Facebook is a social gaming platform (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Pretty soon on Facebook, you'll be buying stuff, sending gifts and running classified ads.
When a president wins reelection, there's an earthquake or storm or a big sporting event, you take to Twitter.I could keep going, but you see the point. For most people, Facebook and Twitter serve different purposes. I don't buy the popular notion that people are "leaving" Facebook for Twitter. In fact, I have little faith in any anecdote or back-of-the-envelope research that purports to measure the level and intensity of user engagement with the world's two biggest social networks. They're both huge. That's good enough for me. While Facebook and Twitter share audience, it's quite possible -- even probable -- that different demographics favor one over the other. That's the nature of the game. Compare it to television. Comcast (CMCSA) owns a whole slew of networks. Some run similar programming. In fact, last night both CNBC and MSNBC (as well as NBC) did full blown election coverage. As far as Comcast is concerned, their networks, even the somewhat closely related ones, complement each another. It's the same case in radio. Large companies own, say, a rock station and an alternative station or a news/talk station and an all-news station in the same market. Like Comcast does with its networks, these radio companies sell these stations to advertisers as packages. This station delivers this demo. The other owns that one. And they crossover somewhere in the middle. Or whatever the case may be. This leads to the logical conclusion for Facebook and Twitter. The photo-sharing thing makes for a cute fight, but why be enemies? There have never been two companies who are stronger together than they are apart. Facebook and Twitter should merge. Imagine being a local sales person or a regional or national rep walking into a client's office packaging Facebook and Twitter for a multi-platform buy. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.