Prepare a case analysis of Case 1, Facebook vs. Twitter - Essay Example

Evaluating Facebook’s and Twitter’s Mission ments Mission ments are terse ments that quickly explain to the reader why an organizationexists or the organisation’s overall purpose. In a way, they also provide a general view of what the organization is currently doing. This means that, by omission, one could also argue that the mission statement also states what the organisation does not do. In this paper we shall evaluate the mission statements of two popular social networking sites: Facebook and Twitter.

The paper seeks to find out which of these two missions has greater potential to serve as an energy source and rallying point for the organization to the extent that it could make that particular company’s site more relevant than other social networking sites. Twitter’s mission reads: “We want to instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them.” Whereas this mission statement is 80 characters long Huffstetler (2011) argues that it need not be more than 40 because the keywords are four: instantly, connect, everywhere and important.

Twitter’s mission statement is brief, easy to remember and the organisation can relate to it. However as we analyse these four keywords we realise that the company needs to add more precision and clarity so that anyone who reads it may be able to identify its core competence and also be able to distinguish it from its competitors. The way it is it could easily be confused with any of the other numerous social networking sites. Of the four keywords, we believe that the organisation identifies well with “connect”, “everywhere” and “important” but it needs to re-consider the use of “instant”.

Twitter’s real-time attribute is what makes it different from other platforms. This is Twitter’s competitive edge. Google and Facebook, the major rivals have tried to mimic this ability unsuccessfully. The problem though is that in modern technology’s lexicon the word instant could imply speed or ease. Twitter therefore needs to consider what to tradeoff between ease and speed and then use the selected choice to replace the word instant on its mission statement.On the other hand, Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected (Facebook, 2012).

Using Huffstetler (2011) approach we delineate the key words here as being: power to share, open and connected. “Open” and “connected” are attributes that are provided by other social networking sites as well including Twitter. The key differentiator for Facebook lies in the words “power to share”. The intimacy level for Facebook followers is deeper than that for Twitter followers and as such the element of power comes in. In a way what Facebook implies is that the closer you are to someone the more power he/she will have over you.

In a sense, Facebook provides the tools to hand over or transfer this power. However, we still believe that the organisation can do a better job in passing this message more clearly on its mission statement.In conclusion, we find Facebook’s and Twitter’s mission statements to have similar strengths, opportunities and threats (see Appendices A and B). This may be as a result of them both being in the same industry. The lack of distinctiveness means that we could easily swap them with minimal consequences.

In this paper we have proposed a possible start would be for Facebook to come with a clearer phrase than “power to share” and Twitter to choose either speed or ease in place of the word” instant”. The sad part, as can be seen in the Appendices is that the mission statements have lots of areas for improvement or what was identified as weaknesses. For starters both organisations need to specify their target population and their distinctive competence. Change in the keywords we have highlighted could help in the latter.

ReferencesHuffstetler, R. D. (2011, January 27). The Four Most Important Words At Twitter. Business Insider. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-27/tech/30024305_1_google-tweets-intimacyPorter, M. E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 61-78.APPENDIX ATable 1: SWOT analysis of Facebook’s mission statementSWOT ANALYSIS OF FACEBOOK’S MISSION STATEMENT“Facebooks mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected”Strengths Weaknesses 1.

The organization can relate to it2. It is brief enough for most people to remember1. It does not specify who is the company’s target population2. It does not specify how Facebook plans to go about its business, for example how will it make the world more open?3. It does not reflect attainable goals for example to make the world more open is too broad a statement especially considering the cultural, infrastructural and political differences across the world.4. Fails to inform us of the distinctive competence of the organizationOpportunities Threats1.

It is broad enough to allow for flexibility of implementation which gives Facebook room to increase or decrease its products and /or services.1. It is not distinctive. If we removed the name Facebook from the statement we could easily replace it with another social networking site’s name such as Twitter or Google+.APPENDIX BTable 2: SWOT analysis of Twitter’s mission statementSWOT ANALYSIS OF TWITTER’S MISSION STATEMENT“We want to instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them”Strengths Weaknesses 1.

The organization can relate to it2. It is brief enough for most people to remember3. It has the tone of an aspiration (we want to) which removes the element of unattainability 1. It does not specify how Twitter plans to go about its business, for example how will it make the world more open?2. It does not reflect attainable goals for example how do they identify what’s most important to people? 3. Does not tell us the distinctive competence of the organizationOpportunities Threats1. It is broad enough to allow for flexibility of implementation which gives it leeway to increase or decrease its products and /or services.1. It is not distinctive.

One cannot tell which social networking site it belongs to unless he/she is informed.