Well, Twitter measures that and has internal tools to monitor user accounts. They've done some account purging and I saw some numbers settle a little, some folks felt a larger dip than did others.
But I'm curious, if you don't believe that those are legit followers, than what does that number reflect in your opinion?
Are you suggesting that people are manipulating their followers by creating thousands of fake accounts with noise on them?
that ever since Oprah and others highlighted Twitter, a lot of people have accounts
these people will get notifications that someone is following then, including spammers and marketers are following people
many of those people will follow back because they don't really know or care what Twitter's about and because "why not?"
I get such notices all the time.
My point is that having 100 or 100 followers doesn't necessarily mean that those people even know who you are, let alone what you are all about, and it doesn't necessarily signify approval.
Like most social networking tools, Twitter - and it's value to marketing - has been grossly oversold, in my opinion.
Like most social networking tools, Twitter - and it's value to marketing - has been grossly oversold, in my opinion.
I agree with minstrel, plus the "social" in social networking implies a two-way communication...not one way message broadcasting (even to a targeted audience, which is called advertising) and clicking on links.
It doesn't mean you would be entirely wrong daronbabin to think some of your followers are paying attention to your tweets...and perhaps clicking on links...but just like email, you could have a list of 10,000...and only 10% really are paying attention to you...more in cases where you've developed a real relationship with those followers...but that doesn't happen unless you're carrying on individual conversations (tweeting back and forth) and developing relationships with your Twitter followers.
Gary Vaynerchuk is the best at carrying on the "conversation" with his followers in my estimation...but is also a rare breed. Personally, at this point I'm only able to seriously develop a few very key relationships using Twitter at one time. Guess I'd better learn from Gary in that respect.
Interesting theory, and I suppose that would be accurate if you assume "why not!"
However, if you feel like most people, and set up a Twitter account to start following someones Tweets, maybe its a famous person you saw on Oprah or even Oprah herself.
One learns right away quickly, that if they are following someone who's posting regularly, then they get to stay current. The more people they follow, the more tweets they see in their Twitter Time Line. If their mobile is connected, you become acutely aware of Twitter activity as well.
So an end user either A) quickly learns who they wish to receive tweets from and refines their experience or B) as you might imply, abandon their accounts altogether simply due to fad reasons C) my opinion is...is that's its a little of A and B.
That's the reason for Twitter to do the occasional purge of accounts...those that get opened and abandoned. Do I think those accounts are in the majority? No.
But just because someone starts to follow you may just be because you are publishing valuable info. That is the idea anyway.
If so, there could actually be real people who follow you there, just as they lurk here and may never post...but their presence is no less importance because you don't know them.
Which raises the next obvious question... how social is social networking then? If we're only supposed to Tweet or Facebook with people we know. Does that mirror ones own social behavior? If I grow my network because I am a more social person and very outgoing...does that make my network any less real for not directly knowing that network connection?
However, if you feel like most people, and set up a Twitter account to start following someones Tweets, maybe its a famous person you saw on Oprah or even Oprah herself.
How do you how "most people" feel? And I think you vastly overestimate the technological awareness and competence of the average person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daronbabin
One learns right away quickly, that if they are following someone who's posting regularly, then they get to stay current.
Current with what? I think it becomes more an obsessive-compulsive behavior than anything really useful in the majority of cases.
Show me the money... show me the ROI on the time you spend Twittering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daronbabin
But just because someone starts to follow you may just be because you are publishing valuable info. That is the idea anyway.
Yes, I know that's the idea. Whether that translates into reality is another matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daronbabin
If so, there could actually be real people who follow you there, just as they lurk here and may never post...but their presence is no less importance because you don't know them.
If you're talking about marketing, the bottom line is sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daronbabin
Which raises the next obvious question... how social is social networking then? If we're only supposed to Tweet or Facebook with people we know. Does that mirror ones own social behavior? If I grow my network because I am a more social person and very outgoing...does that make my network any less real for not directly knowing that network connection?
No. Just don't fall into the trap of believing that having all those followers means anything beyond the obvious fact that you think it's important and put effort into acquiring them. How does that differ from Facebook, MSN Messenger, or anything else? More importantly, how is it any different from vanity plates for your car?
It's not whether or not you know someone on your list...it's the fact that you can't expect they will pay attention to your messages all the time, even if the reason they subscribed is genuinely because you have good content (which as minstrel pointed out, isn't always the case).
Social networking is very social, when there is a two-way conversation going. That has nothing to do with knowing the other person, or them knowing you...initially.
I have posted this before, but I equate Twitter (which is a tool, so Facebook, Tumblr, etc...) with going to a seminar, or cocktail party...
You may not know the 1000 people there, but if you start a good conversation in a "living room" and 100 of those 1000 listen to you...then out of that 100 that start to listen to you...you can continue the conversation with a few and get to know them more closely, then go from there.
So, as it applies to Twitter specifically...
If you have 1000 followers, that's the cocktail party...
100 of those listen to you a little more closely...
and any number of those that you choose to develop relationships with in two-way conversation and continue...will end up carrying on the conversation outside of Twitter in most cases (by that time you have phone numbers, email addresses, links, etc...)
That's not everything there is to know about social networking, but it's worked for me.
I agree with minstrel, plus the "social" in social networking implies a two-way communication...not one way message broadcasting (even to a targeted audience, which is called advertising) and clicking on links.
It doesn't mean you would be entirely wrong daronbabin to think some of your followers are paying attention to your tweets...and perhaps clicking on links...but just like email, you could have a list of 10,000...and only 10% really are paying attention to you...more in cases where you've developed a real relationship with those followers...but that doesn't happen unless you're carrying on individual conversations (tweeting back and forth) and developing relationships with your Twitter followers.
Gary Vaynerchuk is the best at carrying on the "conversation" with his followers in my estimation...but is also a rare breed. Personally, at this point I'm only able to seriously develop a few very key relationships using Twitter at one time. Guess I'd better learn from Gary in that respect.
I would concur that not everyone would be paying attention, hence my earlier post regarding relevant, timed posts so that one can Tweet a thought, event updates, personal schedule updates, product updates, and the list goes on and on.
There's a lot of Tweets that go unnoticed for me. If you mention me, retweet me, DM me...then people get personal 1 on 1 with me. So I agree with you on the 1 on 1 aspect. However, a lot of times, when you have a bigger group discussing things...well, having a bunch of thought leaders on a topic and expressing their thoughts on the matter...can be irreplaceable.
Also, in doing so...it does give platform for said thought leaders to have this conversation where others can participate and/or retweet it to help "pay it forward!" Then more than just the person on the other end of a 1 on 1 would benefit. Instead of a communication that is mutually exclusive, it becomes public conversation. Conversation is 2 or more people conversing.
Personally, I like the "or more" part of the above comment.
How do you how "most people" feel? And I think you vastly overestimate the technological awareness and competence of the average person.
Current with what? I think it becomes more an obsessive-compulsive behavior than anything really useful in the majority of cases.
Show me the money... show me the ROI on the time you spend Twittering.
Yes, I know that's the idea. Whether that translates into reality is another matter.
If you're talking about marketing, the bottom line is sales.
No. Just don't fall into the trap of believing that having all those followers means anything beyond the obvious fact that you think it's important and put effort into acquiring them. How does that differ from Facebook, MSN Messenger, or anything else? More importantly, how is it any different from vanity plates for your car?
Well, I've done the whole "I'll show you mine if you show me yours routine" and a long time before I found this forum as well. I never understood the rationale of needing to see someone else's stats to believe something someone told you.
However, I see trying to further illustrate compelling, educational feedback to be moot with such a staunch effort to rip it apart. Albeit a worthy effort, I would think that as much time spent on debunking my theory would produce as much ROI as you claim Twitter produces...
Well, I've done the whole "I'll show you mine if you show me yours routine" and a long time before I found this forum as well. I never understood the rationale of needing to see someone else's stats to believe something someone told you.
However, I see trying to further illustrate compelling, educational feedback to be moot with such a staunch effort to rip it apart. Albeit a worthy effort, I would think that as much time spent on debunking my theory would produce as much ROI as you claim Twitter produces...
First, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm questioning the widespread claims and myths about social networking. It's not even about seeing your stats as much as it is about encouraging people to look very closely at their own stats.
To some extent, the same can be said about blogging. No matter how much sweat or money you pour into the effort, you are never going to have the kind of subscription stats that somebody like Matt Cutts or Shoemoney gets. People will subscribe to anything they write and listen to anything they say. What works for them is probably not going to work for the rest of us, the mere mortals. And it's a kistake to think that if it's not working for you it's because you're not trying or because you're doing it wrong.
Second, I am not claiming that Twitter nproduces anything in the way of ROI. In fact, I'm suggesting that for most people the opposite will be true.
Myself, I just don't see the ROI with twitter. My time is valuable and although twitter was a great tool when I started using it, right after it came out, and had a tight knit group of people I connected to, it has outgrown it's usefulness and now tries to demand time from me that could be better spent elsewhere.
Linear Mode
