I’ve been managing Kiva’s social media initiatives as part of the community outreach team since Feb, and one of my biggest problems has been tracking metrics.  Sure, “real time” web tools are all the rage, but none of them seem to suit my needs ( I want distributed Google Analytics for social media), so I’ve gone low tech; URL shorteners.

Bit.ly to the rescue!  I didn’t quite understand this before, but a URL shortener like Bit.ly that provides metrics can serve as a decentralized stats tracking tool.  Unlike something like Google Analytics where you have to have access to the site where you are tracking stats, with bit.ly you can release your unique shortened URL and you can track the stats wherever it goes!

I discovered the idea by accident, and posted a quick version of the test earlier, but for this post I wanted something a little more robust.

Starting Point:

Kiva Twitter Accnt (on 6/12/2009) :  5,758 followers

Kiva Facebook Accnt (on 6/12/2009) : 44,039 fans

The Setup:

I was posting a link to the newly released Kiva App Directory and I wanted to track the clicks this link would get on Facebook vs. Twitter to get an idea of how engaging either service is.  To do this I needed to create two different short URLs on services that provide real time link tracking.

I chose bit.ly to generate the link that I would post to Twitter (bit.ly/PdKQ5) and the SnipURL to generate the one I’d post to Facebook (http://sn.im/jzph9).

Results:

Raw Data:

picture-348

Chart 1:  Day 1 10am – 4:46pm

picture-349

Chart 2: Friday 6/12 – Mon 6/15

picture-351

Conclusion:

Kiva’s Twitter account, despite having significantly less followers compared to Kiva’s Facebook account (6k to 44k), seems to have driven more clicks and faster.  Even over the longer time frame, displayed in the second chart, we can see that Twitter (the blue line) drew increasingly higher rates of clicks when compared to the link that was posted on Facebook.

I’d guess that Twitter users are more active, and they’re more interested in using the service for its real time qualities because so many people read it so quickly.  The fact that the traffic kept growing also indicates that Retweeting has a lot of potential and can give a link staying power even if its not your most recent tweet.  In comparison, Facebook’s don’t seem to aggressively monitor their feeds.  The traffic took longer to build, and then it died off.  This would indicate that “liking” or “commenting” things on Facebook doesn’t necessarily drive continued traffic to it.

Original Tweet:

picture-357

Retweets (14):

picture-3561

Original Facebook post with 43 “likes” and 9 comments:

picture-355

 

My previous “quick test” yielded similar results.  Though the facebook link had more clicks in the end, its not enough to account for the huge difference in the size of the audience (6k twitter vs 44k facebook).  Twitter still seems to be driving a disproportionate amount of engagement compared to Facebook

  • @hvhuck on twitter
    Fascinating, elegant study. It also mirrors my interaction with both media and thus rings true for me.
  • Thanks. Can't claim that its ground breaking research :-) but I was a bit
    surprised to see how much Twitter was out performing Facebook.
    Not a good sign for brands really banking on user engagement through
    facebook!
  • Get you some of that twitter. Since Twitter is still in a Wild West stage, it will be interesting how this tappers off as twitter becomes more mainstream.

    I think the bare bones idea of twitter focuses people on interacting and sharing. I'll get lost looking at pictures for hours in facebook, whereas in twitter, I'm communicating by default.
  • Interesting but I would also like to see what happened after the click.
    Twitter users are more likely to click on links but do they "convert"?
  • @ Nathan I agree twitter is more focused on interacting/engaging, while
    facebook is more focused on your friends.
    @ Antonella in this case they were just going to a page that had a directory
    of apps built on the Kiva API, so we weren't trying to drive a particular
    activity. Would be great to see how users from Twitter convert into users
    on Kiva, but I don't have those stats :-)
  • sue_anne
    I agree with Antonella. I like these stats for what you were obviously trying to measure, but it would be interesting to see if there was a particular action which traffic source was more conducive to that action.
  • Great study - it's just one test but interesting to see nonetheless. Thx for publishing
  • The result is not that surprising, since Twitter users have been "trained" to practice openness, engagement, and most importantly propagation via Retweets (which Facebook "Likes" cannot match as they don't create the same degree of surfacing, largely because FB users don't (yet) expect to interact with other users' Friends of Friends or their "fanned" FB Pages, etc. to the same degree as on Twitter's wide-open platform).

    Granted Zuckerberg is hard at work at retraining them...

    Nonetheless, smart bit of research using a relatively simple tool like bit.ly. Shows how important it is to get actual confirmation/feedback via stats on how postings to the various communities are received.

    I have been arguing this over on FriendFeed for a number of weeks now, as there currently is no good way to measure clicks on either links shown internally on FF, or the shortened ff.im links shown if FF actions/postings are forwarded to Twitter.

    Ever since I've been using FriendFeed in an accelerated fashion starting about two months ago, this has been an issue, since I have no real way of knowing to what degree my Twitter followers are engaging with my FF materials. Anecdotally, it seems that click-throughs on ff.im are currently much lower than on bit.ly links, in part simply because fewer users are familiar with them, asf.

    Here is the thread:
    http://friendfeed.com/friendfeed-feedback/481ec...
  • Evan,

    This is excellent! I'll try to run a similar test over at Wokai. I'm actually not that surprised by the results. Even from an interface standpoint, links are much more prominent on twitter.com and any other Twitter app. Links are a little lost on FB, amidst all the pictures, "Joe likes this", the blue comment boxes, long story snippets, etc. I would also guess a large chunk of folks like me still use FB like the good old days, mainly for messaging and chatting with friends and not necessary for its News Feed, no matter how much FB tries to push that on us.

    - Euwyn
  • Did you take account of bots?

    We ran similar studies over at Loudcrowd, and at first were very pleasantly surprised by Twitters performance.

    However, we became skeptical when we found the bounce rate incredibly high, and it turned out a big portion of the traffic was bots, enough that FB became the better channel. I should do a post on it.
  • No, I didn't. How would you track which part of the traffic comes from
    bots?
    Why are bots clicking through your tweets?
  • The base problem is that FB is private, and Twitter is public -- bots troll the Internet, it's just what they do.

    Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to clearly find out if it is a bot, some report themselves, some don't execute javascript (so google analytics won't track them), but some do and you need to look at capabilities of the user agent (does the browser have Flash? is it running at 640x480 resolution?)

    We saw as much as 75% of twitter inbound traffic fell into one of those three buckets and ended up being bots. This is general noise on a major website, but with an individualized bit.ly URL that gets less than 500 clicks a day it can easily be a big %.
  • You should do a post on this, it would be interesting to see what percentage
    of traffic this makes up. Definitely put the link up here if you do.
  • You should do a post on this, it would be interesting to see what percentage
    of traffic this makes up. Definitely put the link up here if you do.
blog comments powered by Disqus