Recently, conversations have picked up on possible third party interfaces for Google+. Marketers in particular want to schedule updates, sift through posts using simplified search, and measure click throughs.
The proliferation of Tweetdeck, Hootsuite, and other third party API-based clients to update social networks within the marketing space is substantial. It’s not a question of if you use one, rather which one.
Rarely do you hear discussions of Twitter’s native interface. And just recently this conversation surfaced about Facebook as analysis revealed that third party interfaces dramatically drop engagement rates by as much as 80%.
That argument in its own right tells you why you should update in the native Facebook interface. Recently, head of Facebook’s Nonprofit effort Charles Porch confirmed with me that for maximum impact communicators should absolutely update within the social network.
Beyond Facebook, regardless of whether it’s easier to update or more measurable to use a third party interface, marketers should still spend some time (note: not all of their time) each week on native social network interfaces. Why? Because most stakeholders don’t use third party interfaces. Even on Twitter, 58% of people use native applications.
If you are trying to communicate with people, it’s good to know how they will receive the message. Literally. What does your update look like to your stakeholders on xxx social network? You can only know this by using native interfaces. And knowing this helps you intuitively create better updates.
If Steve Jobs could find the time to take customer service calls, online marketers can certainly make time for native interfaces.
What do you think? Should marketers use native applications?
Problem with this post: The EdgeRank Checker graphic and post you are drawing from is three months old. In the time since then, Facebook has changed this, and there is no longer an EdgeRank penalty for third-party posting, as EdgeRank Checker itself reported: http://edgerankchecker.com/blog/2011/12/did-facebook-really-fix-the-3rd-party-api-penalty/
Fair enough. What about every other third party interface?
Obviously ERC only tested Facebook, so hard to answer. But I should hasten to add that I agree with your basic premise, that it is better to post on the native environment whenever possible, as you tend to give the correct look and feel for that environment best when you’re actually using it.
I agree with you, Geoff. I use Hootsuite to schedule posts, but I actually use the regular old Twitter interface for viewing and responding. I decided early on to do that because I wanted the experience that most people would have.
I use Tweetdeck quite a bit, but still use the native interface quite a bit. I do enjoy it (shamefully admits it).
Reporting’s a big deal for me, and it’s easier to generate them from HootSuite. That and scheduling Tweets–inevitable for an organization. So I guess I’ll use it till Twitter comes with good analytics like Facebook did, and forces me off 3rd party apps.
:) Thank you for your differing view.
I think it is helpful to use native applications. I also think marketers should review their content in as many different apps and devices as they can. I check on my computer, phone and iPad in a variety of apps on each. The content appears in amazingly different ways. Right now, I’m in Flipboard, one of the most unique presentations I’ve found.
On the issue of third party apps as they relate to Twitter, I am of the opinion that using Twitter for tweeting, discourages engagement. When I see a tweet was posted “via web”, I know they don’t have multiple columns, ala Tweetdeck or Hootsuite, and as such, are less likely to see my reply. Often, I don’t bother…unless, of course, their tweet was about bacon or kitties, then I am obliged.
Of course, I might be wrong.