the sunk costs of twitter

In economics, a “sunk cost” is a cost that has already occurred and can’t be recovered. Twitter has a significant sunk cost aspect, if you use it the way I do.

For me, Twitter is primarily a recommendation engine; I go there to find things I wouldn’t otherwise know about that interest me, and that are worth spending some of my very limited time on. In order to add value to Twitter, I retweet some things.

Now I assume that most people who retweet items do so after a quick scan, not a thorough read or listen or watch. That’s the central tendency, the natural order of Twitter. But I’m not willing to do that – I know how little time I have, and I too often have the disappointing experience of starting an article or podcast that has promise, but falls apart before it’s over.

So before I retweet something I read it or listen to it (or rarely, watch it) in its entirety, which severely limits my output and which also has a conflict of interest built in. If I spend 20 minutes or half an hour reading through a lengthy piece, it’s hard to decide it’s not worth passing on. After all, I just put a lot of effort into it, and which also means I didn’t read or listen to something else. On the other side of the equation, I suppose, is the knowledge that I’m holding the line on the reliability of my Twitter feed. But Twitter – done this way – isn’t “bite-sized” or “snackable” or whatever cliches are used to describe it. It’s work.

(Yes, I know this is all old hat. Yes, I know Twitter’s limitations have been endlessly rehearsed. I think how you use it is still an issue.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s