Where did Forrester get its Twitter data?

Peter Kim of Forrester writes on his blog “Our data shows that 6% of US online adults use Twitter regularly.”

I say bulls**t.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that many people are using Twitter.

My data shows that the regular users are between 50,000 and 300,000. A high percentage of which are outside the United States. That doesn’t come anywhere close to the numbers required for 6%.

Keep in mind that Hotmail has about 200 million users every month. Yahoo Mail says they have about 250 million worldwide users.

But, I’d love to be proved wrong. Where did this data come from? How was it collected? Does Forrester stand behind it? What’s in the report that Peter linked to (I am not a Forrester client, so don’t have access)? Does it contain other numbers that just don’t jibe with common experience?

UPDATE: Someone just Twittered me this: “Peter Kims’s source on the unique users (he says 447,000 in Aug07) is Nielsen//NetRatings.” I doubt that’s data for “regular” users, or even online adult users in the US. I could see total registered users being that high, but that’d be world-wide. Watch twittervision.com someday and you’ll see that there are lots of users outside America.

UPDATE 2: Peter Kim responded here, and says they didn’t get the data from Nielsen. I still think the survey is very flawed if it’s bringing back such numbers.

80 thoughts on “Where did Forrester get its Twitter data?

  1. Peter – your blog post was bad enough, your near-insulting comments here are worse. Implying that WE are all stupid because we “FEEL” 6% is crazy? Tell you what – you go do some simple, direct, hands-on surveying OUTSIDE the bay area and see how many folks out there USE Twitter in any way.

    My suggestion to you: How about you stop making life hard for your sales team whose job is to actually help make you money off these kinds of ridiculous assertions?

  2. Peter – your blog post was bad enough, your near-insulting comments here are worse. Implying that WE are all stupid because we “FEEL” 6% is crazy? Tell you what – you go do some simple, direct, hands-on surveying OUTSIDE the bay area and see how many folks out there USE Twitter in any way.

    My suggestion to you: How about you stop making life hard for your sales team whose job is to actually help make you money off these kinds of ridiculous assertions?

  3. Here’s an “explanation of [the] survey methodology” but “it’s not likely to satisfy”…

    So why even bother to explain things then? Here’s an idea, how about an explanation that, in fact, WILL satisfy those that “feel” that 6% is wrong.

    Spin me round round, like a record…

  4. Here’s an “explanation of [the] survey methodology” but “it’s not likely to satisfy”…

    So why even bother to explain things then? Here’s an idea, how about an explanation that, in fact, WILL satisfy those that “feel” that 6% is wrong.

    Spin me round round, like a record…

  5. Typical analyst make-up numbers, and double-whammy as here you have to start with defining “usage”.

    “We define usage by at least monthly or more” with “at least some portion of it, in some way” in a “sheer pass-along effect” that’s wholly “indirect”.

    Gawd, what a mouthful of pure nonsense.

    Soooo if within the month you have maybe glanced at a Twitter, “in some way” or maybe even just heard someone talking about it, indirectly, in a “sheer pass-along” way, from our handpicked unscientific sweepstakes list, then you are a “Twitter user” or maybe just “use Twitter regularly”.

    5 million ways to bend the data to your liking…

    PS – You go, kystorms, you go. Nuts. Hope we won’t be disappointed with just the half-hearted half-seasonisms. ;)

  6. Typical analyst make-up numbers, and double-whammy as here you have to start with defining “usage”.

    “We define usage by at least monthly or more” with “at least some portion of it, in some way” in a “sheer pass-along effect” that’s wholly “indirect”.

    Gawd, what a mouthful of pure nonsense.

    Soooo if within the month you have maybe glanced at a Twitter, “in some way” or maybe even just heard someone talking about it, indirectly, in a “sheer pass-along” way, from our handpicked unscientific sweepstakes list, then you are a “Twitter user” or maybe just “use Twitter regularly”.

    5 million ways to bend the data to your liking…

    PS – You go, kystorms, you go. Nuts. Hope we won’t be disappointed with just the half-hearted half-seasonisms. ;)

  7. Study was performed online: 5,223 individuals.

    The sample was drawn from members of MarketTools’ online panel, and respondents were motivated by a sweepstakes drawing. The sample provided by MarketTools is not a random sample.

    ———-

    So all in all, not very useful since you don’t know where MarketTools gets their user base from.

    You could equally conclude that 100% of U.S. adults online are interested in winning an online sweepstakes, based on the same results.

  8. Study was performed online: 5,223 individuals.

    The sample was drawn from members of MarketTools’ online panel, and respondents were motivated by a sweepstakes drawing. The sample provided by MarketTools is not a random sample.

    ———-

    So all in all, not very useful since you don’t know where MarketTools gets their user base from.

    You could equally conclude that 100% of U.S. adults online are interested in winning an online sweepstakes, based on the same results.

  9. Guys, please notice what they are claiming.
    “Our data shows that 6% of US online adults use Twitter regularly.”

    They are not saying that 6% of Americans or 6% of American adults are on Twitter.

    Question I have for Forrester:

    1. Define “online adult.” We need an age demographic and what makes them “online”

    Then we can comment as to how full of shit they are when they make that statement.

  10. Guys, please notice what they are claiming.
    “Our data shows that 6% of US online adults use Twitter regularly.”

    They are not saying that 6% of Americans or 6% of American adults are on Twitter.

    Question I have for Forrester:

    1. Define “online adult.” We need an age demographic and what makes them “online”

    Then we can comment as to how full of shit they are when they make that statement.

  11. Peter Kim: sorry, for new commenters my moderation system grabs it. I’d love to see the thinking behind this statistic. It doesn’t match what Twitter employees are telling me.

  12. Peter Kim: sorry, for new commenters my moderation system grabs it. I’d love to see the thinking behind this statistic. It doesn’t match what Twitter employees are telling me.

  13. The funny thing is 6% of online adult Americans is usually the low-end estimate of the number who blog. It ranges between 6-8%. Right statistic, wrong label?

  14. The funny thing is 6% of online adult Americans is usually the low-end estimate of the number who blog. It ranges between 6-8%. Right statistic, wrong label?

  15. Erm, yeah, sure. 6% of online Americans (137 million according to Pew Research Center, October 2007) would be 8.22 million. There’s no way Twitter has remotely near 8 million regular users.

    This isn’t the first time Forrester has published some outrageous stats. Recalling a few while back, they had published another preposterous statistic only to be forced to backtrack with numerous changes and footnotes after being called out to explain the methodology.

  16. Erm, yeah, sure. 6% of online Americans (137 million according to Pew Research Center, October 2007) would be 8.22 million. There’s no way Twitter has remotely near 8 million regular users.

    This isn’t the first time Forrester has published some outrageous stats. Recalling a few while back, they had published another preposterous statistic only to be forced to backtrack with numerous changes and footnotes after being called out to explain the methodology.

  17. Agreed–more like .06%. It is hard enough to get people outside of the tech or marketing industry to understand what a blog is, let alone micro-blogging like Twitter.

  18. Agreed–more like .06%. It is hard enough to get people outside of the tech or marketing industry to understand what a blog is, let alone micro-blogging like Twitter.

  19. Funny, I left you a comment around 3:21 am your time that seems to have disappeared. Finally into the office now (which you might have noticed if you’re following me on Twitter) and will post soon. RE: the Nielsen stat on your update – that’s not where I drew the 6% figure from.

  20. Funny, I left you a comment around 3:21 am your time that seems to have disappeared. Finally into the office now (which you might have noticed if you’re following me on Twitter) and will post soon. RE: the Nielsen stat on your update – that’s not where I drew the 6% figure from.

  21. So we all agree that 6% is not possible. Dare we ask what they list as the number of US adults online?

    From a scientist standpoint it’d be nice to get some explanation of their metrics to determine the source of [possible] error.

  22. So we all agree that 6% is not possible. Dare we ask what they list as the number of US adults online?

    From a scientist standpoint it’d be nice to get some explanation of their metrics to determine the source of [possible] error.

  23. As with the Jericho campaign, caused by Nielsen and their antiquated system of ratings and research gathering, here we see them blow it again.
    I am heavily involved in Jericho, and the campaign to save and now keep the show…… Nielsen was a major reason for our whole problem. They never took into account the users for DVR, and based TV ratings off the Box system, now proven to be a huge issue for the Networks.
    Now we get to see more of their faulty services, their lack luster performance to do the job.

  24. As with the Jericho campaign, caused by Nielsen and their antiquated system of ratings and research gathering, here we see them blow it again.
    I am heavily involved in Jericho, and the campaign to save and now keep the show…… Nielsen was a major reason for our whole problem. They never took into account the users for DVR, and based TV ratings off the Box system, now proven to be a huge issue for the Networks.
    Now we get to see more of their faulty services, their lack luster performance to do the job.

  25. Are Hotmail and Yahoo mail stats really users or are they accounts? What are the stats on users who have multiple accounts? Is there good data on how many accounts are inactive? abandoned?

  26. Are Hotmail and Yahoo mail stats really users or are they accounts? What are the stats on users who have multiple accounts? Is there good data on how many accounts are inactive? abandoned?

  27. I reckon 0.25% if you’re generous and assume 500,000 U.S. Twitter users out of 200 million online adults.

  28. I reckon 0.25% if you’re generous and assume 500,000 U.S. Twitter users out of 200 million online adults.

  29. Hi – just an acknowledgement, will respond later. I don’t stay up all night like you and Jeremiah, so I just woke up. :) Need to make coffee and catch a train to work, will post a reply about methodology so your readers can stop speculating.

  30. Hi – just an acknowledgement, will respond later. I don’t stay up all night like you and Jeremiah, so I just woke up. :) Need to make coffee and catch a train to work, will post a reply about methodology so your readers can stop speculating.

  31. I doubt 6% of online Americans have even heard of twitter, let alone use it regularly.

    I believe that 6% of Americans living in 415, 408, 650 and 510 area codes who have jobs with technology companies use twitter regularly. Twitter has essentially zero market penetration outside of the digerati.

    Of course I’m sure there’s a set of assumptions at the beginning of the report. I’m sure they have the caveat that the report’s accuracy is contingent on those assumptions. I’m also sure that some (or most) of the assumptions they use are laughable.

    Speaking of laughs. Go get one of those crazy expensive reports from 10 years ago and read it. The accuracy of these research companies is pathetic.

  32. I doubt 6% of online Americans have even heard of twitter, let alone use it regularly.

    I believe that 6% of Americans living in 415, 408, 650 and 510 area codes who have jobs with technology companies use twitter regularly. Twitter has essentially zero market penetration outside of the digerati.

    Of course I’m sure there’s a set of assumptions at the beginning of the report. I’m sure they have the caveat that the report’s accuracy is contingent on those assumptions. I’m also sure that some (or most) of the assumptions they use are laughable.

    Speaking of laughs. Go get one of those crazy expensive reports from 10 years ago and read it. The accuracy of these research companies is pathetic.

  33. Reading the quote carefully, neverness seems to be right. Peter says that 6% of the ‘online population’, not ‘resident population’ are using Twitter regularly.

  34. Reading the quote carefully, neverness seems to be right. Peter says that 6% of the ‘online population’, not ‘resident population’ are using Twitter regularly.

  35. As a Forrester Employee, I’m reading the data, and it comes from Forrester’s own Technographics Research, so yeah, we stand behind it, I’ll let Peter give more details on this report.

    Robert, how many bloggers are out there in North America? (I know it’s hard to track) Is it too much to suggest that a percentage of them are trying micro/mobile blogging? Not really.

    Ironically, a screenshot of twitter in the report, and your tweets are all over it.

    In the spirit of being responsive, just letting you all know we see these questions.

  36. As a Forrester Employee, I’m reading the data, and it comes from Forrester’s own Technographics Research, so yeah, we stand behind it, I’ll let Peter give more details on this report.

    Robert, how many bloggers are out there in North America? (I know it’s hard to track) Is it too much to suggest that a percentage of them are trying micro/mobile blogging? Not really.

    Ironically, a screenshot of twitter in the report, and your tweets are all over it.

    In the spirit of being responsive, just letting you all know we see these questions.

  37. “there are lots of users outside America.” Actually 65% of everything is outside America. And that number is rising.

    But if your view of the web is via Google and you live in the USA or UK, you’d be surprised because Google does a grand job of hiding that 65%. And if all you follow is the big analyst and media companies and the tech blogs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that there’s nothing much outside the Valley, let alone California. Does the rest of the world even exist?

  38. “there are lots of users outside America.” Actually 65% of everything is outside America. And that number is rising.

    But if your view of the web is via Google and you live in the USA or UK, you’d be surprised because Google does a grand job of hiding that 65%. And if all you follow is the big analyst and media companies and the tech blogs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that there’s nothing much outside the Valley, let alone California. Does the rest of the world even exist?

Comments are closed.