Archive for the ‘Twitter’ Category

8 Talking Points On Twitter Follower-Building Tools

Earlier this week I wrote a post about follower-building services on Twitter, warning about the dangers and how people may perceive you if you use them.

It felt a little bit like preaching to the choir.

Amy Mengel made an excellent point in the comments to that post:

“Unfortunately the people on Twitter who promote these schemes and have tweet streams full of nothing but the garbage you outlined above probably won’t be reading this post and getting the message!”

This made me think – did I target the post correctly? I came to the conclusion that in that case, no, I didn’t. If the people reading this site already view follower-building services that way, they’re more likely to be the people talking others out of these tools than the ones using them.

With that in mind, here are a few suggestions on how to approach people using follower-building services and help them to re-think their approach to their followers (which, it seems, we all agree isn’t a good one).

How to approach

  • Approach delicately: No-one likes to be backed into a corner publicly. Consider approaching them privately.
  • Give them a way out: Ask questions instead of pointing the finger.

Reflective questions

  • Benefits: What benefit do you get from using this follower-building tool?
  • Relationships: Do you think they the people following you through this tool care about what you say? Do you care about them?
  • Spam: Do you know this tool is filling your Twitter stream with spam messages? Have you looked at your stream recently?
  • Noise: Have you noticed any change in the value provided by the people you follow (if they’re using an auto-follow-back tool)?
  • Perceptions: Have you thought about how the people who see those messages perceive you?
  • Trust: Given that they’re already spamming your Twitter account, do you really think you can trust this service with your login?

As I said before, you really aren’t hurting anyone but yourself if you use these tools, so if self-reflection doesn’t get the point across, I would likely leave the conversation there. Still, hopefully these points will be helpful.

What other talking points would you suggest?

Twitter Follower-Building Services – Gain Numbers, Lose Respect?

As time goes on, it feels like more and more people are feeling the allure of Twitter follower-building services. Look at their follower numbers one day and they have a few hundred, and a couple of days later they’re up to several thousand.

It’s easy to see the allure of this. You have the ego boost of believing your tweets are read by thousands of people – that’s pretty cool, right? It takes a really long time to build-up that many readers of a blog.

Personally, while I’ve occasionally been tempted by the dark side, I’ve never used one of those services, for a couple of reasons:

  • Consider how much you care about the people that those services ask you to follow. What’s that? Not at all? That’s how much they care about you, too.
  • If the people who follow you through that scheme don’t care, who are you doing it for? Your existing followers? I think not. Potential followers? Do you really think they care either? Your ego? Maybe that’s it.
  • It feels wrong, and when it comes to social media, I tend to go with my gut (especially when the evidence supports that feeling).

There’s also one big down-side of many follower-building services on Twitter:

They spam your Twitter account.

Glancing at my Twitter stream recently, I spotted a post from someone in my stream (note: I’ve removed the links):

viralwordpress: Want 10,000 Followers FAST? FREE Twitter Followers Software http://tinyurl.com/twitterp… http://bit.ly/LlwDL

Ah, yes – Twitter spam. Out of curiosity I clicked through to their profile to see if this was the first time it had happened (in case they were unaware of it). Here’s what I found:

Twitter spam messages

Is this how you want people to see you? That’s how people see this “SEO pro.”

Why not go about things differently? Why not build a following by providing useful information; by saying useful things; by helping other people? It takes time, but you’ll find yourself with followers who pay attention when you ask a question, and who care when you post.

I guess you’re not hurting anyone else if you use these services, but consider the damage you may do to your own reputation – especially if you tout yourself as a social media expert.

What do you think about follower-building services? Setting this example aside, do you (or would you) use one of these tools?

If you have used one of these tools, am I off-base on this? I haven’t used these follower-building tools, so I’d love your input. Did you get the results you were looking for?

TweetDeck and Seesmic Desktop: Racing To The Bottom?

Twitter was buzzing last night as the latest version of free Twitter client TweetDeck was launched, to fairly universal acclaim.

Mashable has a detailed run-down of the new Tweetdeck features, and a good comparison of the new version with its closest competitor, Seesmic Desktop. In a nutshell, the big-name new features are:

  • A new TweetDeck iPhone app;
  • Support for multiple Twitter accounts;
  • The ability to synchronize accounts across multiple computers and the mobile app;
  • The option to save groups and searches for future use when removing them from your screen.

There’s plenty more, but those are the key functions from my perspective.

Amidst the geeky excitement of a new, improved application for use with Twitter, though, I have one concern:

Are these free apps racing themselves to the bottom?

Is this race for new functionality going to eventually drive these free services out of business?

Here’s my thinking:

  • Right now neither TweetDeck nor Seesmic Desktop generate revenue from their apps.
  • Neither ‘main’ app seems to have a critical mass of users. Fickle audiences flit back and forth between the applications as one gains advantage over the other. 
  • Minimal barriers to entry mean that, at any time, a new application could emerge to challenge the big two (as Seesmic Desktop did, out of the ashes of Twhirl, not so long ago). 
  • Only “power users” will get a lot out of these features. I certainly appreciate the feature, and the power users are the ones with a loud voice, but most people frankly don’t need multiple accounts.
  • If either app tries to charge users without introducing a killer, unreplicable new feature, users will simply switch to the other.

Where does this leave us? Two companies engaged in an endless race for features that benefit very few people, while not being able to monetize their products.

What’s the end game? Being bought-out by Twitter or another company? That’s bubble thinking, not recession planning. I really don’t know the answer.

What do you think?

Is The State Of The Twittersphere Declining?

On June 10 HubSpot released its second State of the Twittersphere report. The report looks at information collected from over 4.5 million Twitter accounts over the last nine months. Their conclusion:

"…many of the accounts on Twitter aren’t actually using it all that much."

The report found that:

  • 79.79% failed to provide a homepage URL;
  • 75.86% of users have not entered a bio in their profile;
  • 68.68% have not specified a location;
  • 55.50% are not following anyone;
  • 54.88% have never tweeted;
  • 52.71% have no followers.

The report also combines three criteria (followers, friends and updates) to determine that 9% of Twitter users are inactive.

The lack of homepage URLs and locations doesn’t surprise me – many people don’t have blogs or something they’d consider a "homepage," and many more are concerned about their privacy. However, the fact that 55% of Twitter accounts have no bio, that 55% follow no-one and/or have never tweeted and that 53% have no followers is food for thought.

A few mitigating factors come to mind, which might explain some of these statistics:

  • This report looked at 4.5m Twitter accounts compared to the 500,000 included in the last report. Twitter’s exponential growth means that a large proportion of accounts are likely new, and new users have less followers, friends and updates;
  • Spammers  and bots represent an increasingly large proportion of the Twittersphere;
  • Savvy people and companies are claiming their Twitter IDs whether they’re ready to use them or not;
  • According to Technorati‘s latest State of the Blogosphere, less than 6% of blogs have been active in the last four months. By that measure of activity, Twitter’s users are quite active.

Still, these statistics are a useful wake-up call. Twitter still isn’t a silver bullet solution to your problems. Neither is social media as a whole. They may be an important part of your toolkit, but they cannot operate in isolation.

Integrated communications approaches are, and will continue to be, the best approach.

I Don’t Care When You Joined Twitter

A couple of big old-media events boosted Twitter’s profile over the last few weeks (ever notice how social media tool success is often still measured by traditional media coverage?). First, Ashton Kutcher challenged CNN to see who reached one million followers first. Shortly after that, Oprah Winfrey joined Twitter. 

The storm of media coverage over those events brought millions of new people to Twitter; although how many of them remain on the service is still up for debate.

In an outburst of wonderful hypocrisy, the Twitterati didn’t take too kindly to all the new people using the tool they’ve been advocating for for months. Post titles like “Twitter Losing Its Cool” and “Twitter Has Jumped The Shark” became common. 

Along with the hand-wringing came new services to help the early adopters feel good about themselves. When did you join Twitter lets you punch in your username and tells you the date you joined Twitter, while here before Oprah and here before aplusk (Kutcher’s Twitter handle) let you compare your start date to celebrities and others.

Blah blah blah.

Here’s the thing:

I don’t care when you joined Twitter.

Maybe ten million people joined Twitter before Oprah. That leaves somewhere in the region of 6.7 billion people who didn’t. I’m pretty sure many of them have things of value to say.

Here’s what I care about:

That you interact with others, and don’t only promote yourself.

That you share things of value, and don’t just talk about your lunch.

That you tell us who you are - fill in your bio, post a picture and don’t act like a faceless company.

If you do those things, I couldn’t care less whether you’re an early adopter or part of the majority.

Sound fair? Then let’s connect.

Where’s The Line With Twitter “Spam”?

Do you find it helpful when people link to their latest content on Twitter?

Tweetstats says I’ve posted an average of about 25 tweets per day since September 2007. In the last few months, I’ve averaged over 40. Each weekday, one of those tweets is usually to my latest blog post. 

The question is, does that tweet add any value to your stream or is it just spam?

Back in March, during the ghost blogging saga, someone mentioned on my site that they were far more concerned about the ethics of people posting links to their own content on sites like Twitter than they were about people using ghost writers to produce content under their name. Ever since then, whenever I link to my own content I’ve wondered whether it’s a good practice.

Every day I decide that I think it’s ok.

Different types of self-linking?

Jennifer Mattern points out two different types of self-linking which may fall into the category of spam:

  • Manual posts
  • Automatic posts

My links fall into the former. If I feel my post is worth it (I usually do, or I wouldn’t have published it) I’ll manually write something in Twitter and post it. Others use automated services like Twitterfeed or blog plugins like Twitter Tools. I used to use them, but decided I preferred the choice of posting the link or not and being able to write something a little more ‘human’ to people.

Does it matter into which of these groups you fall? Not necessarily. A manual poster (TechCrunch, for example) may post multiple links per day while automated posts might be way less frequent.

The main difference here is in the level of personalization. I’m much more likely not to tweet an issue from within the post than I am to post simply the headline. That’s evolved over time, but it’s where I stand now. Meanwhile, automated posts are, well, automated – they don’t vary in format or based on nuances in the content. In that regard, perhaps automated links are more likely to be “spammy.”

Does volume matter?

Is there a line to be crossed? Is posting one self-link every 40-45 posts any different to posting 35 self-links within that same volume? Is it different to one post per day, always linking to yourself? Some would argue not. I would argue there is. If you’re constantly having conversations – discussing things, offering advice and sharing. I think that builds-up the social capital to be able to throw in an occasional link to your content.

If you post 39-44 tweets per day which converse with others, or point to other interesting content, does one post really constitute spam?

Changing audience behaviours

As Bill Sledzik pointed out in Mattern’s comments, it seems that more and more people in this space are looking to Twitter for their reading material nowadays. So, even if people subscribe to someone’s site, they may not check their reader regularly now due to the volume of great content flowing through Twitter, so they may miss a lot of your content.

On the flip side, does someone following you on Twitter mean they’ve signed-up to see links to your blog? Might engaging, interactive content be a better way of driving people to your site?

From my perspective, people who choose to follow you have chosen to read whatever you post. I always appreciate feedback on how I go about things and am willing to change, but at the end of the day people have the ultimate sanction – they can simply stop following you if you continuously post irrelevant things.

If my audience is spending most of their time on Twitter rather than their RSS reader, and I have content of which I’m proud, I’m inclined to post it there.

What’s more, as good communicators know, people usually need a call to action in order to do something. If you want people to read your posts and give you their feedback, you’re much more likely to get that if you point people in that direction. So, if you post all the conversational content in the world but very little of that is necessarily related to your website content, few people will click through. Of course, perhaps that means we should be a little more thoughtful about what we post on Twitter. Perhaps when you’ve blogged about ghost writing, you should post more tweets about that topic.

Your thoughts?

Note: I’m not asking whether linking to your own content is right or wrong. As I mentioned yesterday, there are shades of grey in social media and one person’s “rules” are often irrelevant to another. Guy Kawasaki has 115k followers to an account that is largely automated, so who am I to say it’s wrong? Still, Guy’s audience is not my audience.

I’m really interested to hear what you think on this. Does posting occasional links to your own content constitute Twitter spam?

Fast-Tracking to Twitter

Back in February I mused about the apparent greater willingness of companies to sign up for Twitter than to start blogs. I’ll go one further now – I’m starting to see companies skip blogging entirely and go straight to Twitter.

Companies like Fairmont Hotels are by-passing blogging entirely and starting to engage with Twitter as an initial step into social media. Until recently it might have appeared more logical to suggest blogging as a common core step in the social media process (listen, engage, develop) once the groundwork is laid. Nowadays that’s not necessarily the case.

If we consider the different apparent commitment levels of the two tools this isn’t too surprising:

  • Blogs require designing and developing; a Twitter profile has a minimum of setup;
  • Blog posts can take lots of time to draft and edit; Twitter posts can take just a few seconds;
  • It can take a while to start to develop conversations on a blog; on Twitter you can begin to engage in conversations very quickly;
  • As a real-time medium, conversations evolve and spread more quickly on Twitter than on all but the most popular blogs.

Some of these commitment differences are perceived rather than real – you can spend just as much time on Twitter each day as it takes to write a blog post, for example. Still, I find it interesting that Twitter is now sufficiently accepted that it is seen as a potential first step into social media.

Talking Twitter With CityOnline

One of the great things about social media tools is that they let you connect with people you’d otherwise never meet.

One of the people I’ve gotten to know and like over the last little while is fellow Brit Danny Brown, founder of the 12 for 12k challenge. We finally met face-to-face at PodCamp Toronto this year; you can see a brief video I did with Danny here

Another benefit of these tools for PR people like me is the ability to get to know journalists and the kind of things in which they are interested. Not only does it help me to be better at my job in general; it also helps me to be better if the time ever does come to pitch them. Over the last couple of years I’ve gotten to know numerous journalists including, more recently, City TV’s Kris Reyes.

On Friday these two aspects of social media came together as I appeared on City TV’s CityOnline show with Danny and Kris, to discuss Twitter in the wake of the Kutcher/CNN follow-fest

The video of the show (about 20 minutes) is below.

Key points:

Interestingly, from the phone poll conducted on the show, the majority of respondents viewed Twitter as a fad. It may well be; I guess time will tell. From my perspective, the tool itself isn’t that important in this respect; the changing and growing variety of communications tools is the more important part. Kneale Mann has an interesting take on this: 

“The early adopters are certainly tweeting about the many downsides of Twitter becoming the mainstream. That’s what early adopters do. 

If you live on the fringe, don’t expect a crowd. And if it shows up, don’t be shocked. What you were talking about before the masses arrived may actually gain traction and (shock horror) popularity.”

Aston Martin Brandjacked On Twitter

Aston Martin joins a long list of people and organizations to have been brandjacked on Twitter.

A fake account, AstonMartin, has attracted a reasonable (though not huge) following while posing as an official account. My attention was drawn to it when the account retweeted one of my posts about a recall of older car models by General Motors. Re-posting negative messages about competitors didn’t seem to fit the image of a luxury brand that positions itself well above the cars produced by GM. The tone of some responses to other users also seemed somewhat more sarcastic (and wrong – GM doesn’t own Aston Martin) than one would expect.

When asked, the person behind the account would not confirm whether it was an official Aston Martin account, instead directing me to check the account’s profile (which gave the impression that it was official):

Twitter exchange with fake Aston Martin account

My suspicion was furthered when I noticed the account automatically posting links featuring the words “Aston” and “Martin” (an unfortunate coincidence for Aston Villa manager Martin O’Neill):

A quick query to Aston Martin’s media line confirmed my suspicion (fellow Torontonian Ben Lucier also inquired). Press Officer Kim Lawrence Palmer replied:

 

Dear Mr. Fleet,

Thank you for your email. I am afraid that this isn’t the real Aston Martin, and I am pursuing Twitter to remove the page. We do however have an official Facebook page here:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Aston-Martin/15678718354?ref=ts

Kind regards

Kim

Takeaways

No real damage has been done to the Aston Martin brand, and the response from their public affairs unit indicates they’re moving to shut the account down. In future, though, how can companies avoid brandjacking incidents like this?

Monitor your brand

There are many, many listening tools out there. Monitoring and listening are foundational pieces in a modern web strategy.

Be proactive

Task someone in your organization with claiming your company’s profile name on new services that emerge, so that accounts like this can’t appear.

Set policies

At the moment the identity of the Aston Martin account owner is unknown (and may remain so) – we don’t know if it is someone external to the organization, or an overly keen employee. Regardless, organizations should establish clear policies on what practices are and are not acceptable, so employees have clear boundaries within which to operate.

Consumers beware

Lastly, as social media users and practitioners we need to remember to confirm identities before taking things at face value. Until we have more robust means of confirming identities, make sure you’re certain that a particular profile actually represents a brand – look for contact information you can use to confirm, or links from other corporate properties to the profile.

Your thoughts?

Higher Volume, Different Approach

Plenty of people have written recently about the recent influx of people to Twitter and how this is changing their perception of the service. I’ve given my take on it – essentially, that Twitter is what you make it –  if you don’t like what you see, change it.

Still, the fact remains that with additional numbers of people using the service, people may find them connected to much higher numbers of others on Twitter. With that comes new challenges associated with scaling the way you use the service.

Organizing your Twitter stream

Tweetdeck is one of the best tools out there for managing large and/or diverse numbers of connections on Twitter. Not only can you create groups out of your followers; you can also set up searches to track the conversations around topics that interest you (if you can’t download Tweetdeck, try Tweetgrid – a browser-based variant).

One of Tweetdeck’s default columns is the “All Friends” column, which (no surprises here) shows all of the people you follow on Twitter. Early on, I found this to be my most frequently-used column for staying on top of things.

“All friends,” less value?

As the number of people I follow has slowly increased over time, I’ve started to find that column less and less useful. In fact, every time Tweetdeck refreshes at this point, I get about two or three screen lengths-worth of new updates – more than I can possibly keep up with. What’s more, an increasing proportion of those messages tend to be irrelevant to me. I hate to think what it’s like for people who auto-follow others, and who follow thousands more than I do.

I wondered how other people deal with this, and whether they still find the “All Friends” column at all useful. So, after musing about whether I should be cutting back on the number of people I follow, I asked:

Twitter question re. all friends column

I got a bunch of responses back, which were revealing:

Interestingly, there appears to be no correlation between the people who follow high numbers of people and those who no longer use the “All Friends” column on Tweetdeck.

User People followed Use “All Friends” column?
Hamishknox 47 No
jltoronto 75 No
_sarakate_ 267 Yes
commoncentsmom 320 Yes
Monicakozak 374 No
HumSurfer_buzz 572 Primarily groups/search
martinwaxman 595 Yes
astroboy 699 Yes
athletetraining 887 No
michellekostya 1010 Yes
andreastenberg 1131 Yes
adamcohen 2385 Yes
unmarketing 21119 No

Personally, I plan to keep the column. I also plan to continue to be fairly judicious in who I follow.

Do you find yourself having to deal with this kind of problem? Do you find yourself following more people nowadays?How do you go about organizing it?