Was Twitter buying Periscope a fail?
Sometimes seeing is believing. But it doesn’t mean success.
After wanting to not just read about protests in Istanbul, but also see them, founder Kayvon Beykpour saw an opportunity in the social-sharing market. And thus, in February 2014, Periscope was born.
Acquired by Twitter just over a year later, Periscope was often compared to SXSW’s darling Meerkat. Essentially a modern version of the Truman Show, both platforms allow users to stream their lives or tune into the lives of others.
Brands used it to promote new products, concert venues streamed shows, and celebrities hosted AMA’s in the early days. But what about now? Why have social giants like Instagram and Snapchat taken over the world of live(ish) video? Why is Periscope low on the livestream totem pole?
Let’s take a look into why Twitter failed at seeing success between a merging of their platform with Periscope.
Twitter assumed that on a text-heavy platform, their users would want (excess) visuals.
Wanting to share 140 characters doesn’t exactly translate the desire to film yourself walking down the street, or even watch someone else do that. Going to Twitter always meant you’d get bite-sized content, so the switch over to lengthy videos when you can’t get to the punchline in a quick glance, probably made a lot of users lose interest. Most Twitter users flock to the platform because of their flair for words, not necessarily to improve their selfie abilities.
Twitter didn’t think about when users actually use their app.
Ever scrolled through Twitter at work? On the subway? In line at the grocery store?
How often did you have your headphones in? Probably less than 25%.
When adding an audio visual component to Twitter, the company didn’t take into consideration the context in which most users were using their app, which was more often than not a time that they didn’t have the sound on. So users just scrolled on by any Periscope videos in their feed and stuck with the text.
Twitter compared themselves to Facebook.
As Facebook scaled, the platform became a go-to place to see what everyone else was doing on the internet. There was a natural progression from posting on a friend’s wall to buying their gently used dresser to donating to a charity for their birthday. Sure, you’d post about your night out, but it wasn’t all about you.
Twitter is just not the same.
Born as a micro-blogging platform, users go to Twitter for the primary goal of posting (typically text) about what they are doing. Power users built a following behind their opinions and stories. But these opinions and stories were micro insights into a person’s mind, not full-blown video sessions.
In their effort to compete with Facebook, they made the mistake of dabbling in livestreaming when that wasn’t really what their users, as users or voyeurs, necessarily wanted.
But wait…Periscope still exists?
Yep, it does.
But who’s on it? When’s the last time you tuned into someone’s Periscope? I’m curious to know.
