Results tagged “social media” from VANTAN.ORG

I’ve noticed a trend - at least, on my own Twitter profile - where a number of random Twitter users start following me. Their Twitter usernames and posts are about subjects that have little relation to my own tweets. This makes me suspect that they may not be following me out of genuine interest.

This suspicion is heightened when I notice that they are following many people but have very few followers themselves. This is a tactic used by newcomers to gain followers based on the principle of reciprocity - if you follow me, I feel obliged to follow you back.

Back in the early days when the Twitter community was still small and cosy, it was considered polite to return the interest shown in your tweets. We early adopters knew each other on Twitter, so it was like an extension of our friendship and recognition of each other’s presence.

On my part, I started using Twitter thanks to a recommendation by Coolinsights. Later, at SXSW 2007, Twitter was promoted by various respectable figures in the Interactive community as the next big thing and I started using Twitter more frequently. It took a while before the Singapore community caught on in a big way, but I think we’ve made up for the lag. I now have many real-life friends on Twitter.

Now, however, with businesses and politicians jumping onto the Twitter bandwagon (as they did with blogs previously), you can’t really be sure if their tweets are written by them or by some PR agent. You also wonder if they’re following you because they’re really interested in you as a customer or constituent. I tend to think this is the exception rather than the norm.

So likewise, I view new followers of my Twitter profile with either gratitude or scepticism. I recognise the real followers based on some profiles, such as:

• Being a real human being, instead of a company
• Being a Singaporean / Asian or an expat working in the region
• Having some interest in common with me (alumnus, geek, musician…)
• Being the real friend of a real friend of mine

From experience, these are the followers who will stay on, because they have a genuine interest in what you have to say.

On the other end of the spectrum, I tend to regard these followers as fickle:

• Those clearly representing a company or cause which I may not be interested in
• Those talking only/mainly about their company and its products
• Self-proclaimed social media/marketing gurus (whom I’ve never heard of) who promote their expertise very heavily and therefore must walk the talk by showing they have a large number of Twitter followers themselves. The truly famous gurus don’t need to follow me; we’re the ones following them!
• Random strangers, some of whom appear to have links with the soft porn industry or similar trashy affiliations

Don’t celebrate if a horde of them decide to start following you, because you may lose them as quickly as they came.

Because I have observed how easy it is to gain and lose followers quickly, I was cynical when a local paper featured a young boy who had the most number of Twitter followers in Singapore. That was not a very objective observation, because one can easily attain that number if you follow even more people - at least, in the early days of Twitter. Even if 20% of the people you follow don’t return the favour, you could still gain a huge number of reciprocal followers. At a glance, it is certainly impressive - but I’m more interested in how these numbers came about and whether it can be maintained.

For a more accurate gauge of one’s popularity on Twitter, we should instead look at the ratio of people followed versus the people one is following, and not only at the absolute number of followers one has at that point in time. Even then, we all have our own way of defining what a ‘success’ is. Some use Twitter as a means to an end (self-promotion, networking, landing that next marketing job) while others may play the numbers game.

Also, we should look at the dropout rate for that Twitter profile over a period of time. It is not easy to sustain a huge following, especially if other users followed you simply out of politeness (a short-term tactic). As time goes by we will follow more people and the list of updates will grow longer. Some of us may then start to trim our lists and only continue to follow other users who post something of interest to us.

So my theory is that over time, the genuine Twitter conversationalists will sustain their followings and enjoy a gradual but steady increase, while those who rely mainly on reciprocity without adding value to their Tweets, may enjoy bigger growth spurts but will also experience a higher dropout rate. These falling numbers however can be covered up if you continue following new people on Twitter who follow you back.

The take-home point is to be genuine both ways: as a Twitter user (in posting updates) and as a follower. It saves everyone a lot of trouble in the long run because you’ll get updates from people you’re really interested in, and you’ll have conversations with other people with common interests. Less is more.

As with all other forms of social media: Once a fad matures, one’s success comes from staying genuine (and interesting).

Want to find out which are the hottest buzzwords on Facebook? Check out Lexicon, which was launched on 15 April 2008.

Lexicon counts occurrences of words and phrases on Facebook Walls, over time. I made a few searches.

Not surprisingly, “Obama” appears more frequently than “Clinton.

The sharp spikes make sense as they corresponded with interest in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, particularly Super Tuesday (5 Feb 2008) which accounts for the highest peak so far.

For targetted marketing, it would be better if we could narrow our searches further, within specific networks - such as Facebook users in the Singapore network. It’s good to think global, but sometimes words and phrases have different meanings in different cultures.

Also, while Lexicon indicates what Facebook users are interested in, it doesn’t indicate if people are for or against it. A keyword could appear many times but what if Facebook users were talking about a campaign AGAINST it? I have yet to prove my case, though, as there were no results for the phrase ‘child porn’ and limited results for ‘pornography’.

In the meantime, we can at least assure ourselves that even on Facebook, Love is all around.

Here’s my account of how the panel went, with added thoughts thrown in. Kevin thinks it didn’t work out due to technical glitches, but I can assure him the audience loved him. I’ll add more blog links once they come up.

It was exciting seeing Kevin on screen. At least it was better than our own Media Socialist video conferencing attempt a couple months ago, as he had backup systems (Skype and Twitter). I also met the other panelist, Stuart, who was obviously a very polished speaker. He was in the middle of conducting a course and stepped out just for this talk.

I was the first panelist to speak, on how large organisations and Government agencies could use Web 2.0. I didn’t think most of my projects were particularly sexy, so I didn’t go into details or plug my URLs. From my point of view, large organisations already had their Web 1.0-style media, such as corporate websites and digitised brochures. They have to adapt to a new mindset and not all are ready for it yet. Also, the sustainability of Web 2.0 applications was important and that was why we didn’t go ahead with all projects.

I was surprised to be boo-ed so early at this point by a well-known social media practitioner, but I hope I explained our reasons clearly. The specific point I was making at the time, was that while we already had other Web 2.0 projects like blogging and podcasting, we decided not to go with a Wiki to replace our health articles because of public safety reasons.

Judging from the pitches we’ve received to endorse dubious products and services (e.g. asking for our logo to be placed next to their ‘health’ products), opening up our health information to the world for editing may not be safe. Also, I noted that Wikipedia has over 900 3,950 volunteer editors making sure that unreliable information and sales pitches don’t stay on the site for long. If we can’t sustain a new Web 2.0 application that relies on crowdsourcing for information, then we shouldn’t start one until we’re ready.

Another point I wanted to add during the talk but didn’t, was that I’ve seen many cases of people jumping onto the blogging and Web 2.0 wagon, hoping to reap its benefits without fully understanding its impact. On one occasion I’ve even heard a criticism of someone else’s website as “not looking Web 2.0 enough”. Having glossy banners, big shiny buttons and large text is just a facade. In fact it is the mindset behind the operations that will prove whether something is really Web 2.0 or not. Is the organisation open to receiving criticism and taking the issue further, on its blog? Or will it only respond to newspaper forums and letters, as tradition dictates?

If you’re in a large corporation, try starting a Web 2.0 project. It will give you insights as to how open and collaborative your departments are.

And let’s not forget Web 2.0 is still a means to an end. We want to meet new people, or build on existing relationships. We want to share our photos and our videos. We want to share information or let people collaborate on our work. In the past this was harder to do, which makes the present more exciting. Web 2.0 is an enabler and a ‘flattener’ (to borrow the term from Thomas Friedman) because it breaks down some barriers to entry. That brings things down to the same level, and that’s when we realise that it is still the value of your content and ideas that will help you stand out from the crowd.

I started out as a dotcommer but have been in the public sector for the past 4 years. So when ‘monetisation’ came up as a question, I was wondering what I could say that would be of value to the audience! The only examples I could give were from my personal blog - the Thinking Cap I designed for Ivan, which garnered a few sales on Cafepress.com, and my Amazon.com Associates referral scheme which has garnered me several US$ in sales after writing some book reviews.

I understood Gurmit’s point, evil adman though he may come across as, because it is some people’s jobs to make money from Web 2.0, while the rest of us play about with it. It is not my job to make money from it as we’re suppose to disseminate reliable health information. However I’m sure many of us wouldn’t mind making some money out of our blogs either!

Stuart noted that to follow this model of putting ads on your site, you need more than 100 readers. This is where internet marketing comes in. But as Kevin pointed out, there’s also a social value from Web 2.0 and if the idea is good, the money will come later. He was rightfully applauded for that.

It was good to meet some of you at the talk today. I am bad with names but I see you on Twitter. Thank you for coming to our talk. Thank you November, NTT, Farinelli, Raine and Nick. Thank you also to Marcus, Ridza and the rest of the team for organising this event.

I would’ve liked to reveal more at the talk, but didn’t think it was appropriate in my capacity especially as I’m not a decision-maker and can’t speak for other agencies either. I am happy that Singapore may join the Creative Commons, based on what the Creative Commons folk at SXSW told me - they too have no definite idea. I think it is a great idea to improve one of our systems for vendors, and build a platform for the public to contribute info in emergency situations. Like I said, I can send these suggestions to the relevant folks. I hope something comes out of it.

To those who came, in the spirit of SIA I say: “Thank you for going to our panel. I know there are other social media events that you could have chosen to attend today.” :)

The BBC had a quick clip on how technology has played a major role in delivering news of the Burmese military junta’s crackdown on monk protesters. During the previous protest in 1988, there was little footage for the outside world to watch. This time, whether the junta is ready for it or not, every move they make is filmed and photographed and sent to news agencies and other respositories around the world.

“Before, they were moving things hand-to-hand and now they are using the internet - proxy websites, Google and YouTube and all these things.”

Let’s not forget Flickr. This user has ground zero photos of the clashes between the military and the monks. Take this photo for instance. The sight of local Burmese forming a human chain protecting their monks, is worthy of an award.

What about Facebook? The ‘Support the Monks’ protest in Burma’ group has over 48,000 visitors and counting.

And what Salaam Pax was during the US invasion of Iraq, Ko Htike is at this point in time.

Social media is breaking down boundaries - by letting the world know when human rights boundaries have been broken.

More reads:

• BBC’s Burmese site.
• Global Voices Online - Voices from Myanmar