Meta debuted their own version of Twitter a couple weeks ago called Threads. The launch created a fire drill for many a marketing team, deciding whether to jump in and if so, in what way.
Part of the alarm was caused by the record user growth of the app. At 100 million users in five days (certainly aided by the tight integration with Meta’s Instagram), Threads even passed ChatGPT’s meteoric rise as the fastest growing app of all time. Plus it had the backing of Meta, which boasts three of the top five most used apps: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. And ad spend on Threads competitor Twitter has already been down 59% in the US.
Many brands jumped on the bandwagon. Nine of the top ten retailers activated their Threads accounts, along with brands from Nike to Reese’s to Amazon. This from a standing start with organic posts only and no branded content tools.
And yet, just because brands have joined the party doesn’t mean that people will want anything to do with them. Or even that the party will continue. Already the Threads platform has experienced a 70% drop in daily active users and a 50% reduction in time spent on the app.
As Clara Murray at Raconteur put it:
“Social networks, to be of any use at all, need to be a place where people actively choose to spend time and not just a forum for advertisers.”
Threads is a good example of the type of opportunity that constantly comes along in marketing. Brand teams have to assess whether and how to take action.
A good rule of thumb is to understand the difference between “reacting” and “responding”. Some marketing teams constantly “react” to new opportunities — immediately and instinctively jumping on every shiny new thing.
Other teams “respond” by deciding first how or even if the opportunity can advance their strategy in a meaningfully unique way.
Here are a few related cartoons I’ve drawn over the years:
