Facebook vs. Twitter Clickthroughs: More Bang For Your Buck
By Chris Cardinal
On January 7th, 2010

While managing your social networking presence on Twitter and Facebook, it can be difficult to quantify the impact of each medium. While I’m a huge fan of Twitter, traffic results from earlier today on one of my sites confirmed for me what may sound like common sense: Facebook fans drive far more traffic per-user than Twitter followers for a given promotional message.
I’m currently running a contest in association with T-shirt company Threadless. (It’s called Threadknits, and it’s based on knitting and crocheting their t-shirt designs into crafts.) Today, Threadless posted a message on their Facebook page and Twitter, both with essentially the same content: an invitation to check out Threadknits. They were both posted at nearly the same time.
The numbers are what might surprise you. Threadless has almost 1,500,000 followers on Twitter, and “only” 102,000 fans on Facebook. With the posts made within an hour of each other, my traffic on the site shot up, with a couple thousand visitors hitting by day’s end. Here’s the breakdown of traffic driven from each:
| Medium: | Fans: | Visitors: | % Audience Clickthroughs: |
| ~102,000 | ~1,110 | ~1.08% | |
| ~1,490,000 | ~682 | ~0.04% |
The difference is absolutely staggering. Whereas Facebook generated an approximate 1.08% clickthrough rate, Twitter’s was closer to, well, 0%. 232 visitors came from Twitter or related sites directly and 450 additional clicks landed on the home page without a referrer, which I’m chalking up to clicks from Twitter clients. (Though, to be fair, this could easily overstate Twitter’s influence.)
On a previous contest, Threadless would tweet and I’d see between 1,000-2,000 clicks on their roughly 1.4 million followers, so while it may be a bit low today, I think the point stands: Even at its best, Twitter for large audiences generates clickthrough rates dramatically lower than Facebook. For 2,000 clicks, the rate at 1.4M followers stood at 0.14%. A quick look at the bit.ly stats on a few links from Ashton Kutcher (the #1 Twitter personality by followers) shows they typically net about 20,000-30,000 clickthroughs, on 4.3M followers, gaining a decent amount on the Threadless best-case scenario all the way up to 0.48% ~ 0.60%. (This accounts somewhat for the viral nature of Twitter as bit.ly clicks are counted for retweets as well.) Naturally, clickthrough rates will vary dramatically even amongst popular Twitter personalities for a variety of reasons. I’d like to focus more on the significant difference between the Facebook and Twitter rates I witnessed today.
There are likely several possible reasons for this:
- The audience may be slightly different—people willing to consider themselves “fans” on Facebook may be more picky with their allegiance than those willing to follow an account on Twitter.
- The phrasing and formatting of the message were slightly different—not exactly apples-to-apples as Facebook includes the logo and a text clip from the website, but I imagine this had a negligible effect.
- My mileage may vary—this is an admittedly small sample size, but I think the evidence and logic around these results indicate they’re not anomalous.
- Most importantly, Facebook lingers while Twitter sails by. Users are probably more likely to follow links during their Facebook time than from a passing Twitter notification unless it’s of particular interest to them.
That last point is particularly important. Facebook, having reconfigured their News Feed yet again, no longer sorts things there chronologically. They’ve merged the Highlights functionality back into the News Feed which they now use to keep certain posts “stickier” than others based on what they believe you might be interested in. (It manages to do a strikingly horrible job at this compared to how it used to perform, but that’s a conversation for a different post.)
With Twitter, the very nature of real-time can be summed up: blink and you miss it. While you can use a Twitter client to review tweets over the past day or two, it’s still less likely your tweet was as visible over Twitter as a post would be on Facebook’s News Feed. I’d like to see some more statistics on total audience reach. The clickthrough rate surely only tells part of the story—I’d be far more interested to learn what percentage of each audience even saw the post, and determine true clickthrough rates from that.
In the end, it’s important to consider the overall spirit of the findings here. Twitter is great for growing virally and interacting with customers, but your message on Facebook may have a far more lasting impression and generate greater returns, even if fans are more of a fight to procure. Engage on both, but recognize the differences between them and leverage each of their strengths. I’ll likely post about the best way to do that for each site in the near future.
(The above graphic represents the total clickthrough breakdown by medium assuming a linear progression of Threadless’ Facebook audience to match their Twitter audience, maintaining the same clickthrough rates from today’s traffic. It’s likely the Facebook clickthrough rate could in fact fall some as their audience grew, but it’s my belief that it would still beat Twitter, user for user.)
Tagged with: analytics, clickthroughs, facebook, Social Networking, statistics, threadknits, threadless, twitter, viral
Posted in: Articles, Cool Stuff
Related Posts
Trackbacks on this post
Discussion on this post
-
Very interesting anecdotal analysis. In some ways, I’m not at all surprised. In others, I think that the results are largely reflective of how closely the structure, behavior and values of communities on Facebook and Twitter relate to those of Threadless’ native community.
The Threadless community is one that thrives on contribution and collaboration around creative design. Facebook, with their wall and fan page structure, makes it very easy for members to follow the full conversation about a particular item, or even general community activity, by making it browsable within the fan site. You get to see what has been said and who has said it all in one place, leading to greater feelings of connectedness, intimacy and inclusion with others in the community. This is similar to how community members can interact with each other on threadless.com.
Twitter doesn’t allow for this type of interaction around products and posts. Conversation around items is fragmented because members only see those things that are being said and shared by their immediate circle. They only see part of conversation and must work, via use of Twitter search and potentially extensive clicking on threaded tweets, to see all of the activity about a particular item. What they find along the way is often disjointed and asychronis. As a result, the person who follows Threadless on Twitter may be much more interested in staying in the loop than actively participating.
When you have one community where members feel connected and valued for their participation, and another where members simply want to stay informed, it makes sense that the activity of the connected community will be more passionate, and thus more effective in driving traffic.
I’d be interested to see a similar experiment with Woot or any of their category sites, such as Woot Shirt. Their model is built around limited release items of popular tech gadgets or unique shirts at significant discount. While woot has communities, the members are motivated by the steal, rather than contribution and collaboration. Community engagement on social sites reflects this. Twitter is well suited to broadcasting each day’s item, and I would guess that the traffic it drives per tweet is significantly higher.
-
GREAT POST!!!!!1
<3
-
You raise some interesting points there. I wonder if the “culture-feel” of each community impacts clickthroughs as opposed to impacting user contribution—several of Threadless’ Facebook fans also posted comments on their shared link and used the “Like” feature, which helped spread it further. Far fewer retweeted Threadless’ initial post. But then again, some portion of that has some to do with the total audience who actually saw each post, and those numbers are regrettably hard to come by.
Thanks for the feedback, though! Much valued as always!
-
Cam from Threadless here. Nice analysis Chris. One other factor to consider is that a LOT of twitter driven traffic comes through referrers other than twitter.com. Based on some analysis we’ve done on bit.ly links used last year, we found that we get more than 4x more traffic from twitter posts as what shows up with a twitter.com referrer. Even with that multiplier applied, it’s still a MUCH lower click/follower than facebook… but it does make the traffic overall more significant.
I think one of the key differences here is that the way our twitter feed has grown is a bit more of a “friend of a friend” type thing. Facebook feels to us more like an inner circle of (100K!) friends.
-
Cam,
Thanks a lot for the feedback!
I tried to take that into account, since I know most traffic is driven from Twitter clients and not Twitter themselves (a problem Twitter is none-too-thrilled about, despite having fostered the conditions which cause it to be true) by taking basically everyone considered a direct link that day and putting them in the Twitter pile.
Like you said, the “inner circle” probably impacts it a certain amount. I just wish I had more numbers to try to better analyze percent of audience that *sees* each link, which is a good deal more difficult!
-
I didnt know that facebook fans drive more traffice than twiter, i thought twiter are better in that. I like your article, thank you for letting us know about it.
-
I like reading this article as it is telling truth.It is just that Time is with Facebook and it has mauch more active users than any other social network even twitter is not in comparison with it.
-
While you may do well on Facebook making simple posts about your products or services, Twitter demands a much higher level of interaction with your followers. Don’t disregard Twitter though, it’s still well worth your time, especially if you are targeting businesses.
Also, i have noticed a special attention given by Google to links tweeted from Twitter than Facebook. Twitter tweets are highly ranked by Google as compared to Facebook links.




















January 7th, 2010 at 10:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HTMList.com, sheehan alam. sheehan alam said: RT @htmlist: Come Read: Facebook vs. Twitter Clickthroughs: More Bang For Your Buck http://bit.ly/4EvVQi [...]
January 7th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by htmlist: Come Read: Facebook vs. Twitter Clickthroughs: More Bang For Your Buck http://bit.ly/4EvVQi…
February 18th, 2010 at 1:31 am
[...] Facebook vs. Twitter Clickthroughs: More Bang For Your Buck (htmlist) [...]
March 5th, 2010 at 1:11 am
[...] Facebook vs. Twitter Clickthroughs: More Bang For Your Buck (htmlist) [...]
June 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
[...] Facebook vs. Twitter Clickthroughs: More Bang For Your Buck (htmlist) [...]