Twitter can improve your sex life
There is a debate raging across the Twitternet. At stake is the future concept of the Follow list. Entire conversations hang in the balance.
After the first article, Dave Trott replied:
@headfirst_dom I didn’t quite understand why I should follow lots of people v selective perception, maybe you could flesh it out.
Damn. Trott and his insistence upon persuasive strategy.
Well OK, let’s take a shot at that.
I had argued that Twitter was Social Networking, not Social Friendship. My approach was to attack Dunbar’s number as applied to Twitter Follows. I was right to do so. Dave’s comment regarding selective perception is something else entirely.
It concerns the very start of the debate and the comment about Dave’s small number of followers.
Having lots of followers has clear advantages, foremost of which (for me) is that you get your message out to more people.
Working in advertising that’s important.
So what about the other way around?
There are two questions here: the first one of why should Dave follow more than 30 people and the second of why he should follow lots of people v selective perception.
The second question is easy.
He shouldn’t.
Selective perception is absolutely the way to go.
I don’t follow Stephen Fry. Nor do I follow Philip Scofield, Ashton Kutcher, John Cleese, Derren Brown… the list goes on.
To varying degrees I enjoy the work they do. It’s just on Twitter I have found that they don’t enrich my life. I don’t really care who is on GMTV and I don’t really care whether Stephen Fry is stuck in a lift. As for Demi Moore’s bottom… well, what’s the point?
I chose to switch them off. Selective perception wins out.
There are millions of Twitter users. Surely it is possible to be both selective and follow lots of people. Given the numbers and the demographics involved it is likely that of these many millions, an individual will find more than 30 people who could enrich their lives and provide stimulating insight and accounts of their daily lunch habits.
This isn’t Sodom and Gomorrah here. Finding more than 30 people to follow shouldn’t be hard.
Of course that means making a judgement call on why we follow people.
I know why I do.
I follow people who are active in my field in my community.
Because their views are often exciting and stimulate my own.
I follow writers who offer insights into the way they work.
Because their insights can help me in my work.
I follow damn funny people.
Because I’m learning to smile.
I follow followers of followers.
Because I’ve come to trust some followers and believe in recomendations on #followfriday
I follow competitors.
Because SOMEONE has to keep an eye on those pesky kids.
I follow Demi Moore.
No, I don’t.
I follow because I can find a few statements amongst the daily chatter that interest me or excite me or provoke me. I follow because I look for debate. I follow in the same way I read more than one newspaper each day, flick through more than one website a day and talk to more than one person a day.
Because ideas can be found in the most unusual, most unexpected of places.
And these unexpected places are everywhere on Twitter. So that must make them expected… OK, let’s move on.
Twitter gives us a chance to connect. To connect to people. To exciting, stimulating, surprising, inspiring, sweary people.
And it’s an ad-man’s dream to be able to connect, in some way, however briefly, however superficially, to these people.
Here’s an example courtesy of the man who started this:
Twitter is free, completely live, market research. Doing an ad for running shoes? Follow some runners. Put them into a group called “Runners” and watch what they talk about. Maybe dip in and reply, ask a question or two, prod and poke them (gently) for responses.
Of course you don’t have to Follow to get this sort of research. You could run searches and pick out the comments. But that’s not selective. And you have no hand in guiding the debate. You are passive, not active.
So, 30 people? Are they likely to provide (given that most people don’t Tweet on a regular basis) all the stimulation, all the insight, all the debate, all the surprise you could need?
Why should you follow more than 30?
Why not?
Really good argument, very thorough, very well reasoned.
I can follow the logic easily.
I agree with everything you say.
I still don’t quite understand why I need to be following more than 30 people on a regular basis.
I already do what you recommend.
Read lots of other people on twitter, follow links, look for amusing, entertaining, interesting people (or people I know).
So far I’ve only found a few I care to follow regularly.
For me it’s a bit like buying a CD for one track and forcing myself to play the entire thing every time, even though I only like the one track.
I’m a simple guy, I look at lots of stuff, some of it sticks, most of it doesn’t.
What could be much more useful is what you say about starting groups.
That’s really interesting.
But remember, I’m a creative not a planner.
What you say could be really useful to people gathering data.
I’m usually just looking for stimulation.
Thanks for writing this piece.
I now know a lot more about twitter than I did.
And I really like your style of writing.
Absolutely.
From a planners point of view Twitter is a fantastic was of finding great links, great comment and great debate in a stupidly convenient format when I open my browser. There might be a limit somewhere, but 30 isn’t it; I follow hundreds and its still manageable… its how I got here for a start.
Nice post.
As a relatively recent, now very enthusiastic, convert to Twitter I find myself trying to explain to people why they should get involved. Invariably they ask ‘why do people use Twitter?’. I struggle to answer that question. I can’t really explain why people in general use Twitter. I find it’s much easier to explain why they, specifically, might use Twitter.
Because I think the individuals we are offline plays a big role in how we approach something like Twitter. So Dave Trott uses Twitter in a very Dave Trott way.
I’d suggest that in the broadest sense, Dave Trott has followers. On or offline, he’s achieved a position in his field that means people follow him. His name’s been on the door of several significant agencies. His blog resides on Brand Republic. People follow him in the simple sense that he has a public, influential voice.
At the same time, he follows people. He has lunch with David Abbott and discusses Bill Bernbach (http://tinyurl.com/yg27lz3). I’d guess his exposure to interesting people with provocative ideas is pretty regular. That is, as they say, how he rolls.
So how Dave Trott uses Twitter reflects this – a few people to follow, as many followers as feel so inclined.
Most people sit somewhere near the other end of the spectrum. I have a paltry 61 people following me. The last door my name was on was a gym locker. My blog resides here (www.philiponeill.com) patiently waiting to be discovered.
For me Twitter provides exposure to a great many interesting people from whom I might learn. I can’t access them any other way. And, over time, Twitter might allow me to influence a few people, to convert them to followers, to perhaps build a reputation, attract a new client, maybe even position myself for a dream job.
I’m pretty sure Dave Trott isn’t hoping to get the same things from Twitter I am. So he uses it differently. Which feels like the beauty of it. How it works is beautifully simple and exactly the same for everyone. What it delivers is beautifully simple but potentially different for everyone.
Hi Phillip,
That’s also a really interesting reply, I’m learning a lot here.
Just let me clarify what ‘a Dave Trott way’ is.
Because I’m a creative, it’s a bit different to being a planner.
Our mantra could be ‘It’s better to be wrong and interesting than right and dull’.
All that means is, when trawling for stuff, we’re like magpies.
We’re only looking for the bits that interest us.
Not the bits that reflect what everyone’s thinking.
Not the truth.
So why I only follow a few people is I don’t want a lot of clutter.
One of the guys I follow is badbanana.
I don’t know who he is, but he’s very funny.
Everything he says makes me laugh.
Another one is shitmydadsays.
Same reason.
Another one is Homersimpsonquotes.
Same reason.
Anyone who can put up regularly interesting tweets, I’ll follow.
Now if I followed a thousand people I’d have to trawl through all their personal conversations to sift out what I want.
Why would I do that?
I’m not interested.
Plus which, most of them are conversations with their friends.
So all I get is “Right babe, totally agree.”
Or, “Looking good. See you there.”
Or, “No. No way. Don’t even fucking think about it.”
Not only are these conversations nothing to do with me, I can’t even hear the other side.
This is like eavesdropping.
Why would I do that?
On the tube people listen to iPods to get away from this sort of stuff.
What Dom said about building lists is truly interesting.
For anyone gathering data or following trends, this is a great tool.
Since Dom mentioned it, I’ve already talked to our planners about it.
But I’m not doing either of those things.
If David Abbott or Bill Bernbach were on twitter I’d follow them.
Because they know more than me and I can learn from them, and they’re funny guys.
If I’m not getting information or entertainment, why would I follow anyone?
That’s not how twitter works Dave. If someone I follow sends a message to their friend, I only see that message if I am also following their friend. So I would see both sides of the conversation, not just one. If I’m not following their friend, I simply don’t see it.