Recent posts on other sites and SEOno news

Just a quick post covering two things…

Recent posts on other websites

Just like with SEOno’s first post, every now and again I want to link to blog posts that I’ve written for other sites. There’s only two this time round…

Firstly, I’ve written another post for the online marketing blog of Liberty (my employer). It examines the difference in search volume between head terms vs. the long-tail. For example, a keyword like “shoes” may get a lot of people searching on it, but it may be more important for a business to focus on less popular (but less competitive, cheaper, easier-to-convert) keywords, such as the likes of “buy mens shoes.”

The second is a YOUmoz post, which is the UGC (User-Generated Content) section of SEOmoz, one of the world’s biggest SEO resources and my personal favourite. I’m a massive SEOmoz fan (read: I’m a massive geek), so it’s an absolute pleasure and honour to have had my post accepted. It’s about the word limit affecting the Google AdWords Keyword Tool, which could majorly affect people’s SEO keyword research, especially if they’re looking into short terms and phrases.

In the pipeline, there’ll be more content for the Liberty blog, another YOUmoz post and a guest article for Fresh Business Thinking. I’m also hoping to do a post for Cardiff Blogs (@cdfblogs on Twitter), after having attended their most recent event last month. If any of the above come off then I’ll be sure to link to them in a future post.

News about the blog

The main reason I wanted to update was to say that this’ll probably be the last post on the SEOno blog for a good month or two. The reason for the break in blogging is simply due to the fact that I’m getting married next week!

However, when I’m back, I have great plans for the blog, including a redesign (something I’ve had in mind for a while) as well as more SEO and #SMsceptic posts.

Until then, ciao…*

* A hint as to the honeymoon’s location (in fact, this font should too)! It’s my first time there, so if anyone could help out with a few vital phrases then that’d be appreciated!

The #SMsceptic: Why #FF / #FollowFriday is (mostly) pointless…

Whether a veteran or a casual user, many of those on Twitter will be familiar with the concept of #FollowFriday, which is often abbreviated to just #FF.

The concept is simple. Tell your followers – on a Friday – why they should follow another Twitter user and tag the tweet with #FollowFriday or #FF.

The concept, which was supposedly born in January 2009, has grown from one man’s tweet to a weekly phenomenon and tradition on Twitter. But the concept is flawed… or at least it is for the most part.

The right & wrong ways to #FF

I’ve talked before about how people get #FF “wrong” (see no. 8 of my first #SMsceptic post), in terms of not utilising it properly. After all, listing a ton of names is not going to benefit anyone, while mentioning one or two people and filling the rest of the tweet-space with a reason why they should be followed is much more beneficial to someone. “#FF [this person] because they blog about Cardiff” is likely to pique one’s curiosity more than “#FF [name] [name] [name] [name] [name]…”

However, a recent tweet by @miametro hit the nail on the head:

Just think about it for a moment…

Last Friday, when the people you follow all unleashed their #FF’s in near-unison, did you take the time to actually click on and look at any of the @mentions that were recommended to you, let alone follow anyone new as a result of them?

In this respect, #FollowFriday is flawed. The purpose is to follow someone’s recommendations, but we’re all too busy – and there are often so many – to actually invest the time to look at them all. If one’s curiosity is piqued (as previously mentioned) then it’s a possibility, as they might realise that they should be following a particular user recommended to them – especially if they have something in common, for example. But when someone simply lists a few dozen names in half a dozen tweets? Fat chance.

The psychology of #FF

So if very few people are actually paying attention to anyone’s #FollowFriday suggestions, then a) what is the point, and b) why does it continue to be a popular weekly activity on Twitter? I can think of a few reasons:

Stroking egos: #FollowFriday won’t go away for as long as the human race has egos. I don’t mean that in a negative, arrogant sense, but more that people love to feel loved and appreciated. I’d argue that the #FF is the online equivalent of the pat on the back more than it is a shout-out. Therefore, #FF won’t go away any time soon because people love to receive them. And when people receive, people feel inclined to give: I bet many #FF’s are a result of someone being included in someone else’s #FF and then thinking “oh yeah, maybe I should do one.” A bit like the chain emails of yesteryear – people passing on their #FF recommendations after they’ve been the subject of one.

Grabbing attention: #FollowFriday is a good way to get someone’s attention, particularly if it’s targeted someone the tweeter wants to be followed and/or noticed by. For example, a job candidate may #FF companies he/she wants to work for. They’ll appear in each company’s @mentions stream as a notification that the candidate has mentioned them. They may or may not follow the candidate, but the point is that they might not have seen him/her otherwise…

Following tradition & joining in: At the end of the day, let’s face it: Twitter is all just a little bit of fun. It’s very easy to get carried away with tradition and to join in with something because everybody else is involved. By doing a #FF yourself, you’re effectively joining in with the online “community,” if you will – “playing along” with one of Twitter’s many quirks and traditions. It may have grown out of proportion from its original and intended purpose (i.e. “follow someone because…”), but for as long as people enjoy giving/receiving them, the concept will continue to reign.

[“Cygnet file” image credit: Glenn Brown – also, kudos to Sarah (@miametro) for being ok with me referencing her tweet]

Modern music marketing: is what you don’t do more important than doing everything?

My evolution as a music lover over the years has basically gone something like this:

1. Buy everything I like on CD
2. Listen to everything on Spotify instead

Since discovering Spotify two years ago, shortly after it came out in the UK, I have stopped buying CDs. I don’t need them anymore. I’ve also run out of space for them in my house, but that’s just an aside…

These days, the majority of my music-listening takes place on a computer, so Spotify is fine for that need. 90% of the music I like is on there. I’m a proud premium user: I hate the ads and I am an iPhone user, plus I used to spend £10+ per month buying CDs (that’s about one CD per month), so I’d actually argue that the Premium is a bargain in comparison.

Even so, there’s just two albums I really, really want to buy on CD at the moment:

1. Adele’s 21
2. Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs

Why?

Because they’re not on Spotify.

As I said, “90% of the music I like is on there.” Whatever the reason for that other 10% not being on there, I’d argue that it’s potentially a good move on their part.

The musician’s mission is the musician’s dilemma

As a musician myself (from way back when), I can personally vouch for the two words that describe the goal of the little-known, unsigned musician: maximum exposure.

If/when we can afford the time and money, we market ourselves in a particular way because it’s the norm in the industry: we have to record demos or a proper album; we have to get a website made; we have to get on MySpace (once upon a time), Facebook, Spotify and various other social/music sites. The more you do, the better chance you stand. The goal is to maximise exposure, and by doing some or all of the above, you are attempting just that. I know because I did it. I even got myself onto Spotify, even though I’d stopped playing live by that point (note: for the curious among you who want to have a listen via that link, it’s the two EPs – the albums are by a different Steve Morgan).

Of course, fully-fledged signed musicians can be more selective, which their label/agents/managers/etc. will be responsible for, and yet Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner and more are all working with Spotify, according to Spotify’s Labels page.

Is this a bad thing? Yes and no, depending on how you look at it. No because it’s maximising exposure. Yes because it’s not profitable.

Spotify is not profitable to musicians. David McCandless’ infographic highlights the differences between Spotify’s royalties (£0.0012 per stream) and other ways a musician can earn money by selling their music. When Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” reached 1 million streams, the biggest news about it was the fact that she only earned £108 in royalties from it.

Pirates gonna pirate, but…

Arguably, tenths of pennies is better than nothing at all, say if someone were to download music illegally. Of course, if people are that way inclined, it’s likely that they’ll always download the stuff for free, regardless of whether it’s on Spotify or only available on CD.

However, what about those who don’t download illegally? Whether it’s a case of ethics, wanting to own ‘the real thing’ or they’re simply scared of ever getting caught, those who choose the non-piracy route (myself included) will want to hear the music by legitimate means. A CD might cost about £10, but Spotify membership is £10 monthly and I can listen to numerous albums without any ads interrupting. I know I’m basing a lot of this on my own experiences, but I’m sure I’m not the only one, and that a lot of Spotify users are in the same (or similar) boat at the moment.

So why wouldn’t a musician be on Spotify? It could be that their label hasn’t yet negotiated terms with Spotify, or maybe they simply don’t want to be on there. Adele’s latest album and Arcade Fire aren’t on there, so what’s the alternative? To buy the CDs or MP3s. If they were on there, I’d probably listen to them on there, without the need to buy the CDs.

Time for some quick maths: if I were to listen to the Arcade Fire’s album in full five times…

– It contains 16 tracks. 16 x 5 = 80. 80 x £0.0012 = £0.096, or £0.10 rounded up. 10p. Wow.

– Meanwhile, it’s £8.99 on Play.com.

Now there is the assumption that someone could listen on Spotify and then buy on CD as well, but that will still depend on a person’s needs. Someone might buy the CD so that they can listen to it on a proper stereo, in the car or so that they have the physical copy, but if someone can listen to an album for cheaper or for ‘free’ (depending on their type of Spotify membership), they probably will. Fair enough if you do, but why buy the CD if you don’t need to?

Profit comes from demand, demand comes from desire

I’m not saying that musicians have to become capitalists, plus there are other ways musicians can support themselves (e.g. touring and merchandise), but let’s be fair… The way the music industry is heading at the moment is ridiculous, with musicians expecting to pay money to record and release music that people will then listen to free or for a pittance – Spotify’s low royalty fees are reflective of that. That said, it can be argued that that’s a result of there being too much ‘supply’ and not enough demand: i.e. lots of people playing and recording music, with listeners only being able to invest so much of their time and money into a finite amount of music. Even if they are a fan of dozens or hundreds of different artists.

So what’s a musician to do? In the case of Adele and Arcade Fire, people who’d usually do all their listening via Spotify will be more inclined to buy a CD. For once, not achieving maximum exposure via every possible outlet might actually be beneficial to them, in that it forces people down a particular route, which might require spending more money than listening via a cheap or free alternative.

Of course, Adele and Arcade Fire have done really well in making themselves in demand. The former has appeared on everything recently, from about every radio station ever to the first episode of the most recent series of Doctor Who. The latter won a Grammy.

But then that’s easy for big artists like them, who are supported by big record labels. What about the small fry – the little guys – the unsigned? Well if you make all of your music available via Spotify and similar services, then less people will want to buy your CD. So give them a reason to want to buy: maybe only make your music only available via CD and at gigs. Create excitement. Create demand. After all, if you offer everything, people will gladly take everything.

Easier said than done maybe, but at the end of the day, if people want something that they can’t have for free, they’ll pay.

[Guitar case & money image credit: Brave Heart]

The #SMsceptic: The dangers of integrating and automating social media accounts

Picture the scene…

You dabble in social media for your [blank] (replace with website(s)/affiliate project(s)/company/clients or whatever’s applicable), making use of the main and most popular social networking sites: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and possibly even the brand new Google+.

You’re a busy person. Maybe you’re in charge of all the offline marketing. Or maybe you do SEO and PPC as well. So fitting in the social media work – something that would ideally need to be monitored on an on-going basis – seems like a tedious and time-consuming task.

(…Or maybe you’re just unapologetically lazy, who knows…)

So when you find out that you can integrate all of the various accounts together and can automate them through just one of them, it sounds like a dream come true. Post a tweet and it also appears on Facebook and LinkedIn. Boom.

Of course, integrating and automating social media accounts in this way can be godsend and a lifesaver for the busy individual. But what do you lose by doing so? Are there any risks involved? Is it really just worth going to the effort of logging into each account and posting separately, which might take slightly longer but ultimately have a greater effect and impact?

I’ll admit that I’ve not experimented or played around with every single possibility and outcome (I do personally prefer to post separately on each account), but the most popular way seems to be automating one’s tweets, so that Twitter is the main account and its tweets automatically appear as Facebook and LinkedIn status updates. While this may seem good and harmless on the surface, there are some downsides to venturing down the integration/automation path…

Lost in tw-anslation

Here are the five biggest observations I’ve noticed so far, where social media integration and automation has not worked out so well:

1. Tweets on LinkedIn: personal posts on a professional page

Perhaps one of the biggest sins I see committed with social media integration is when all of an individual’s tweets – both professional and personal – also appear on their LinkedIn page, a social network which is particularly more formal and professional than Twitter and Facebook. LinkedIn is great for talking about work-related and industry goings-on, but not so much when it comes to your weekend plans, the subsequent hangover or your thoughts on reality TV shows…

There’s the option to pick and choose which tweets you want to show on LinkedIn, by tagging tweets with “#in” (note: make sure that your Twitter settings on LinkedIn are configured accordingly). That way, your personal tweets can stay Twitter-based, whilst your more professional tweets can feature on LinkedIn and be presented to your more professional acquaintances.

2. Tweets on LinkedIn & Facebook: lost potential for longer posts

With Twitter’s 140 character limit, tweets will feature on Facebook and LinkedIn at the same length. However, LinkedIn and Facebook allow more room in their status updates than Twitter, so in this case, it may be worthwhile updating separately on those sites.

Arguably, short may be sweet, but sometimes the message can be lost when trying to squeeze it into the tight confines of a tweet. In which case, it may be best to type a longer, more in-depth message when posting to Facebook and LinkedIn, especially if it means avoiding abbreviations, trimmed words or txt speak.

3. Tweets on LinkedIn & Facebook: lost potential with links

While we’re on the subject – due to Twitter’s character limit restrictions, the platform thrives and relies on URL shorteners such as bit.ly and tinyurl.com. While these are great on Twitter for fitting more into the message, with the shortened URL taking up less character space than perhaps the lengthy original, when a tweet appears on Facebook and LinkedIn, the link will not be “attached” to the status update.

What does this mean? When sharing a link on Facebook and LinkedIn, you have the option to “attach” a link, which will show its title, a snippet (as its description) and an associated image (which you can usually choose, based on the page’s content). Otherwise, the alternative is just the written text link, as you would see it on Twitter. Although not the end of the world (after all, the link will still work), the description and image might help to make it more noticeable amongst all the other updates showing up on someone’s News Feed. You will be able to write a lengthier description of your own to go with the link, too.

4. LinkedIn & Facebook status updates on Twitter: the message is cut

In point #2, the issue was with losing potential with short tweets. This time, it’s the opposite: updating on either Facebook or LinkedIn and integrating it so that it automatically tweets on your behalf could mean that the message is cut, if it’s longer than a particular length (probably about 120 characters – maximum tweet length with a shortened URL).

Having a message that stops partway through a tweet with a “…” and a shortened link to either LinkedIn or Facebook to read the rest is pretty tacky-looking, I’m sure you’ll agr…

5. When integrating accounts, check all profiles

Of course, one of the most important things to remember is to check to see how an automated tweet/update looks on the other platforms. Just because you only have to update one site, doesn’t mean you should completely ignore the rest of them. Be sure to check the others, in case you encounter any of the above problems or something else entirely, which could affect your marketing efforts, even if only slightly – after all, everything counts.

[Robot vs. laptop image credit: Ѕolo]

The #SMsceptic: 12 things businesses (and some social media experts) get wrong on Twitter

Twitter Fail Whale - alternative art #1

This is the first of what I am hoping will be a series of posts, attributed to the hashtag #SMsceptic (a.k.a the “Social Media Sceptic”). However, before anything else, an explanation as to why I have taken this seemingly pessimistic, grumpy-old-man angle:

I’m not a social media expert, I’ll happy admit that. I’d much rather say that I’m an SEO expert because I know more about the subject (I don’t even consider myself to be an SEO expert, but I’m sure you get my point – if I had to say I was one of the two). I’ve merely dabbled with Twitter, having slowly but surely learnt the ropes – just like everyone else – and have been trying to figure out how it can benefit me and – in turn – how I can benefit others.

With social media becoming more and more popular as another channel for businesses to use to market and advertise themselves, the thing that truly baffles me is the amount of interest – and the amount of money being spent – on something that seems to provide very little ROI compared to other avenues of marketing. Of course, there are theories that social media should be treated as branding more than anything else, along with the fact that it complements and works alongside other forms of marketing and advertising, rather than simply standalone.

Either way, while you’ll hear many people singing social media’s praises, some have argued that it could be a bubble about to burst, similar to the dot-com crash at the beginning of the millennium. However, that said, I’m not saying that social media doesn’t “work.” I’ve heard some absolutely great case studies and success stories, although only a few so far and not as many as I would like, what with the current and on-going interest and fascination with the medium.

Also, it is still a brave new world, with many businesses only just starting to get acquainted, onboard and get to grips with the various social media sites out there. Although there isn’t anything like a handbook telling someone everything they need to know (then again, maybe there is? – prove me wrong!), but some of the things I’ve seen some businesses do have been annoying, embarrassing, cringe-worthy or all of the above. Hell, I’ve even seen people who call themselves social media “experts” to be guilty of one or two of the following…

1. Thinking a tweet with an @reply at the start is seen by everyone

I once heard someone say that one of their industry leaders had tweeted about something they’d said to their own followers, amounting to the 1,000s. Sounds impressive on the face of it, but it turned out that it wasn’t a retweet, but instead an @reply, in response to having been @mentioned by the individual originally.

The individual in question believed that the industry leader’s tweet would have been seen by everyone, i.e. all of that person’s followers, but of course, if one Twitter user sends another user an @reply (with the @reply at the start of the message), the only people who will see it are: 1) the person they’re sending it to, 2) anyone who happens to visit the sender’s profile at the time, until it’s buried by later tweets, and 3) anyone following both accounts. Therefore, this individual was sad to find out that instead of the possibility of 1,000s of people seeing their tweet, only a handful might have done. Ouch.

Oh by the way, did I mention that the individual was a supposed “social media guru,” who teaches people how to use Twitter? Double-ouch.

2. Sending a tweet with a mid-tweet @reply that’s personal (but is seen by everyone)

Twitter Fail Whale - alternative art #2If somebody were to post a tweet that said…

“Hi @twitter, did you get my email?”

…Is it an @reply that’s only seen by the only three types of people mentioned in #1? No. It’s seen by everyone, i.e. all of the sender’s followers at least. Some people mistakenly believe that because it’s an @reply, it is only properly seen by that individual. However, that is only the case if it appears at the beginning of the tweet. Place it further on and all of your followers will see it as well. Think about an #FF (“Follow Friday”), which contains multiple @replies – it is seen by your followers as a recommendation to your followers, assuming it begins with “#FF” (which they usually do).

So… Want to send an @reply to someone and you also want your followers to see it, say if you want to communicate something to a fellow Twitter user but want to broadcast it as well? Some people do the above (i.e. starting it with “hi”), or use similar alternatives: start the tweet with “dear @so-and-so,” put a full-stop at the start, etc. Otherwise, it’s only seen by the recipient, a profile visitor or a follower of both accounts. Which leads us to the opposite…

3. Sending a tweet with an @reply at the start that’s intended to be a broadcast

Conversely, who sees the following tweet?

“@twitter is my #FF for this week.”

Not your followers. The @reply is at the start, so it’s instead only seen by the people listed above: the recipient, the visitor, the follower of both (sounds like a modern-day version of either “the good, the bad and the ugly” or “the cook, the thief, his wife & her lover,” but I digress…)

4. RTing the same person constantly

Retweeting (or RTing) someone often isn’t necessarily a bad thing – a user might want to retweet a fellow Twitter user that’s important to them: a friend, a colleague, their employer, an industry expert, etc. However, retweeting the same person on a daily basis is more tedious.

After all, if you are simply going to retweet everything a person says, then your follower might as well be following them instead, especially if you spend more time retweeting others than tweeting yourself.

5. RTing EVERYTHING mentioned about themselves

If someone says something positive about a business on Twitter, then that business might be very well inclined to retweet it, and rightly so. However, doing so should be done in moderation. I see some companies retweet absolutely everything spoken about them, which is overkill.

If people do say a lot of complimentary things about you, retweet in moderation – perhaps only the best of the bunch, those that are absolutely glowing testimonials. Spread them out as well, don’t retweet them all in one go.

…In fact, while I mention it…

6. Tweeting too often (or all in one go)

Twitter Fail Whale - alternative art #3The best Twitter usage is natural, regular and spread out. If someone jumps into their Twitter account once a week and shoots off a ton of tweets all in one go, only to disappear again for another week, then it won’t appear to be any of those things.

I had to stop following one business’ account because they tweeted about sixty times in one 30-minute period. Whether it was them themselves or an agency on their behalf, it looked as though someone had some time spare, logged in and tweeted for the sake of it, simply to get the number of tweets up and their presence known. I found it so overwhelming – clogging up my feed at the time – that I just had to unfollow them. I was thinking of following them again at some point later on (thinking that they might have calmed down a bit later on), but if I’m honest, I don’t think I ever got round to it.

Admittedly, it can be difficult jumping in and out of Twitter on a regular basis in order to tweet more regularly, especially if the person managing the social media on behalf of a company has other responsibilities as well. But even popping in once a day for five minutes would be better than going mad for half an hour once a week.

7. Incorrect #hashtag usage (bordering on spam)

I have seen a self-professed social media expert behind this one, and you know what? It bugs the hell out of me.

They are based in London, and at the end of every single tweet that they post, they will throw a #London hashtag at the end. Makes some sort of sense – they’re based in London, so they are hoping that people following the #London hashtag (most likely people native to the city) will see their tweets and take notice of who they are.

The problem? Very, very few of the tweets actually have anything to do with London. Most of them are national – or even international – news stories. What’s London got to do with news taking place in America, even if you yourself – sharing the news – are based in London? Nothing. In my eyes, this is hashtag spam.

Don’t abuse hashtags. There are countless stories of businesses improperly using hashtags, causing more embarrassment and bad press for themselves than enquiries or sales. Only use them when they are relevant to what you are talking about. For example, I recently tweeted the news that Liberty are hiring. They’re #SEO roles, based in #Cardiff, so that’s fine. In hindsight, I probably should have included a #jobs hashtag, too – although arguably, #SEO and #jobs will be global (and therefore extremely fast-moving) Twitter streams, so I would have been impressed if anyone at all had noticed it, let alone anyone in the UK, Wales or Cardiff.

8. #FF legions of people without explanation

I’m pretty sure someone’s already covered this one in a blog post somewhere (sorry, I’ll edit the post and credit you if/when I find it again!)

Doing a #FollowFriday (a.k.a. #FF for short) that basically involves writing a long* list of people and nothing else isn’t exactly ideal. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that it is bad etiquette, but what benefit is churning out a long list of names?

The whole point of #FollowFriday is to recommend other Twitter users to your followers, so that they will consider following them, too. Just like with any recommendation or testimonial, you should give a reason why they should be followed. I don’t often tweet them myself, but when I do, it’ll usually be just one or two people, with an explanation as to why they’re worthy of my #FF for the week. Want to include more people? Do multiple tweets, each of them including brief explanations and reasons why.

* Well… “Long” inasmuch as Twitter will allow, anyway!

9. Providing off-topic facts & info

Twitter Fail Whale - alternative art #4I would argue that tweeting random facts is good. Sometimes it can be hard to think about what to tweet about (particularly for some businesses in some industries), so it can help to fill the void between more important tweets in addition to keeping followers interested and hooked.

However, I would argue the importance of keeping it relevant. Tweeting purely random facts – irrespective to your industry – is a bit much and a step too far. If I talk about SEO, chances are that my followers are following me because they are also interested in SEO. Therefore, random facts about SEO will probably be enjoyed by them. Random facts about animals, cars, our planet…? Probably not. It’s just not relevant to them. Instead, those types of things could be tweeted by veterinary surgeries, car showrooms and environmentalists, respectively, whose followers would probably appreciate it.

10. Bad spelling

This may seem like an especially petty one, but bear with me…

I’m not saying I’m a perfect speller. I moaned at myself recently about how I always forget to proofread my tweets before posting them. But my account is a personal account. Admittedly, Twitter is a spur-of-the-moment medium and when people act fast, they tend to make mistakes, regardless of whether it’s personal or business. But sometimes I’ve seen Twitter accounts run by businesses that are consistently lacking in proper spelling and grammar (although it’s fair enough to say that the latter’s especially hard when you’re restricted to 140 characters)!

My point isn’t that a business’ Twitter account should be run by someone who has flawless spelling and grammar skills. My point is that for businesses, Twitter is another form of advertising; of marketing; of media. A business would proofread and/or involve some level of quality control for their TV advertising, promotional literature, webpage copy, blog posts, etc., so surely Twitter should be treated with the same courtesy.

11. Tweeting the same things over and over

One Twitter user I know will say the same thing 5-10 times a day (albeit with slight tweaks to the wording sometimes), spread out throughout the day, each and every day, pushing their product or service. It’s as if they’re hoping someone will do a Twitter search for whatever it is at that exact moment and get in touch and enquire. If only it were that simple, huh?

I won’t do it because I don’t want to upset them, but I am really, really tempted to get in touch and ask if they have ever had an enquiry as a result of any of these tweets. Arguably, they might only take a few seconds to do each time, so it’s hardly a time-consuming effort that’s not paying off, but it doesn’t look very credible – in fact, I’d say it borders on desperation.

Just because you say you provide a product or service, doesn’t mean someone will definitely use you. Therefore, saying it 5-10 times doesn’t mean that someone is 5-10 times more likely to buy from you. Actually, they’re probably 5-10 times more likely to get annoyed and click the “Unfollow” button.

12. Getting lots of followers for the sake of numbers

Twitter Fail Whale - alternative art #5Unfortunately, a lot of marketing is a numbers game: number of impressions; number of clicks; number of visitors; number of page 1 rankings. For Twitter and Facebook, it’s typically the number of followers and “likes,” respectively.  Now it’d be utterly naïve of me to suggest that marketers should ignore the numbers as a benchmark, but oftentimes, quantity will trump quality to the point of silliness.

I believe this to especially be the case with social media, particularly with Twitter. For example, one tactic for increasing one’s follower count is to follow lots of people, some of whom will be obliged to return the favour. You get 1,000s of followers, but in order to get to that level, you also have to follow 1,000s. You can try to gear the followers that you want (e.g. you operate in the finance sector, so you follow other finance-related users, hoping that they’ll reciprocate), but ultimately, many of the people who do follow will probably be doing the same thing. You get 1,000s of followers, but how many of them actually give a damn about what you say? You can show it your client, manager or board or directors, but how many will be truly interested in what you do and – most importantly – what you can do for them or provide to them?

It may not please the client/manager/board because the focus won’t be on the numbers, but surely growing followers organically has to be the best approach in the long run. It may mean you get 100 followers in one month instead of 1,000, but arguably, that 100 are much more likely to be interested in what you have to tweet about. Out of that 1,000 on the other hand, there could very well be less than 100 who do.

It’s sad that sometimes follower count almost represents one’s status. Just because Person A has twice as many followers as Person B, it does not mean that Person A is twice as interesting, twice as important or twice as good at whatever it is they do. Anyone can go out and get a ton of followers – you can even go and buy them for dirt cheap, if that’s your thing (not that I’d ever recommend it, for many reasons). But the end of the day, it doesn’t mean jack. What does? Sharing good content (ideally stuff that you’ve produced yourself), conversing with others, giving tips and advice… All of which – I’m sure you will agree – is the whole point of Twitter and is probably why it became so popular in the first place.

So that’s it! Thanks for reading. But what you think? Have I forgotten anything obvious? Is there something you see businesses do every day that really drives you mad? Let me know via the comments…

[Image credits for the Twitter Fail Whale alternative art, in the order that they appear: first one by Paul Muller, the other four by kun530: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4]