Twitter Kills The #Dickbar

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/31/twitter-kills-the-dickbar/

by pitdesi • 15 years ago

115 56 15 years ago

muppetman• 15 years ago

Good on them for admitting wrong on this and backing down. Blindly forging ahead when it was universally hated was never going to do them any favours. Many a good blog post has been written about what they could do to make it better, hopefully some of that feedback will find its way into whatever they do next.

grandalf• 15 years ago

True. I don't think anyone begrudges Twitter the ability to put ads into the mobile app.

Why not just put trending items between "pages" when the user scrolls through tweets, each one about the height of a tweet? (one per page so that it's not too overwhelming)

jinushaun• 15 years ago

That's how Tweetie originally worked on the Mac and everyone was fine with it. The Dickbar was a bad idea because it laid on top of everything.

r00k• 15 years ago

This seems to be a great example of one of the challenges with iOS apps: you can't do a limited roll-out of new features.

If Twitter could have deployed the bar to a hundred or so real users, I think they would have quickly found that people mostly hated it.

I believe you're allowed to distribute test versions of your app to 6-ish handsets for testing, but I'm sure this barely covers the internal folks at Twitter. It'd be nice if they'd had the option to do some more thorough early testing. (Whether they would have done so, or would have listened to the results is outside my point).

mrkurt• 15 years ago

It's harder to do limited roll outs, but not impossible. It's feasible to have all the code in place and only trigger it based on a server response, for instance. That's basically how they handle the web app.

jonknee• 15 years ago

How does that work with the App Store approval process? I could see that also being a strategy to try and sneak stuff past Apple.

cletus• 15 years ago

You can install iOS dev apps on way more handsets than that. The installers simply need your certificate/profile.

As for a limited rollout, they could've rolled a new binary and only turned on the feature for, say, 100 users selected at random.

kbutler• 15 years ago

> As for a limited rollout, they could've rolled a new binary and only turned on the feature for, say, 100 users selected at random.

Be careful with this - developers have previously gotten into trouble for having functionality for users that differs from that for reviewers. You'd have to also add a way for the reviewers to review the "limited rollout" functionality.

davidu• 15 years ago

Of course you can do limited roll-outs of new features.

You just put it in a feature flag. The app can check w/ Twitter if that user has the flag enabled.

More on Feature Flags: http://code.flickr.com/blog/2009/12/02/flipping-out/

-David

younata2• 15 years ago

So, I guess this means I can finally go update my twitter client.

wtn• 15 years ago

Ha—not yet, it doesn't drop until later today!

younata2• 15 years ago

I just did an update, and I don't have the dickbar.

yuvadam• 15 years ago

Twitter is experiencing what I believe is a much larger issue with today's platforms.

You cannot attract a mass of users, give them a nice UX, build a community - and then one day throw ads all over to place, call it a monetization strategy and keep a straight face.

Twitter is going to have a very hard time monetizing their platform, if the #Dickbar is the best they came up with at this point. If I were them, I would be afraid.

neilc• 15 years ago

You cannot attract a mass of users, give them a nice UX, build a community - and then one day throw ads all over to place, call it a monetization strategy and keep a straight face.

Really? Google did essentially that to great success, as has Facebook (perhaps with less clear-cut success, but clearly not to the sort of outrage Twitter received over the QuickBar).

jerf• 15 years ago

This is going to sound like a nit, but it's actually a critical point: Google did not throw ads all over the place, at least with regards to their search results. They carefully introduced them on the sidebar, clearly labeled, and have made further motions since, all also carefully considered and clearly labeled. They are also tied to the user search and therefore actively connected to what the user is currently trying to do, making them even have some value to the consumer as well as the advertiser. This is not the last-ditch pray & spray approach that your quote is implicitly referring to.

Twitter can still get some context out of the user but they will forever have the problem that most of their ad impressions will not be connected to the user actively searching for something. Google's an advertising monster for a reason, and it's not as simple as "They had a big bully pulpit in the form of their search engine".

ry0ohki• 15 years ago

Exactly, I think the main difference is using the old "how to cook a frog" analogy. You can't just throw a frog in boiling water, but if you turn up the heat slowly he'll be happy.

Twitter went from no ads to AN INTRUSIVE AD YOU CANT ESCAPE AND RUINED YOUR NORMAL EXPERIENCE. Google on the other hand went with very low touch text ads, then added ads to your email etc... such that there are a lot more ads on Google now then there were, but it was done so gradually and with so much A/B testing that we care less.

nickbp• 15 years ago

When Google first introduced their text ads, it was in an era when other ads were commonly popups, huge banners, and flash with sound. Their text ads were quite nice compared to the competition.

They've loosened up a bit since then, though..

phlux2• 15 years ago

There is a major difference in the service model between google search and twitter tweets.

In search, you are actively seeking something out - you enter a phrase, it returns a result. This meshes beautifully with ads - because in the ideal, an ad matches what you're looking for, except it may want you to buy the end result.

Tweets, totally different. With tweets - you are effectively either pushing information to a specific group (your followers) or you are accepting pushed information from those you follow.

This is much more intimate of a conversation as the tweets you're accepting by following come from real people, or entities/groups that you associate/identify with or are otherwise interested in their info; such as a news stream.

To interject ads into this communication is much more akin to you standing at the bus stop with your friend and you're talking about where to go for lunch and being approached by some random stranger saying "Hey I think you guys would really like Coke!"

You already KNOW what coke is, so this random person is not adding any value to the conversation that you're having with your friend.

Between google and twitter, we are looking at the age old problem with content relevance in push/pull context.

izendejas2• 15 years ago

The problem isn't that they threw ads all over the place. It's how they did it. Ads and new features should be released to a few users--at least start with your own employees--and iterate until you get it right, if at all. It doesn't seem like they did this.

Their second biggest mistake was admitting that it was a mistake. You don't do that--well, unless it involved something serious, like a user's privacy (think Buzz and Beacon).

rhizome4• 15 years ago

Eating your own dogfood is such 2001-dotcom-bubble thinking.

I have no problem with people/companies calling something a mistake where another would put PR fluff. At least it implies that your users/customers have legitimate standards other than "take it and like it."

gyardley• 15 years ago

I couldn't disagree more - it sounds like the Dickbar was monetizing rather nicely. Otherwise Twitter wouldn't be writing things like this in their blog:

We believe there are still significant benefits to increasing awareness of what’s happening outside the home timeline. Evidence of the incredibly high usage metrics for the QuickBar support this.

'Incredibly high usage metrics' - sounds pretty good for the purchasers of their sponsored trends, no?

Now, Twitter could be lying about the Dickbar's usage, but I doubt it. Lying involves conspiracy. It sledgehammers the morale of honest employees. The truth's likely to leak. The leadership of Twitter's not that stupid - if they mention incredibly high usage metrics, it's because there were incredibly high usage metrics.

So, if Dickbar was great for monetization, why remove it? I suspect it got yanked because it conflicted with a higher priority - control over the client. If the vast majority of users love the Dickbar, but a small sliver of people were turned off enough by it to start using an alternate client, that throws the Tweetdecks of the world a lifeline at a time when Twitter would rather they drown.

After the Tweetdecks have transitioned to enterprise tools or simply given up, then Twitter can launch Son of Dickbar. Until then, growing client market share is way, way more important than prematurely boosting monetization. It's not like Twitter lacks access to capital.

nupark2• 15 years ago

Otherwise Twitter wouldn't be writing things like this in their blog ...

This is called "saving face," and it's something that people do when they have to backtrack on a mistake.

flipside• 15 years ago

A painful but necessary decision for twitter, I know they need to monetize their service but alienating users in a way that becomes a meme is the wrong way to go.

I fully expect some version of #dickbar to be back someday once they've worked out the technology for showing relevant updates, they just tried to implement it before its time.

I guarantee you that by next year there will be a way to do this right.

catshirt• 15 years ago

"Business Insider reported that the Dickbar was a mistake in the first place, having been developed by a junior product manager with no senior oversight."

and it made its way into a release? huh?

ceejayoz3• 15 years ago

Two releases, even.

mcantelon• 15 years ago

That sounds highly doubtful to me.

koolaidavoider• 15 years ago

Yeah, it's definitely classic scapegoating. The fact that it was mentioned makes them seem a bit petty...

emullet• 15 years ago

I felt if they had made it an optional item in the settings they would have avoided the backlash, and they would still be generating money off of it. The fact it was not optional, then they announced limited API access for developers whipped everyone into a frenzy.

blhack2• 15 years ago

Good. I hope I never, ever have to read the word "dickbar" ever again. That is one of the most ridiculously stupid attempts at being "hip" I've ever seen.

"Dickbar"? What are we, 12 year old jersey-shore fans?

rhizome4• 15 years ago

For you, possibly. For everyone else, "dick" refers to Dick Costolo.

blhack2• 15 years ago

Oh, well then that makes sense, thanks :)

(I've actually been wondering where the name came from, and asked a few times, but never got an answer. I assume that it was his idea, then?)

To be honest, though, I spend a ton of time reading technology news, and had no idea who Dick Costolo was until right now, so I don't know that it's really safe to say "everybody".

Perhaps Dorsey coming back is kindof "New Coke"?

mberning• 15 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the OP though that the name is still ridiculous. Why not just refer to it by its real name.

jrockway2• 15 years ago

Would it be called the "jrockbar" if I created it? Unlikely.

"dickbar" stuck because "dick" is a word with negative connotations that refers to the male anatomy. The fact that it's the guy's name simply makes for a cute cover story.

JCB_K• 15 years ago

"The bar was also seen as a potential means of in-app notifications for new @mentions, DMs, and other important activity."

Raise your hand if you believe this.

grantlmiller• 15 years ago

so why isn't this headline: @Jack offed the #dickbar ?

donnyg107• 15 years ago

The real difference I see between google and twitter is space and focus. Google had room on their clean results pages to place ads, and they also had users that were used to skimming and overlooking a lot of the text on the page anyway. Ads were not a huge problem for google. Twitter's app users don't have the space on their feeds for a few square centimeters of ad space, especially because we don't skim and skip over tweets (unless they look like the have lots of @s and #s). Tweets are like prepackaged feelings already. Someone who barely read tweets would have nothing left to intake. Twitter needs to find a way to place ads without taking up space or annoying reading time. That, or find a place on the page which doesn't LOOK like its taking up space. Meaning, if the bottom cm is always an ad, it isn't dropping down into my tweets. I just have a slightly smaller screen, which I will acclimate to quickly and won't annoy me regularly. Also, the ads can be more expensive that way. Put the ads on the screen all the time, not just some of the time, and they won't impede upon my twitter space, they'll sit within twitter's ad space.

dr_• 15 years ago

I'm a little surprised that they removed the revised version of the bar. I found some of the topics listed there interesting. Seems like they responded to the technorati rather than what would best serve their needs along with their users. Facebook made changes all the time - and then people would start organizing groups on facebook opposed to the changes. But eventually the users adapted and all was forgotten.

I suppose one option is to move the bar to just the search area, where people are willfully looking for particular types of information.

Twitter Kills The #Dickbar

Related Stories