by Pam Baker, veteran journalist and business consultant
There's lots of brouhaha over intimacy on Twitter. The crowdsource wisdom goes that one should follow only a few in order to establish more meaningful relationships. But for me, that's pure poppycock.
I use Twitter to find sources for my news articles, features and cover stories in a wide variety of national and international publications -- both online and in print. Following only a handful of people on Twitter will not cue me to emerging trends and hot topics. By the time something makes it to hashtag notoriety, the topic has already crested. I want the story BEFORE it crests.
A handful of followers are not enough to feed me the broad view -- or enough insight -- into any given topic. I need lots of input from many different people in order to write meaningful and useful stories. Therefore, the number of Twitter followers, and the number I follow, DO matter to me.
Yes, I understand the importance of listening. Believe me, I'm listening hard. That's how I know what subjects people are concerned about and what they want to read about. I also answer and participate -- but in many conversations, not just a few. Are these conversations intimate? Mostly, no. But they are genuine and personal and more often than not they are included in one of my articles which most of my followers find valuable to their business (either in the exposure or in the new information gleaned from the article).
My good friend, and uber blogger, Seth Simonds would obviously disagree. Last night, he ditched some 45,000 people he was following on Twitter. Today, he is painstakingly moving through each of them to hand-pick those he truly wants to follow and thereby better the conversations and the value to both follower and followee. That works for him and I salute him for his courage in using Twitter in the precise manner that holds meaning for him -- and Twitterville reaction be damned.
Twitter is a tool. Use it as it makes sense to you and your business, otherwise why are you on Twitter? If it's just to follow crowd-think you're missing the boat in both directions.
By the way, read Seth Simonds post just prior to this one. It's a hoot and you'll learn tons about blogging!
But links on twitter are valueless so what's the matter ?
Posted by: buy viagra | January 19, 2010 at 09:35 AM
My way, for example, isn't workable or desirable by everyone on Twitter. But that's OK, I need Twitter to produce results for me. I don't need validation that I use Twitter "correctly."
For the record, Seth, I don't think you're nuts :) I pretty much follow you everywhere.
And, yes, Gina, the quality of who you follow matters a great deal in any case.
Posted by: buy eve isk | June 17, 2009 at 05:52 AM
Does a bird singing in a forest of 45,000 birds have an audience? or does the audience just hear a forest with a lot of birds singing?
Posted by: maple story mesos buy | June 17, 2009 at 05:47 AM
Seth makes an excellent point -- his follower/following numbers are/were much larger than mine and that does make a difference in how we each handle Twitter opportunities and obstacles.
But that was also my point: use Twitter in a way that is meaningful and useful to you and your followers rather than simply copy what you see someone else doing.
My way, for example, isn't workable or desirable by everyone on Twitter. But that's OK, I need Twitter to produce results for me. I don't need validation that I use Twitter "correctly."
For the record, Seth, I don't think you're nuts :) I pretty much follow you everywhere.
And, yes, Gina, the quality of who you follow matters a great deal in any case.
Posted by: Pam Baker | May 18, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Hi Pam! Great post!
Thanks for following lots of people. You keep an eye on what they're saying and when you see something interesting, make sure you tweet about it. That way, since I'm following you and I see nearly all your tweets, I'll be very much aware of any story before it crests.
Sounds like a nicely leveraged network. =)
Gina, yes. I'm going for quality. Finding a balance between listeners and talkers. I don't think I'll miss out on anything. This was a move made with the idea of missing out on LESS than I ever have before. Pam might say I'm nuts, but I think she's still at a point where her numbers are manageable. I wasn't, so the stories are a bit different.
The take-away I'm hoping for is that more people understand that they don't have to follow everybody back or feel like they have to edit themselves in order to have a vibrant community.
Posted by: Seth Simonds | May 18, 2009 at 03:45 PM
What about QUALITY Followers. I'm a newbie at tweeting so I don't know the word, but I bet there is a special word for spammers and quitters.
Does a bird singing in a forest of 45,000 birds have an audience? or does the audience just hear a forest with a lot of birds singing?
Posted by: Gina Deeming | May 18, 2009 at 03:28 PM