I participate in a lot of Twitter chats. Granted, I’m no @LttleWys, but I at least lurk in a few every week. The one thing I’ve noticed is the ‘power’ Twitter users, say those with over 50,000 followers, almost never join Twitter chats. UNLESS they are the co-host/guest host. In other words, if they can’t be the center of attention, it’s not worth their time.
In fact, I started looking at the Twitter streams for a few of the ‘big name’ Twitter users. I saw the same pattern: Twitter bigshot throws out statement, such as ‘The best marketing doesn’t feel like marketing at all’, or some-such business witticism. Then the Twitter power-user spends the next 30 minutes answering @ replies to his statement.
Folks, that’s not engagement. I even tweeted this, saying something like ‘If all you do is answer tweets directed at you, then you aren’t engaging, you’re responding.’
Then after about 5 minutes of responding to ‘amen!’ replies to my statement, a tiny voice inside my head said ‘hey dumbass, you just did the same thing you were trying to call out the Twitter ‘power’ users for doing’. Oops.
Is that being social? Really? And if you think about it, that’s how most of us use social media, because that’s how these sites have trained us to do it. Go look at your Facebook newsfeed: It’s an endless stream of friends and connections throwing content out there, then other people responding to it. We’ve been taught that the content that gets the most reaction is the ‘best’.
In other words, we’ve been taught that social media is about creating content that gets the most Likes, the most RTs. We’ve been taught that these represent levels of engagement.
Folks being engaged with someone’s content is NOT being engaged with them. And if someone IS engaged with your content, that doesn’t mean you are engaged with them.
‘Dude get off my back, the majority of my tweets are replies! I engage!’ Really? Are those replies where you tweet someone out of the blue and ask them how their day is going, or do those replies come from you sitting back and fielding replies to your cutesy statements that you tweet out every couple of hours?
Think about it.
We don’t always have to be the center of attention. Social Media is a wonderful idea, but instead of focusing on the SOCIAL part, it seems we are gravitating more to the MEdia part. It’s all about creating content that draws attention to ourselves. And to be fair, I’m just as guilty of this as anyone.
So what do you think; Is Social Media making us more or less social? We’ll be getting all social and discussing this tonight at #DadChat, starting at 8pm Central on Twitter. #DadChat is run by my friend Bruce Sallan, who has asked me to co-host tonight’s topic.
I’m looking forward to the discussion, hope to see you there!
Great post, Mack. Love the points you made and the self-assessment that occurred there, too.
Honestly, social media is predicated on people wanting attention. While sure, there are ways to be a good natured soul here and shower others with the accolades, etc., but when you get down to the core of the platforms we use, they’re all capitalizing on our human need to be loved:
Blogs – I think my ideas are so important, I will publish them and people will comment and praise me and I’ll build an ‘audience’ because I’m so smart.
Twitter – I think the quips and stuff that pops into my head is so important, I want other people to see it. Sure, I’ll chat with folks, but at my core, I want people to see what I have to say.
Facebook – Twitter with pictures!
And so on.
The key is understanding that motivation, that it’s not your only motivation and that it can be good. If people like Stephen Hawking or Ayn Rand or name of innovator here wasn’t egotistical enough to think “Yeah … I want people to see this!” our world would suck. There’s a way to use attention wisely and balance the base desire to just get attention.
Then there’s the notion that some people are introverts and don’t really like the attention. Those (my friend Rob May is a perfect example) are hopeful their ideas touch a nerve and make someone pay attention, but they don’t want the attention on them, rather the idea. Still … you have to be willing to whore it a bit to get folks to see it in the first place.
I’ve always said blogging (and social media on a wider scale) is inherently driven by ego. But ego isn’t always bad. Too much of it is. The key is self-awareness so you know when you’re going too far.
Fair?
Hey Jason, thanks for chiming in. Totally digging your point about motivation and if the MEdia portion of Social Media is your only motivation. I was talking to @BrandAutopsy last year about speakers, and I told him I thought there were two types of speakers: Those that want the spotlight on themselves, and those that want the spotlight on their ideas.
I think it’s similar with social media, although with varying shades of grey. We NEED people to be excited and passionate enough about their ideas to throw them out there and see what happens. And perhaps the best thing about social media is that it gives us the tools to more quickly and easily get our ideas out there. Which leads to collaboration and conversations.
But as you said, we need a balance. I think those that truly excel in using social media understand that need for balance, and do a great job of not only getting the ideas out there, but cultivating the conversations that they can create.
I hope you’ll join us tonight at #DadChat Jason…we can talk about ME and my blog, my family, my skiing, and what I’m thinking RIGHT at the moment! lol…great points!
You definitely make great points here Mack. I’m much more inclined to engage with people who don’t just throw out the token statements, but take time to create a true conversation. And especially in a Twitter chat, we should all be equals!
I love Jason’s quote though: ” If people like Stephen Hawking or Ayn Rand or name of innovator here wasn’t egotistical enough to think “Yeah … I want people to see this!” our world would suck.”
Nick you’re right, sometimes creating a conversation is damn hard work. Like you, I love Twitter chats because they remind me of the ‘early days’ of blogging where comment streams would go on for days and we would all build off each other’s points and a vibrant conversation was the result.
I wonder if we are losing those conversational skills a bit, when it comes to social media? Crap, I’m supposed to be saving this stuff for tonight 😉
Thanks for a dead-on piece. Made me think of the recent article in The Atlantic about Facebook and the rise in loneliness associated with the wider but shallower friendships that social media cultivates. Like this post, that article nailed it.
(http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/8930/)
So what can you do? If you’re in marketing, it’s an essential part of your job now. You can’t completely unplug, but you shouldn’t get sucked down into social whoring, no matter how far it takes your career. Smartphones make it even harder to maintain the balance. It takes real discipline now.
One of the best suggestions from the Atlantic piece was using social channels to build real offline relationships, like at events or conferences or locally. For me, as a “part-time” or situational introvert, that’s the real upside. Forcing yourself to spend some time away from screens, and disabling some notifications, helps keep us rooted in the real world and the real people around us … that might seem less social, but think about how you feel when you’re with someone who constantly checks their phone for tweets, Facebook/Foursquare/Yelp notifications, etc. That’s not social, that’s ADD.
Such a great AND important question you’ve asked, Mack…it WILL be powerful tonight for everyone who is smart enough to join us! Or, should I say “Social” enough? Lol…thanks for bringing your insights and inspiration to all of us via #blogchat and gracing #DadChat tonight…the chat for anyone who is a parent or was a child!
Mac,
Another great post. One of the reasons your blog is on my must-read list.
Your observations raise difficult questions though: if merely responding to audience members who engage you is not a sufficient measure of engagement, what is? Is it reasonable to expect these “power users” (who have thousands and thousands of followers) to try to actively and individually engage with their entire audience on a consistent basis? And what could/should they be doing to have more meaningful engagement with people (rather than content) through social media?
Mack,
Good post! By coincidence, I just posted a video interview today with Kinsey Schofield, a popular social media strategist often seen talking about how to do this stuff and why. Hope you’ll take a look: http://www.mrmedia.com/?p=4557
Thanks!
dead-on, I feel the we all may be slipping and loosing some of our conversational skills…
BTW Mack, did you invite the sign-holder to join us tonight at #DadChat? Please do!!!
I cant say I have not 100% fallen victim to what you are describing because I seek attention from certain things and I would say that if people like my blog, then they are engaged. Whoa! on the flip, I do reach out to people and ask about things going on in their lives, what they are reading, how their business is doing etc. It’s tough though and when you have 50K followers, it seems much easier to throw out a statement to strike up a conversation with multiple folks – no?
Christina I like your comment about ‘engaging’ with 50K people and the more I think about it, I may be wrong on this. I still think some of the ‘big shots’ throw out statements to get answers because they really do crave the attention. But it could also be a sign that they are trying to find a way to stay connected with 50K people.
And back to Jason’s original comment, I guess it all comes back to the motivation behind the actions. If we want to be social, we’ll find a way to use the tools to be social. If we want to use the tools to put the spotlight on ourselves, we’ll do that.
I love it when y’all make me think 😉
Twitter chat is a great way to share insights and learn from other. Other use social media for only socializing and be a center of attraction. They forgot the real true meaning of social media.
I very much appreciate your honesty and openness in this post Mack. And I agree that some power users are self-focused and even arrogant.
However, I wasn’t clear on what you would define as “engagement.” How can I tell an engaged Twitter user from a self-centered one? I think there is a distinction to be made there but I’m not sure exactly what it is.
Your topic made me think of one power Twitter user who does an incredible job engaging his audience: Justin Bieber. That young man knows how to interact frequently and meaningfully with his *21 million* Twitter followers. And more than half his tweets are quite direct marketing messages! (But he does it in a very savvy way IMHO). Follow him for a couple of days to see how he does it. (How I ended up following “JB” is a story for a blog post someday. 😉
Great #blogchat tonight by the way. I have half an envelope of scribbled notes of “things to do” from all the great tweets!
Oh wait. I think I got the distinction–and it came to me from reading your Bio. See what you think:
You write, “Don’t focus on the tools, focus on the connections that the tools help facilitate.”
People who *engage* desire a genuine connection with their followers.
Self-aggrandizing power users bask in the self-congratulatory glow of multiple @ replies and Retweets and could care less about a real connection.
I would agree that most people with a large following on any social network are getting more stubborn. That being said, I have also seen that Google+ has a great group of people that tend to respond quickly. Guy Kawasaki has over 1.5 million followers on Google+ and he responds to most of my plusses.
This is to address Mark W’s comment… Justin Beiber has an entire staff & entourage who “answer” his tweets, monitor his inboxes, and fix his hair, among other things. I’d like to think they might even point out an interesting tweet to him once in awhile, but that’s because I’m still an optimist. The rest of us either remember to pick up the quart of milk on our way home from work or just do without.
Sorry…typo… Bieber…
People who are active on social networks feel a need to prove something and to show everybody they are living a fulfilled life. Why do they feel this way? Deep rooted insecurity and lack of self-esteem would seem to offer the answer to that question. ‘Confidence is quiet, insecurities are loud’.
In reality, everybody likes some attention. The problem with social media is that it takes attention-seeking to a whole new level. The very nature of it draws out the inner attention whore and narcissist. Needless to say – this is likely to be problematic.
Everyone wants the world to know three things on social media:
1. How happy they are
2. How popular they are
3. How fun their lives are
Again, one could ask, why do they feel this need to prove themselves on all three counts? What is the underlying psychological impulse which prompts such people to behave in this manner?
Social media is just a playground for people to boast, brag and show off. It has little to with sharing one’s life and connecting with others – because if that was truly the case – people would be sharing every aspect of their lives (including 90% of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, like reporting on failed relationships, failed marriages, affairs, etc.)
People only post stuff which reflects well on them. In other words, it’s selective and therefore not representative of the truth. People present a curated version of themselves essentially and a very convenient one which allows them to portray a life that is not necessarily reflective of reality.
I want attention as far as business goes, yes very much so. I am not out to make romantic relationships with people. But I always like the posts of people that I follow even if they never like what I post. If they are not interesting me any longer and if they never comment to me, then whatever to them. They are just there for likes. You make a great point about communication. It is good to try and make real connections with people.