The paper "The Entrepreneurs at Twitter: Building a Brand, a Social Tool or a Tech Powerhouse" is a great example of a report on information technology. The purpose of this paper is to provide a well-detailed analysis report of the social website, Twitter Inc as a company. This is a social networking site as well as a micro-blogging service for interactive purposes for the users. The report intends to assess the effectiveness of the social website by reviewing the contents, the social business, political and educational approaches to which these contents apply.
This considers that the users of the website have the ability to post updates of any kind. The users are, therefore, exposed to unpredictable pieces on information the may or may not be useful. The analysis explores both the internal and external environmental factors that will affect the design of both management and business strategy. It is these strategy designs that determine the success and competitiveness of companies. The situational analysis makes known that the content of the website has no definite limits on what a user may or may not post.
Consequently, each text posted by either a user or the administration relates to a different objective. This finding, therefore, shows that twitter. com is more than just a social site but a platform for business and even politics. The company itself is business; the term social is thus broadly used. Situational analysisThis paper the SWOT Model and Porter’ s Five Forces Model to analyze the environment of Twitter. Additionally, those discussed include the challenges faced by the company, its major competitors as well as Twitter’ s working competitive advantages, considering the company’ s current strategic main concerns.
In as much as the weakness of the company can be defined by the user preference and administrative strategy, the strength of the company may also be determined by its real-timing, how informative it is and the ease of access to the company’ s services by either visiting the website, text messaging, mobile or web applications. It is also available in at least 30 languages currently.
Bruner G, Kumar A, 2007, ‘Attitude towards location’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 17, no. 5
Bob S, 2010, ‘Twitter and democracy’, Academe, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 3, (EBSCOhost).
Dube J, 2008, ‘The strengths and weaknesses of twitter’, The Future of Media, vol. 21, no. 2 pp. 2-3, (EBSCOhost).
Evans M, Johnson C, 2010, ‘Internal leadership challenges of network participation’, International Journal of Leadership In Education, vol.13, no.2, (EBSCOhost).
Hughes J, Rowe M, Batey M, Lee A, 2011, ‘Social network sites’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 561–569
Lafley A, 2009, ‘What only the CEO can do,’ Harvard Business Review, vol.3, no.5, pp.67-89,(EBSCOhost).
Porter, M 2008, ‘The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy’, Harvard Business Review, vol.86, no.1, (EBSCOhost).
Shira O, Emiliy G, 2012, ‘Going public’ Wall Street Journal, vol.259, no.50, pp.B1-B7
Twitter.com, Gears of success, viewed 7th September 2012, http://www.twitter.com
University of Auckland 2011, ‘Twitter: the strength of weak ties’ Business Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp 18-22.
Vosters M, 2005, ‘Twitter weaknesses and threats’, Social Site Hiccups, vol. 4, no. 1
Yazgan C, 2010, ‘Societies; environmental impact analysis; social structure’ New World Sciences Academy vol.5, no.1 pp.226, (EBSCOhost).