Imagine this. I spread out my arms wide apart. My left palm represents reality. My right palm represents the dimension where the author of this article currently exists, but to get from left to right palm, you have to go one time around the globe.<p>This article is so far from reality, it's stupid. The data point is a single anectdotal one. There is no info on the data. There is no hint at all that twitter had anything to do with the decline - it could just as well have been birds pecking at the internet cables to all the subscribers houses and disrupting exactly those packets.<p>Totally biased in-the-bubble speculation, this blog post is not even wrong, it's just silly.
Twitter is <i>not</i> killing, or even changing, the newsletter, and we know this.<p>For almost 10 years I've watched daily and weekly newsletters go out for a few of my clients, and they attribute the <i>success of their businesses</i> to these newsletters which are basically blog posts filled with relevant content that are emailed to lists that range from 1000 to 7000 people.<p>If you're click-throughs drop from 23% to 6%, you need to check if your messages are being filtered as spam, you need to rethink whether your content is relevant, and you need to double check the links in your email because they may be going through a tracking service that is breaking down.<p>My clients who send newsletters <i>have</i> added Twitter to their newsletters in the form of a "follow me" button. The reason for this is because they post on Twitter when they've sent out their latest newsletter and use it to chat with their subscriber base.<p>Twitter is <i>not</i> a newsletter replacement, but a tool that you could certainly use to enhance communications with your subscriber base.
With regard to corporate newsletters and the like, I would be inclined to agree.<p>=======<p>The article here though does seem to show that a more focused newsletter can still be quite useful/valuable:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865042" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865042</a>
Very very very very far from true. It definitely has the potential to at least be a just as strong supplement down the road, though I highly doubt it. Here are three key reasons why:<p>a) Email is the highest penetration of any utility on the web. Even more than search. (I know, i know, i need to find this source again, but it's not far fetched). Twitter is a blip on the radar in comparison.<p>b) Too much noise on twitter. When I read your newsletter, it's just me and your newsletter. That's it. Twitter is surrounded by other noise including lots of spam.<p>c) Twitter is the gateway, not the destination. 140 characters can't get enough across. It can certainly get a link across... which will probably be to the newsletter you just sent out.
Well, Twitter+RSS.<p>If you're already getting updates as they happen then why on earth would you care about monthly ones?<p>It's already bad enough with newspapers (yesterday's news - today!) - but _monthly_ newsletters? Why would I care?