Comments on: Is Twitter really costing $14 billion in lost productivity?

By: Is Twittering really costing $14 billion in lost productivity? - I say no… « The last man in Europe…

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:44:30 +0000

[...] I know. I assure you I do read more widely… Anyway, in answer to Mike’s question – Is Twittering really costing $14 billion in lost productivity? – I’m going to have to say no. Whilst the mathematics of Pat and Florian seems to be [...]

By: Hubert

Hubert — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:34:50 +0000

These kinds of dollar-cost figures are as worthless as estimates of damage due to software piracy. They are based on the simplistic assumption that every second spent on Twitter/Facebook/whatever would otherwise be spent doing productive work. This is of course nonsense. People who are going to waste time on Facebook rather than getting work done would probably play Solitaire if all web access were banned. Particularly addictive sites may take up a bit more time than less interesting diversions, but these loss figures based on average usage times are worthless. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6989100.stm is a similar article with some employment law company’s estimates on what Facebook allegedly costs UK businesses.

By: gonzo

gonzo — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:21:34 +0000

Mike, have you become the PR pet of Mr Phelan. you reports every one of his farts. Just another roaming sim reseller. common !

By: Dominic Hodgson

Dominic Hodgson — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:16:13 +0000

I don’t think they could block twitter per say, sure they could block the website but 90% of people use one of the many applications to twitter..

from the firefox extension that sits in your address bar to snitter.

By: Guy Millar

Guy Millar — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:28:09 +0000

This navel gazing about a USA company is so pointless. Come on Mike either give us some of your own original thoughts on hot new technology initiatives – DiSO, Erlang, SimpleDB, APML or is easier to just write about another under funded European startup you heard about via a press release or in-crowd drink.

If technology is too hard then at least do some analysis on the UK scene. Let us know if Trusted Places, Nestoria, Mydeo, etc are profitable and thus going to get further funding in 2008 or will they all close down. Is OpenCoffee now gone cold. Does SeedCamp still matter and what has happened to the companies who won $50k.

Will Segala ever get funding and launch a business, much like your Co-minded post. Will Paul Walsh stop going to parties and actually get the funding to start Segala.

Finally in 2008 which startups should we be looking out for? Will it be in the mobile, web or enterprise space. My point is stop writing about US companies and do some local work please.

By: Mike Butcher

Mike Butcher — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:16:09 +0000

I think the ‘thought experiment’ Pat did was worth the while, even if the end result is slightly nonsensical, at least so everyone can pile in and pick holes in the argument. I for one am definitely losing productivity whenever I read the tweets of certain people!

By: Twitter’s cost in productivity? Zero - - mathewingram.com/work

Twitter’s cost in productivity? Zero - - mathewingram.com/work — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:03:04 +0000

[...] estimates are that only 10 per cent are highly-active — as Alan Patrick of Broadstuff notes in a comment on the TechCrunch UK post. Much of the math is also questionable, but let’s leave that [...]

By: John Handelaar

John Handelaar — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:09:11 +0000

Trying not to leap on Pat in particular, since there’s a similarly dumb statement in every newspaper every day.

Notwithstanding that anything outside work hours should be excluded anyway, no, it’s not $14bn in “lost productivity”. It’s that this one app might take about a $14bn share of the countless trillions *already and irrecovably committed* to the not-working market pool.

In any given average white-collar 40-hour work week, at least 35 aren’t being used on productive work. It’s not news, it’s not interesting, and isn’t it time people were a little smarter, just absorbed this fact and *moved the fuck on* ?.

(The “unproductive hours” number’s rather lower if you’re actually working for a living, getting your hands dirty.)

By: alan p

alan p — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:35:36 +0000

I looked at their numbers…..I think the estimate of time spent per *average* user is way high, and they are also I think forgetting that the no. of actives is typically only about 10% of the total user base….a nice piece nonetheless

I did a similar bit of analysis on the Business Model stuff here:

http://broadstuff.com/archives/640-Twitter-Business-Model-isnt-that-Oxymoronic.html

By: Tejas Patel

Tejas Patel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:24:09 +0000

With different ways that we can access Twitter, it will be hard to completely block Twitter out.

By: Lloyd Davis

Lloyd Davis — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:15:29 +0000

Mike, you answer your own question by remarking how useful it is. I don’t see any real research on that post (it’s late and I’m not up to looking *that* carefully) rather someone having an idea, lobbing some big numbers at it and pushing it out as a bit of self-publicising shock-horror. But worst of all, they assume that all twittering is unproductive.

What bollocks. Show us *your* referral stats for TCUK. I know (because I often click on them) that you always announce on twitter when you post here. How many hits do you get that way? Doesn’t that count as promotion? Isn’t that productive? How much is it worth? – who knows, but I’m pretty sure it’s worth more than the amount of time it took for you to set up a bit of code to pimp your blog on twitter every time you post.

bah! I seem to be taking this far too seriously, it really must be time for bed