An early adopter of Twitter, I have struggled with communicating the value of tools like it for my organization – as have many others I am sure. Today I picked up on three great posts in this theme (via @jowyang on Twitter, no doubt.)

David Armano, VP of Experience Design with Critical Mass, says Twitter is a Conversation Ecosystem, and provides some great visuals that help to drive the point home.

Explaining Twitter is an act in futility unless the person you explain it to understands the intricacies of social networks (saying conversation ecosystem is a bit abstract to someone not participating in online conversations).

And that’s really the rub, isn’t it? Getting companies immersed in “classic” models to take the time to understand the new models and find value,potential, and connection.

Forrester Senior Analyst Jeremiah Owyang says the Fabric becomes stronger as the Threads connect.

If you’re in the tech industry, and in marketing, you should be paying attention to what’s happening on twitter.

Jeremiah also brings up the “what you had for lunch” argument that is often the first response to the value of tools like Twitter. (And by the way, Twitter is just one tool – my point stands for many others as well.) I simply reject this argument now, as there are some great tools to help reduce the noise and focus on conversations that are applicable.

Forrester’s Peter Kim has published a report on Twitter (registration required) that speaks to the current demographics of Twitter users, and their reactions to branding, advertising, as well as a short list of companies like Dell, JetBlue and Carnival Cruise Lines and how they are using the tool as part of their online strategy.

Six percent of online US adults use Twitter at least monthly or more frequently. Twitter users are, on average, 78% male and 31 years old, and they draw an annual income of $78,000. In comparison, members of the online US population are, on average, 49% male and 43 years old, and they draw an annual income of $68,000.

Is your company using tools like Twitter as part of its online strategy?

(Photo credit ecstaticist)

This is not a blog entry by an author who thinks that Google Books is evil because it promotes the idea of free books.

This is a blog entry by an author who sees Google Books as an invaluable research tool but who gets frustrated and enraged every time he tries to use it.

I know there’s a Feedback page on Google Books where problems can be reported. But the problems I experience are so fundamental that the Feedback page seems grossly adequate. In short, Google Books seems to have been put together with a deficient sense of bibliographic integrity, which is a real problem if you’re trying to assemble an online library.

Charles goes on to outline his frustrations in trying to use Google Books as a research tool, and points out the deficiencies that can occur when machines sort, organize and catalog content. This is a problem similar to the one I pointed out recently with the addition of a Books layer in Google Earth.

Charles sums up the problem as follows:

Google Books is not an online library. It’s a massive heap of digitized books and periodicals thrown together with a complete disregard for what these objects actually are and when they were published.

Image: Tall Chris