As a person who has spent the past six years of his career working with online marketers, especially on their e-communications programs, it made sense for me to dip my toe into the social media waters a few years ago. Since then, I have evaluated MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Bebo and Facebook and only the latter one has created an enjoyable experience for me.

• I didn't like MySpace's user interface and I was at an age where most of my peers weren't really on there anyway. I haven't touched that profile in years.
• LinkedIn is a decent way of managing my resume and career contacts, but the people in my professional life who I really interact with are on Facebook as well. I'd rather talk to them there...it's more personal.
• I have blogged about Facebook before. I think it's the perfect friendship management solution. I'm don't think it's a social networking site, because I'm not really interested in proactively recruiting new contacts on there. However, for keeping up with the friends, family members and coworkers that I already have, it's unparalleled.

So, that leaves Twitter. You can surmise by the title of this post that I'm not a fan of it. I gave it a fair chance and I'll continue to keep it in my online marketing repertoire so I'm up to date as it evolves. Yet, I feel like Twitter offers a less appealing subset of what Facebook offers. Should there really be a rivalry between Twitter and Facebook? That's a fair question since most people think they serve two different purposes. I think those people are wrong...everything that Twitter offers is a part of Facebook. (Yes, Twitter-lovers, I know you disagree but I'll be happy to show you those features on Facebook if you'd like a tutorial.) Plus, Twitter isn't picking up as much steam as everyone thinks. There was the article in April that explained that 60% of new Twitter registrants stop using the service within 30 days. Then, a couple of weeks ago a study by Nielson Online showed that during April of 2009, 13.9 billion minutes were logged by more than 200 million users on Facebook (the Internet's #4 most popular site, with more than 100 million people logging in regularly) while only 300 million minutes were logged by Twitter's user base of less than 10 million. Another interesting study by the Harvard Business School found a stark 80-20 (or actually 90-10) rule showing more than 90% of tweets were generated by the most prolific 10% of their membership.

So, there is no question that Facebook is absolutely obliterating Twitter in usage. The question is, what is Twitter lacking? I think it has three major deficiencies:

1. The notion of gaining a follower without confirmation is creepy and disingenuous. When I first signed up, a few friends started following me. When I started tweeting, I suddenly attracted a barrage of people trying to promote their own businesses. Memo to you guys: if everybody follows each other for the sole purpose of pushing each other up the rankings, the bell curve will rear its ugly head and your comparative popularity will remain constant. All you are doing is allowing spam to permeate yet another communication channel. Yes, I called you a spammer and I'll stand by that statement ; )
2. Twitter's user interface doesn't lend itself to the personal interaction that Facebook offers. Pictures, color (in the figurative sense and the literal sense) about someone's life, communities and interests bring our Facebook friends to life. Twitter is a cold world of acquaintances, most of which wouldn't bat an eyelash if you stopped following them (or passed away, same thing in their eyes).
3. Twitter's lack of critical mass makes it a less fruitful pursuit. The "gas station" philosophy of marketing comes to mind. Where do you want your gas station to be located? On the corner were the other stations are...you'll draw more business. Where should you look for loyal subscribers? Given the choice, I'd rather set up a fan page on Facebook than a Twitter account. With twenty times the active users, it seems like a no-brainer.

I, of course, am not saying that Twitter is devoid of value. Certainly, if you are tweeting on behalf of a corporation or a news agency, I think you are partaking in a higher value (free things usually have a high ROI), more interactive and more personal alternative to email newsletters. If you are a celebrity, your ability to circumvent the filter of the media by using Twitter is priceless. If you are a creepy spammer, Twitter is also a better alternative for you because you can hide behind the veil of anonymity. I'm just saying that I find Facebook to be a much better pursuit for online marketers, and I hope that Twitter's eventual investors and suitors recognize its comparatively low value.

Will I keep tweeting?  Sure, I'll keep feeding my Facebook status through Twitter to experiment with it.  However, through this post I'm going to mark myself down on the record as a reluctant member who dislikes the service.  Now, feel free to follow me  ; )