Twitter and Facebook are the two most talked about marketing channels for brands in social media, but which one is better? Before I go to the quick & dirty analysis I did, I thought I’d give you the result: Facebook Page is about hundred times better marketing channel than Twitter channel (86 times to be more unscientifically exact). So there, the people who are too busy to read more than 140 characters can go back to Twitter.
To begin, how would you go about estimating the effectiveness of a marketing channel? Cost, reach, and effectiveness came to my mind first, so I used those. To make things simple, lets look at Facebook page and Twitter channel only, and forget the advertising formats Facebook has and Twitter hasn’t.
Cost (Facebook 1 – Twitter 0)
Both channels, the Facebook page and the Twitter channel, are often considered to be free; anyone can set up one without paying an other. However, someone has to update them, and therefore the real cost comes from the time spent by an employee or a designated agency working on the content. According to the social media gurus and their mantras Twitter account has to be updated very frequently in order to be considered good, Facebook page on the other hand needs to be updated more seldomly e.g. weekly. Thus, Facebook page must be cheaper to manage.
Reach (Facebook 86 – Twitter 0)
This is where things get interesting. Twitter has been the favorite topic of the who’s-whos of the social media marketing for a good two years, and it seems that Facebook hasn’t been at all as trendy. But, not surprisingly, when you look at the popularity of the brand channels the numbers are rude: Facebook stomps Twitter when it comes to branded channels follower amounts. Interestingly, however, profiles of (famous) people more popular on Twitter than Facebook.
Examples of fan vs. follower amounts:
Red Bull 1,562,380 vs. 21,210
Nokia 699,890 vs. 10,610
Nike 1,654,092 vs. 26,890
Apple 1,400,187 vs. couldn’t find an official Twitter channel (?)
Someone might whine about the niche nature of Twitter and how brands like Nike have more channels on Twitter than on Facebook, but this is wrong, there are many channels on Facebook as well. Furthermore, most of these niche Twitter channels lose numbers – as an example Nike Football on Twitter has 1954 followers, which can’t even be compared to Nike Football Türkiye which has 134,780 fans, let alone Nike Football global.
Best brand-channels on Twitter (non-media channels)
NBA 1.5 million (45th out of all twitter accounts)
Woot.com 1.4 million (55th)
JetBlue 1.3 million (71th)
Dell Outlet 1.3 million (80th)
Threadless 1.3 million (89th)
NFL 1.2 million (104th)
Best brand-channels on Facebook (non-pizza channels)
Starbucks 4.5 million (9th out of all Facebook pages)
Coca-Cola 3.7 million (13th)
Nutella 3.3 million (16th)
Pringles 2.7 million (20th)
Kinder 2.6 million (25th)
Ferrero Rocher 2.4 million
Brand channels on Twitter have, very unscientifically questimated, 0.0148 times the followers of similar Facebook channels. Only the geekiest of brands such as Mashable and Techcrunch have found considerably more audience from Twitter.
Effectiveness (tie)
Estimating effectiveness of the marketing channels is tricky, since we don’t know for what reason the channels have been created, but in all simplicity if used in marketing the purpose can’t be very far from acquiring traffic or selling products. In acquiring upstream traffic, Twitter users seem to be in a browsing mode and are more likely to click links, but the sheer amount of Facebook fans might at the end drive more traffic. When selling products, Twitter has proven, at least in two cases (Twoot.com and Dell) to a concrete source for sales, and due to the lack of further statistics I’d say effectiveness is a tie.
All-in-all, it seems that Twitter works for people – the Ashtons of the world – better and Facebook for brands.