Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138 Social Media Assignment Rithika V. Karumbaiah – 138 Aakanksha Rawat – 81 Aditya Narayan Banerjee - 86
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Social Media Assignment
Rithika V. Karumbaiah – 138
Aakanksha Rawat – 81
Aditya Narayan Banerjee - 86
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Analysis Of Buffer And Tweetdeck As Platforms To Operate Twitter From
1. Interface/usability of the tool:
I felt that the interface of Tweetdeck is better than that of Buffer. Tweetdeck is much more
organised, and gives you control over it’s entire UI. Tweetdeck also rates higher on UX for
me. On the converse side, Buffer integrates better with Twitter. One doesn’t need to to
familiarise themselves with another software, as Buffer makes its presence felt with a small
icon along with all the other icons on Twitter.
2. Scheduling of Tweets:
I felt that both softwares are easy to schedule tweets from, however Buffer has the clear
advantage here because of the ease with which one can schedule retweets.
3. Add-ons/Pluggins:
I felt that Buffer rates higher on this scale.
4. Streams and Notifications:
Tweetdeck has the clear advantage here. With individual panels to provide a clear view,
ability to place them as we need, and click-to-scroll on each of them, Tweetdeck shows
Streams and Notifications very well.
5. Ease of use for working as a team:
I felt that Buffer is great for working as a team but the points would have to go to Tweedeck
for this one too. Tweetdeck has Buffer integrated into it, when both are open at the same
time. This enables a team to work well with these softwares. The fact that both their UI’s are
simple also enables a smooth working operation.
6. Top feature of Buffer vs. Top feature of Tweetdeck:
The top feature of Buffer is that one can schedule retweets on it. This makes it really
convenient to engage the audience. This also enables one to retweet tweets from across
multiple accounts.
Tweetdeck makes it very convenient to add media and other content to a tweet. Despite
being a separate platform, it also integrates Buffer along with it.
The two platforms have their own strengths and weaknesses. For example, Buffer has
excellent Analytics and also suggests specific times to tweet so as to engage a higher number
of Twitter users.
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
7. Any other feature that you can think of:
Tweetdecks Analytics feature isn’t very strong. Buffer has better Analytics, and this makes it
great for business too.
Tweetdeck has a great desktop client which makes it easy to keep an eye on everything
going on on Twitter.
On the whole, I felt that both Tweetdeck and Buffer are excellent platforms each with their
own advantages and shortcomings. Based on what we need, we could use either. For
Business, I would prefer Buffer because I would need strong Analytical tools. It stands well
that Buffer has an easy to use UI, since research tells me that Buffer has poor customer
support. For the everyday user, who is active and is an avid Twitter fan, Tweetdeck works
well. It has almost everything that the average and above-average Twitter user would need.
This is perhaps the reason that Twitter acquired Tweetdeck. It has mass appeal, is easy to
use, and gives the user simple, basic control of a larger set of features. Buffer has been
targeted towards a business as well, and as such opens up a plethora of options upon the
payment of a fee. Depending on the need, both Buffer and Tweetdeck are exemplary
platforms; the former being a goof fit for businesses, and the latter for the everyday user.
Following are screenshots from Buffer and Tweetdeck:
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138
Aakanksha Rawat, 81 | Aditya Narayan Banerjee, 86 | Rithika V. Karumbaiah, 138