U-M Social Media

Twitter vs. Facebook Live: Which live talk format is best for your conversation?

The objective of our #UMichChat series is to provide a venue for thought leaders across higher education to reflect on their accomplishments and share their ideas. Over the past two years, #UMichChat has grown from elementary Q&As into dynamic roundtable conversations with academic influencers across the country. We’ve hosted hundreds of panelists who have collective their insights with millions of engaged followers, and we’re enormously proud that this campaign has been so successful.

However, we’re permanently looking to produce our content in innovative fresh ways. It’s no secret that live streaming is rapidly gaining popularity on a multitude of social media platforms. There are many benefits to producing live content. However, we were most intrigued by the authenticity of the medium: live movie creates a form of closeness inbetween its subject and its viewer that can’t often be achieved by curated content. When we host conversations, we want to eliminate as many barriers inbetween our audience and participants as possible. We want them our followers to be able to witness the conversation naturally as it unfolds and submitting their input as they go. That’s why we determined this was the year that #UMichChat would go to a livestream format.

So, on September 29, we launched our first-ever Facebook Live #UMichChat in collaboration with C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital’s “Block Out Cancer” campaign. This talk featured Dr. Elizabeth Lawlor, a prominent pediatric cancer researcher, and Kaitlyn DeGrace, a cancer survivor and current U-M nursing student. The talk was an undisputed success: receiving more than 14,000 movie views by 13,701 unique viewers and reaching an estimated social audience of 111,525 people.

Kaitlyn and Dr. Lawlor had a poignant conversation about their motivation to heal children suffering from cancer. Dozens of our Facebook fans displayed their support and admiration for these two women. Additionally, we received several audience-submitted questions that our participants answered at the end of the livestream. This talk proved to be a promising embark for future Facebook Live editions of #UMichChat. That raises the question: why did Facebook live work so well for a conversation of this nature? Here’s are a few reasons:

1. It permitted the participants to explain sophisticated issues without a character limit: It’s almost unlikely to say certain things in one hundred forty characters, even for the most social-savvy among us. Twitter’s character limit would have gravely restricted Dr. Lawlor’s capability to explain the intricacies of her research, or Kaitlin’s capacity to explain the emotional fight of losing her hair during chemo. This live movie setting permitted them to more loosely elaborate about these complicated topics.
2. They were able to ‘go off script’ when the conversation called for it: In life, the best conversations don’t go after a roadmap. The best social media conversations usually don’t either. Albeit the #UMSocial team provided Kaitlin and Dr. Lawlor with a preliminary script, their dialogue didn’t go after our initial trajectory, and that was just fine: one participant often got inspired by or nosey about something the other said, taking the conversation in a entirely fresh direction. Because they were not strapped by a specific set of questions, the conversation unfolded naturally and authentically.
3. Facebook Live let our team monitor engagement in real time: On Facebook Live, it’s effortless for a content producer to observe how their audience is reacting in real time. Facebook displays the live viewer count via the entire broadcast, so we were able to lightly gage when our audience was most active. Also, reaction icons float across the bottom of the screen whenever a fresh user reacts to the movie, so we were continually aware of the audience’s response to what they were hearing—something that is much tighter to achieve when you’re monitoring likes and re-tweets.

We’re not switching our talk format entirely; Facebook Live is certainly not the ideal medium for every #UMichChat. For example, in August 2016, we hosted a panel of students and alumni to share their advice with the newest class of Wolverines. For this conversation, a Twitter panel made the most sense for several reasons:

1. We desired to reach a large audience: We knew that thousands of U-M students and alumni would have unique insights to share on this subject, and we dreamed to reach as many of them as possible. Our participants’ Twitter audience was large and diverse, and many of their followers would be able relate to the topics that were addressed. Twitter permitted our panel to share their ideas with a thick audience quickly and efficiently: in just one hour, the hashtag #UMichChat had a peak reach of more than 7 million.

A. Estimated reach and usage of #UMichChat during our ‘Dear Victors 2020…’ Panel

B. For comparison, Estimated reach and Reactions of our Facebook Live Talk

Upon comparing the metrics from both both conversations, it’s evident that the Twitter talk has a much larger reach. However, this makes sense: the Twitter talk dealt with a topic that was of broader interest to more people than the topic of the livestream. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude more people would have tuned in. The Facebook Live conversation was more relevant to a puny, yet powerful audience.

1. Twitter was the best way to reach our intended audience: Knowing your audience is key in determining where to place your content. This conversation was about the student practice, so we dreamed to reach as many current, incoming, and prospective students as possible. Our Twitter audience is mostly students, while our Facebook audience comprises largely parents and alumni. Therefore, Twitter was a ideal fit to meet students where they are already active and engaged.

Both delivery formats have their pros and cons. The popularity of live-streaming is certainly tempting, but that doesn’t mean you should attempt to adapt your content to a livestream format if it isn’t a natural fit. If your brand is thinking about hosting a live conversation, here are some things to consider:

1. Will it be feasible to get all the participants in the same place, at the same time? One yam-sized caveat about Facebook Live: it’s, well, live…so participants can’t join the conversation remotely. For example, our #UMichChat on foster care students on campus included panelists from universities across the country. While it would have been fascinating to hear their stories live, it was physically unlikely to do so. A livestream requires a fine deal of logistical coordination. It may be lighter for your brand to conduct the conversation using a medium that offers a bit more plasticity.
2. Do you have the right location and equipment? Sure, you can pull out your phone and begin a livestream anywhere. That doesn’t mean you should. It’s essential that your equipment be capable of producing high-quality audio and visuals. Also, you need to film in a location that is free of distractions and has a strong enough wireless connection to avoid signal interruptions during your livestream. Make sure to check the strength of the signal at your location before the stream commences!
3. Would these participants be convenient in front of a camera? There are many exceptionally intelligent people out there who are simply not comfy with speaking in public. If your panelists have reservations about putting themselves on camera, you may want to consider switching your delivery format to something that makes them feel more convenient. You only want people to show up on a livestream if they are going to present themselves with confidence.
4. Is going live indeed adding value? This may be the most significant question. What benefits does your brand receive from producing a livestream as opposed to another delivery format? Just because something is elegant doesn’t mean it’s right for every brand. If you think your content would be enhanced by the authenticity and intimity that a livestream provides, then by all means, go for it. If not, you should consider if leaping on the bandwagon is worth the necessary investment of resources.

We don’t mean to discourage innovation. If you’re certain that your content is suited to livestreaming, by all means, go ahead. But it all comes back to knowing your brand, your current situation, and your objectives. Unless your brand is truly ready to produce exceptional live content, there won’t be much come back on your efforts.

This post was written by Sarah Barnitt, #UMSocial Senior Intern & Bachelor of Science in Information student, class of 2017. Stay Social with her on Twitter and Instagram @sarahbarnitt

Related video: