The objective of any case study should be to show how to do something right; however, you sometimes have to point out the wrongs to make a point on how to do something right. Or, to show what not to do.
I've used an Excel spreadsheet to perform my Twitter tweet density analyses. I have used a "session" to analyze -- a session meaning a consecutive series of tweets at one sitting.
In the single session use of the one Twitter user, there were some 43 tweets. These tweets comprised 79.1% promoting Squidoo lenses, 16.3% with a Squidoo referral link, and the remainder for an online store. In the single session of the other Twitter user, there were some 35 tweets. These tweets comprised 82.9% promoting Squidoo lenses, 17.1% with a Squidoo referral link, and I don't believe any for an online store. The averages for these two users' sessions are 80.8% promoting Squidoo lenses, 16.7% with a Squidoo referral link, and 2.6% for an online store. The margin of error is probably less than 2%.
Do you remember what I blogged about yesterday; i.e. Chris Brogan's Twitter Etiquette? Let me repeat two of those points here:
Go ahead and revisit those numbers I've included: The averages for these two users' sessions are 80.8% promoting Squidoo lenses, 16.7% with a Squidoo referral link, and 2.6% for an online store. The margin of error is probably less than 2%. Ladies and gentlemen, neither Twitter user engaged any other member in these quick succession of tweets! Not only does this do a disservice to the Twitter followers following these two Twitter users, but it seriously floods Twitter with what is blatant self-promotion. And, it's virtually all Squidoo related! What in the world is this saying to other Twitter users when they see all this Squidoo Squidoo Squidoo stuff tweet after tweet after tweet.
- Promoting others and talking with others is a great way to show your participation to the community.
- Only blurting out your information and links doesn’t usually come off as friendly or community-minded.
Well, further analyses on the actual combination tweets showed some slight variation on some of the tweets -- nothing terribly major -- but some attempt was made to disquise the duplicate content. However, analyzing the tweets showed 16.7% for the same referral link. The density numbers for the other tweets were 3-4 minimum and higher. What that density number means is that the same lens is being promoted more than once in a single session -- and piggybacking off the second user for multiple tweets of a minimum 3-4 times. Some links exceeded the 3-4 times tweeted when combining the two sessions.
Has any of this analyses made sense? Do you get the point that I am making today? Twitter asks you "what are you doing" which is meant to encourage you to share and interact with your followers. I really don't think Twitter was intended to be a flooding marketing machine with machine gun, rapid fire tweets that clog people's in boxes. I seriously can't imagine any Twitter Power how-to book telling you to configure several dozen automatic tweets to promote the same content over and over again with multiple IDs. Do I dare say that this is not SPAM?
4 comments:
Hmm. Interesting analysis. Obviously some people just don't get it. One word comes to mind: karma. And one phrase: What goes around, comes around.
I did an analysis of my tweets some time ago and was happy with the results. I've also discovered that the more (hopefully interesting) personal tweets about my life (not about my links) results in more followers and more re-tweets of the tweets where I do include links.
Seems like it would be a good idea for everyone to do at least a cursory analysis of their own tweets on a regular basis, just to keep themselves on track.
Thanks Susan. Yes, I think you bring up a good point that each of us should be doing a cursory analysis of our own tweets periodically. Take a look at how many interactive tweets you have too! Have you chatted with another user at all? How about, do you retweet other 'valuable' tweets? Do you add value to the stream of consciousness rather than creating a flood? Do your followers see you tweeting and smile or do they RUN for cover and grab their rainboots?
Too many of us still think it's a good idea to just "throw it out and see what sticks". Complete nonsense, of course.
The online audience is smart, they recognize mindless promo instantly as the selfish, detached and asocial behavior that it really is.
When I see a tweet "I've updated mt Squidoo lens...", I think "who cares?". Rarely do I click on such a link, and mostly only if I recognize a dear Squidoo buddy. Interestingly enough, though, these updates often draw my attention to junk and spam producers.
Just look at out Twitter widget on the front page of SquidLog. At almost any given time, you can see update tweets from the worst crap on Squidoo.
Achim, how right you are about the crap that we are seeing in the name of Squidoo. It was through my recent twitter research that I came upon more CRAP that is so-called promoting Squidoo or using Squidoo's fine name to promote what is CRAP and SPAM. Twitter is being flooded with mindless self-promotion -- me me me kind of stuff. Thank GOD for the credible lensmasters such as ChefKeem and Susan52 who can be a beacon of light, an example of all that is right, to help lead us through all the foggy content. Thank you.
Post a Comment