To Twitter or Not to Twitter? Relevance? THAT Is the Question

By: Sam Ford, PepperDigital

I have to admit that I'm not much of a Twitterer. That's not to say that I don't think they can be extremely valuable in the lives of the people who use them, nor that they aren't valuable for companies to have dialogues with various audiences interested in their product, services, and brand. After all, we have our own Twitter account linked here in our sidebar, and we've advised clients multiple times on ways to get involved with the messaging site. But I just haven't found the way that it's particularly useful in my own daily practice at this point.

The problem many companies have with new technologies (i.e. virtual worlds) is that they believe they need to be on that platform just to be on them, rather than coming up with specific ways WHY people would want to connect with them, thinking through the type of outreach they want to do with the platform, etc.

Back in April, I wrote about this for the MIT Convergence Culture Consortium Weblog, concluding that:

Being at MIT and in a group researching where the media industries are headed, people sometimes expect you to use every new program or way of communicating that comes along. It's not that I don't find value in Twitter theoretically, it's that I don't find value for me.

I e-mail a lot. I feel good when I have no unread or unanswered e-mails in my inbox. I avoid instant messaging because I know I'll inevitably end up spending more time talking about whatever it is I should be doing with people I know than doing it. And when someone text messages me, I call them back. Perhaps I come from a more high-contact culture in Kentucky.

I understand the technological implications of the tool, but it's the everyday practice that matters to me, and I'll be glad to use it when it becomes relevant for my daily communication needs. That's what fascinates me in particular about the experimentation with the "Twebinar" of late.

Earlier this summer, Lawrence Hahn of the PepperDigital team wrote a post about the first of these "Twebinars," saying that, "With hundreds of people simultaneously Twittering , feedback from moderators and fresh perspectives from other attendees were constantly coming through.  As a Twitter newbie, I found this aspect of it particularly interesting; I had no idea just how pervasive this tool is in the daily routines of so many people."

Meanwhile, one of my colleagues at MIT--Xiaochang Li--wrote a post about it over at Big Spaceship, where she has been working for the summer. She writes about the experience that it seems people were more broadcasting their own positions rather than having actual dialogue.

She writes:

It strikes me that we shouldn’t conflate connectivity with conversation. Both are valuable, to be sure. While I didn’t experience a robust conversation about social media through twebinar, I did get linked to people who are thinking around some of the same areas as I am, playing the same spaces. By being able to connect directly to them through twitter, I’ve begun laying the ground work for what may, in the future, become the kind of conversation I had hoped would be possible.

I think these are important words to heed. It doesn't mean the "Twebinar" idea is a failure; it just means that the first iterations this summer are experiments at trying to find increasing ways that Twitter better fits the social needs of, in this case, those interested in social media as a business.

Others noted that not having a live conference to react to was disappointing, because the feedback using Twitter had no way of impacting what was happening among the speakers. Several also noted that the experience felt disjointed because keeping up with the plethora of one-off comments on the Twitter feed took complete attention away from the video, and watching the video closely almost necessitated ignoring the comments.

I'll reserve judgment, since this is all second-hand experience for me. But I do wonder: what will this lead to? The answer will ultimately be up to users, who will take what they find useful and discard what they don't. In the process, my guess is that people will continue to innovate what Twitter the technology is capable of to find new ways that Twittering as a social practice can be useful.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Jarrod Morgenstern]

I think that whatever communications method comes to the mainstream (call it Friendfeed, Twitter, IM, email or shouting from rooftops) the need for immediate and rapid fire interaction will be paramount. I know that twitter and other micro-blogging platforms provide this in a mobile, agile, easy way.

The uses for this particular medium have been well documented and as it gains momentum it becomes increasingly valuable. As more and more users jump on the twitter bandwagon, it will be more valuable for PR pros to use this to reach their target audiences.

Will it change the way we interact with others people at conferences or in every day life? Of course. But as PR pros, we must evaluate to this changing dynamic.

At the same time, being on Twitter for the sake of being on Twitter is a waste of resources and time.

[Rob Longert]

Jarrod's point about being on Twitter for the sake of being on Twitter is a good one. If brands are on Twitter, but are not taking advantage of the doors it opens for them, from a networking, customer service, and brand building perspective, why should they even be there?

Jeremiah Owyang had a great post today about the evolution of brands on Twitter, and really makes the point that becoming a part of the conversation takes time and is a process. He uses the metaphor of baby steps to walking to running, and it makes a lot of sense here.

Many of the questions and points you raise in your post are similar to what the industry experienced with the blogging boom, and it illustrates why and where clients need counsel on new technology and brand building opportunities.

It will be interesting to see the new ways in which brands use Twitter, but I also think the platform will evolve and offer brands more incentive to become part of the community.

[Sam Ford]

Jarrod, thanks for stopping by! I think you're taking the right approach. There are a lot of innovative things that could be done on a site like Twitter. The key is giving the technology to the community and then seeing what they come up with. Overhyping is where the danger coming in. Declaring yourself or having people declare you as the next big thing can be quite dangerous because it sets up false expectations. Further, trying to define what your technology does rather than letting social practice define it can be equally dangerous.

Rob, as you point out, the real difficulty is that brands will forever think they're being innovative by jumping on a new platform, but unbridled enthusiasm can be a dangerous thing, especially when proper thought isn't put into the purpose and focus of a campaign or, worse, how that outreach will affect the people you are reaching out to. I'm sure that, for all the best practices we've seen on Twitter, there are plenty of bad examples as well. I know that "viral" campaigns have provided plenty of both, as the various spammers who send me "targeted" (HA) e-mails has proven. And I'm not casting any stones because I'm sure every PR company has made some slip-ups along the way. The key is, as Jeremiah says, baby-steps. Don't take something to a mass audience if you're not ready for it. You have much less to gain than you do to lose if you do it wrong...Be part of the user-base of a platform for a while first. Get an idea of the culture and the feel. It's anthropology, and it works best if it's something you genuinely are interested in.

In the long run, the key is that this type of marketing and outreach works best when it's an audience you're comfortable with, a product you think is worth passing on, and a relationship that you've developed that makes it worth passing on to. Otherwise, all the "work" is actually doing more harm than good.