So, we're all on Twitter. What about Facebook?

[Kayaugstin Kott]

So, I found myself looking to the future ... and facing a potential dilemma.

I'd say 99-plus percent of SJ users are on Twitter, working the brand, getting the link clicks, racking up the followers, breaking the news.

What about Facebook? I'll assume most of us here have profiles to be accessed by friends ... but what about "like" pages?

In the unfortunate event Twitter ever crumbles, I think it's safe to say Facebook is here to stay, simply given its massive footprint it already holds with billions of users.

Does anyone here maintain a public Facebook "like" page? Should journalists have one?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Yes, do both. Build your #brand everywhere, including Insta, Snapchat and Periscope.

 

[Kayaugstin Kott]

Yes, do both. Build your #brand everywhere, including Insta, Snapchat and Periscope.

Really, Snapchat?

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Just Twitter.

It's enough for me. Besides, I'm not interested in looking up formerly hot high-school girls on Facebook.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Really, Snapchat?

A bit of hyperbole. But keep an eye on it. Lots of brands and pro teams are using it now. No need to be an early adopter, but who knows where it might be in a couple of years.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'd say 99-plus percent of SJ users are on Twitter, working the brand, getting the link clicks, racking up the followers, breaking the news.

I wouldn't say that.

 

[TGO157]

Snapchat could be a great marketing/advertising tool for media outlets. Every HS kid uses it. They love it. Get a sponsor for those videos and bam, you've got some multimedia revenue.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Snapchat could be a great marketing/advertising tool for media outlets. Every HS kid uses it. They love it. Get a sponsor for those videos and bam, you've got some multimedia revenue.

Exactly, because every high school kid has such income and spending power that you want to reach them so all your advertisers are exposed to their massive wealth.

Eventually, advertisers will figure out the flaw in the theory that clicks = dollars. Most kids are clicking away, and most don't have **** to spend.

 

[MTM]

I maintain both personal and professional Facebook pages.

The work page is a good place to post articles and to reach out to sources and potential sources.

 

[MNgremlin]

I think it's useful if you're at a bigger shop, but for folks at small dailies and weeklies I just wonder what's the point...

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this.

 

[cranberry]

We had someone from Snapchat in our office last week, pitching my organization's involvement. My impression was there could be some benefit.

 

[Rhody31]

I think it's useful if you're at a bigger shop, but for folks at small dailies and weeklies I just wonder what's the point...

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this.

If you're at a small daily or weekly, getting on SnapChat and Insta is even more important because there's a good chance to reach the HS kids you're covering. If you can convert them into clicks, bosses won't be upset.
Twitter and Facebook are more for breaking news and getting your stories out. Insta and SnapChat are about building a brand. Problem is you have to be interesting and most reporters aren't, are just to afraid to try and have any sort of personality, or they come off so fake it's unappealing to an audience.
Periscope is a better tool for a larger paper, mainly for those covering pros/college. If you cover a D-I hoops team you should be doing Periscope chats at halftime. It's good for the readership and helps you, as a print reporter, become better at TV/radio. You can sit there and talk about the first half and answer questions and all you do is hold a phone. You do 10 minutes pregame, 10 minutes halftime, that's 20 fewer minutes spent gorging on the media grub, which will help everyone's health too.

 

[FileNotFound]

It would be worth your time to check your media company's actual traffic from Twitter. In many cases, it's in the single digits. Only 17 percent of U.S. adults use Twitter regularly. WE'RE all on Twitter, yes; but are your readers? A Facebook presence is important too, as well as the other platforms mentioned. Ultimately, it's all about driving traffic back to your web site.

 

[MNgremlin]

Just saw a note saying the Twitter timeline is changing. May signal the end of live-tweeting events as we know it.

Twitter To Introduce Algorithmic Timeline As Soon As Next Week

 

[Rhody31]

Just saw a note saying the Twitter timeline is changing. May signal the end of live-tweeting events as we know it.

Twitter To Introduce Algorithmic Timeline As Soon As Next Week

If this happens anyone with fewer than 10 or 20K followers can stop tweeting because they'll get buried in timelines. Might as well start learning SnapChat now, y'all.

 

[SoloFlyer]

I would imagine that the algorithm timeline is going to be an option, not forced.

 

[Rhody31]

I would imagine that the algorithm timeline is going to be an option, not forced.

Not according to the internet. If you check the hashtag #RIPTwitter, seems like Twitter bout to be Facebook minus the family pics.

 

[Fredrick]

Just saw a note saying the Twitter timeline is changing. May signal the end of live-tweeting events as we know it.

Twitter To Introduce Algorithmic Timeline As Soon As Next Week

I wonder which news organization decided that having their reporters Tweet play by play at MLB games, NFL games, etc., was a productive way for their beat writers and columnists to spend an entire game. What a fricking waste of time. Bean counters ... you tell me the value in that. I know what you are going to say ... it shows the reader your organization is at the game and watching the game closely and will have stories later! How the hell is that making you any money. All it's doing is driving good writers out of the business because they have only so much work in them and live tweeting a sporting event is such a waste of time for a good writer it's beyond belief. Let some grunt do it from the office if you must.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Not according to the internet. If you check the hashtag #RIPTwitter, seems like Twitter bout to be Facebook minus the family pics.

And, remarkably, the internet is wrong. Twitter has already said it's an option, and when you refresh the timeline it will default back to most recent.

 

[Rhody31]

I wonder which news organization decided that having their reporters Tweet play by play at MLB games, NFL games, etc., was a productive way for their beat writers and columnists to spend an entire game. What a fricking waste of time. Bean counters ... you tell me the value in that. I know what you are going to say ... it shows the reader your organization is at the game and watching the game closely and will have stories later! How the hell is that making you any money. All it's doing is driving good writers out of the business because they have only so much work in them and live tweeting a sporting event is such a waste of time for a good writer it's beyond belief. Let some grunt do it from the office if you must.

No one told them to tweet play by play. They do that because they're awful.
Live tweeting isn't about play by play. It's about having a personality. You make jokes, provide instant analysis, throw some GIFs in there, add info people watching at home might not see. Since most reporters have zero personality or are too afraid of violating some BS journalism code, they end up being horrendous at Twitter.