Analysis of Buffer and Tweetdeck as Add-On Tools for Twitter

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


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.


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:















Marketing

Analysis of Buffer and Tweetdeck as Add-On Tools for Twitter