicking on an article to read. Instead of sharing a link to YouTube or pointing someone to another website or platform to view your content, reach them right where they are in real time.
It allows for brands and audience to have a very intimate feel of transparency in communication. Keep in mind that the communication is not a one-way window anymore, we now can communicate both ways in real time. Unlike right now, where you are reading my piece on the matter, this is one-way communication. I have no idea what you are thinking/feeling on the subject or in how I am conveying the message, and you do not know if I wanted to expound more on a particular piece but for time sake to not have a written piece too long, I did not. You may have additional questions whereas if it were a two-way conversation, I could answer them or if you wanted to share with me updated information on the changes to the platforms or even criticize or add to my perspective, I could receive it in real time. Plus, it is something about seeing the expression a person’s face, the tone, and delivery of the message, that helps get across the point over better, giving a “4D” scope of a point of view vs. a “1D” scope.
I mean if you heard my voice or saw me on your screen, expressing this entire piece almost word for word to you, do you believe it would get more reach? Would people feel more inclined to hear what I have to say on screen vs. reading my thoughts on screen? Would there be a better understanding of the information? Personally, I believe it would be on all of these. However, one thing to remember is that you have more control over a written piece. If your facts check out right, if you are a grammar nazi (I am not so I apologize if my writing style does not 100% appeal to you), if spellcheck did not fail you, and you have an excellent choice of words, you are fine. Not to mention you are not influenced by an audience directly in what you say or in the delivery of how you say it which may be something one may face going live.
Do I think it is 100% perfect yet for brands to use? No. I feel in time there will be a more consensus on how we use it and best practices to assess. However, then again, is any social media platform ever is? Also no. I think the frequency and how you use “LIVE” in your brand and marketing strategies whether it is through Facebook, Twitter via Periscope, or any other platform that is out there or will be out there all depends on:
- A) your audience,
- B) your brand, and
- C) your comfort level of talking in real time.
SO, WHO IS KING OF THE LIVE WARS?
FACEBOOK. I would have to say right now, the king is Facebook. Not only because it has pushed the use of it to extreme measures, but because it owns Instagram and Messenger which have become almost mirror copies of Snapchat in many regards. So whether we all stay loyal and grow with Facebook Live or use Instagram Live with Messenger as a more personal piece amongst friends, business colleagues, or special VIPs, the more hands you have in the pot, the higher your chances are of winning. So kudos to you Facebook for being the social juggernaut that you are. I have not forgotten what you did to Myspace way back when. Moreover, do I think Snapchat going public was a wise decision? I will save that for another piece (but the short answer is no). I think from a business standpoint Facebook will be on top of this for the foreseeable future. Do I think Twitter (Periscope), YouTube, Snapchat, Twitch, and others will push campaigns to get users to be more active even more? Yes. Do I think they will take over definitively the gridlock Facebook has on it right now? I do not. However, I love to be proving wrong, and I love to cheer on for the underdog. I must admit I have this feeling that Youtube is going to be making some noise very soon.
It is fresh and the new thing of the day. Those in social always say, follow the trend, and the trend right now is going live.
Until next time,
T
