Funny that you mention email. When I got to SXSW for my first day on Monday, I had several people on Twitter trying to get in touch with me and I was trying to get in touch with them as well about meetups. Wifi was spotty at the convention center, so I got on Twitter telling anyone to email me, but everyone was sending DMs via Twitter. I got about 10 DMs, no emails. Emails is still obviously terribly important, but many times if I know someone on say Twitter or Facebook, they prefer to communicate via those sites, it seems.

Hi Mack -- You're right: Nothing beats Twitter for meetups and direct messaging, in my view. I should have been more specific above, but at BL's site, when I was talking about my affection for email, I was specifically talking about email newsletters and email content... not peer-to-peer (or colleague-to-colleague) communication.

Anyway -- nice to have you back from SXSW, you hot shot! : )

BTW something else I saw at SXSW, everyone had smartphones, and they were all on Twitter. I went to one panel, something about New Media in Entertainment, and there wasn't a very big crowd in the room. But apparently Robert Scoble had been added as a panelist at the last minute (he wasn't listed on the site or program as being part of the panel). I immediately told everyone on Twitter that Scoble was on the panel, and the audience size doubled in 5 mins. I'm sure not everyone was coming from Twitter, but no doubt some of them were. And everyone was using Twitter for spontaneous meetups and to coordinate where the best parties were.

Email is still best for newsletters let you said and of course anything past 140 chars ;) But for quickly delaying info to many people, Twitter seems to be much better.

Sorry that should be "Email is still best for newsletters LIKE you said and of course anything past 140 chars ;) But for quickly RElaying info to many people, Twitter seems to be much better."

Proof I shouldn't be commenting on Sat mornings ;)

Hi, Ann. I prefer e-mail to Facebook when corresponding with people individually. When I receive a Facebook notification, I have to click the link, sign on and then read it. That takes extra time.

I registered for Twitter but haven't gained its value as I'm typically working at my computer most days and e-mail is still fast and convenient.

Ann, Mack, I think you've jolly well hit the nail on the head in terms of the role email should play in today's landscape of so many ways to connect.

Email is great for newsletter marketing and business communications, especially when matched with a blog focused on the same topic. Those two play very well together. But, peer-to-peer, yes, by all means, Twitter can't be beat.

The same is true for blogs if you ask me. Used to, I'd post just about anything and everything on my blog. Now, there are so many other places where the anecdotal stuff can go, including Twitter and Facebook. My blog is now reserved for more thoughtful posts (some who read it may beg to differ) that attempts to create real value for the reader.

Elaine: I could write a whole separate post (or at least an ebook) on Twitter. But Paul mentions a clear use here:

"Used to, I'd post just about anything and everything on my blog. Now, there are so many other places where the anecdotal stuff can go, including Twitter and Facebook. My blog is now reserved for more thoughtful posts..."

That's been a use of Twitter use for me, too, and the strength of microblogging. It offers an outlet for all that random stuff that I used to try and fluff up into a post.

What's interesting about this series of posts is that when i asked the same question 2 years ago, email wasn't such a big problem for most people. now we're drowning in it, and it has to play a different role.

i definitely check twitter DMs more often than i check email. and people who are really important to me can IM.

but the best way to reach me these days is the most old-fashioned of all - pick up the phone and call me