Don't Like Twitter, But Like Texting? Then Tweet Like You Text

Yesterday, I read an article on how the Chinese are creating their own version of Twitter. Actually, I learned of the story by browsing a snarky website, which linked to the article about the Chinese version of Twitter via snarky anchor text: "Chinese figure out way to make Twitter even more boring."

The notion that Twitter is boring intrigued me, but before I even had a chance to digest the thought, the snark reared its head again, this time during today's morning drive. Said the announcer reading the script of a radio advertisement, "Did you ever think 140 characters could make your friends seem so boring?"

All this snark got me to thinking:

Yes, especially for the uninitiated, Twitter can be boring. But do we get bored texting? Typically, no -- at least for me, texting can be engrossing, even time-wasting. With the right "textee," I rarely get bored. Texts can be downright entertaining.

Maybe there's a solution here. Are you having trouble "getting into" Twitter? Are you having trouble "feeling it"? Well, Twitter gives you 140 characters, just like Short Message Service (SMS text) does, but with a bunch of bells and whistles. If you like texting, pretend you're texting on Twitter. See what happens. Actually, let me know what happens. Let me know if it helps you to like Twitter, or if it does nothing. I'm curious.

Search Did Not Kill the Radio Star

It helped the radio star, actually -- a lot.

Think about radio advertisements. We've all heard them. Plenty of them try to be funny, probably a conscious decision on the advertiser's to make the message in some way memorable. I'm sure just about all of us laugh at some of them, anyway. Many radio advertisements are musical, as well, and I'm sure just about all of us can sing a popular local advertiser's radio jingle. Car dealerships have some of the best (and worst -- just sayin').

But what good is all the music and humor when most of us are driving as we hear these ads? We have no safe and convenient way, really, of jotting down the number; we're trying to drive, for crying out loud! For instance, I don't even attempt to write a note to myself. That would be dangerous. Put another way, radio advertisers ought to forget about me (and other potential customers) remembering to enter the brand name into a search engine later.

What I occasionally do try, however, is to punch in and dial the 800 number as I keep one hand on the steering wheel. I always hang up before someone answers, always intending to give the number, now in my call log, another try once I'm in a place to think about possibly making the purchase or learning more -- e.g., when I'm no longer driving. And almost always, by the time I get to that point, I've forgotten what the 800 number was for -- or that I'd even planned to call it later.

The circumstances beg the question: What good is a fantastic radio advertisement if the potential customer won't even think to look for the brand name online later?

Well, the question is partially legitimate, but partially based on a false premise, as well. Potential customers probably won't remember the name of the company in the advertisement they heard as they drove to work, but if they later need what that company sells and search for the keyword phrase associated with that need, they'll see the search-optimized company's brand name toward the top of the first SERP of a non-branded natural search, and the memory of the funny ad or the catchy jingle will then go far in sealing the deal.

The artificial intelligence driving mobile technology development is addressing many of these issues, of course, but the technology itself is largely not there, and presently, consumers' adoption of it is nowhere near where it needs to be to make a measurable difference, anyway. In a few short years that may change, but in the meantime, search remains the king that did not kill the radio star.