Case Of Twitter Inc In 2018: Too Little, Too Late Business S

Case Is Twitter Incin 2018 Too Little Too Latebusiness Strategies

Case is Twitter inc.In 2018: Too little Too Late? Business Strategies (Twitter is not a diversified company - Executive summary A definition of the corporate level problem and consequences of not solving the problem. 2. An analysis of causes. This includes: a. An external industry analysis of all the industries in which the Corporation does business, which is driving five forces , Key success factors b. An internal analysis of all the corporation’s SBUs. Over all conclusion too.

This case analysis explores Twitter Inc.'s strategic challenges in 2018, focusing on whether the company's response to its competitive environment was adequate or belated. The primary corporate-level problem identified is Twitter's inability to effectively adapt to changing industry dynamics, leading to stagnation in growth and diminished market share. The consequence of not addressing this problem timely could result in reduced competitiveness, loss of user engagement, and decreased revenue streams, risking long-term viability.

At the core, Twitter's insufficient strategic response signifies its failure to capitalize on emerging opportunities within the social media landscape, especially amidst intensifying competition from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and emerging platforms. The company's limited diversification—being heavily reliant on advertising revenue and a core user base—exacerbates its vulnerability to platform fatigue, regulatory pressures, and changing user preferences. This creates urgency for comprehensive strategic overhaul to sustain its relevance and profitability.

Analysis of Causes

External Industry Analysis

Twitter operates within a highly competitive social media industry characterized by rapid innovation, shifting user preferences, and evolving regulatory environments. Porter’s Five Forces analysis reveals significant industry pressures:

  • Threat of New Entrants: Moderate to high, due to low entry barriers facilitated by technological advancements and social media democratization. However, network effects favor established players.
  • Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Moderate, as content creators and influencers wield influence, but platform providers control the core distribution channels.
  • Bargaining Power of Buyers: High, users have many alternatives and can easily switch platforms, increasing their power.
  • Threat of Substitutes: Very high, with numerous alternative digital entertainment and communication channels competing for user attention.
  • Competitive Rivalry: Intense, with Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and emerging platforms continuously innovating and expanding features.

The key success factors in this environment include innovation in user engagement, sophisticated advertising algorithms, effective moderation to combat misinformation, and platform reliability. Twitter’s failure to innovate aggressively, particularly in multimedia integration and user interface improvements, has hampered its competitive positioning.

Internal Analysis of SBUs

Twitter's strategic business units (SBUs) are primarily focused on core social media services, advertising, and data licensing. The internal analysis highlights several issues:

  • Technology and Platform: While Twitter's platform is known for real-time updates, it lags behind competitors in user experience, visual content integration, and safety features.
  • User Base and Engagement: User growth has plateaued, with active user numbers stagnating. Engagement metrics indicate declining time spent per user, suggesting waning interest.
  • Advertising Revenue: Reliant on ad sales, Twitter faces challenges in targeting and personalization compared to Facebook’s sophisticated algorithms, reducing ad effectiveness and revenue.
  • Data and Analytics: The company's data licensing services have limited scope and do not compensate for declining ad revenues.
  • Organizational Capabilities: The internal culture and innovation capacity have been criticized for being slow to respond to industry changes and user demands.

Overall Conclusion

In summary, Twitter in 2018 faced a strategic crossroads compounded by external industry pressures and internal operational shortcomings. Its delayed response to competitive threats and technological evolution positioned it as a 'too little, too late' contender in a rapidly shifting landscape. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive strategic revision—focusing on platform innovation, diversification of revenue streams, and enhancement of user engagement to restore growth and competitiveness.

References

  • Coviello, N., et al. (2017). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
  • Porter, M. E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
  • Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jordan, B. D. (2018). Fundamentals of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business School Publishing.
  • Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
  • Kietzmann, J. H., et al. (2011). Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media. Business Horizons.
  • Anand, N. & Daft, R. L. (2007). What Is Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right? The Organizing of Top Management Teams and Business Unit Performance over Time. Strategic Management Journal.
  • Goh, D. H. L., & Gao, G. (2010). Twitter: The New Media Platform in Disasters and Emergency Management. Disaster Prevention and Management.
  • Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re All Connected: The Power of the Social Media Ecosystem. Business Horizons.
  • Farnsworth, G., et al. (2014). Corporate Strategy in Dynamic Industries: The Case of Social Media Platforms. Journal of Business Strategy.

Related Assignments