#wediaczar (or “I’m getting married in the afternoon”)

July 29th, 2009

Tomorrow I’m getting married, so I probably won’t be posting for a while. Not, of course, that I’ve been posting a lot recently.

Without wanting to get sentimental (it’s not that kind of a blog, and I’m not that kind of a man) I can say that not only did I never believe that I’d find someone like Krista, but that now I have found her, I still can’t really believe it.

Krista

I’m saving the rest of what I have to say for my speech tomorrow evening. There are all sorts of little surprises planned for the day, but one of the biggest surprises right now is “what Mat will be saying in his speech” because I’ve yet to write it. Tim has told me “be nice to everyone and try not to sound like Hugh Grant.”

Anyway, the hashtag for my wedding will be #wediaczar. Given that the audience is startlingly low on digital media bods, it’s not like I think it’s going to trend or anything, but it seemed like too good a hashtag to waste.

Tags:
Posted in life | 13 Comments »

A first stab at a perl script to create Twitter friend/follow matrices

July 14th, 2009

Geek alert: if the title of this post isn’t a dead giveaway I should tell you — unless you’re interested in APIs and badly-put-together bits of code — this probably isn’t for you.

I’ve recently found myself using a service provided by Damon Clinkscale called DoesFollow. All it does is answer the simple question “does twitter user A follow twitter user B?” Apart from a frill which lets you reverse the order of your question (“does twitter user B follow twitter user A?”) that’s all it does. You can even interrogate it from the address bar like this: http://doesfollow.com/barackobama/mediaczar

doesfollow

While I was thinking about how useful a service this is, I was suddenly struck by a moment of clarity. A lot of the research I’ve been doing could be simplified by something like this.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in hack, twitter | 6 Comments »

The #interestingOPMLexperiment (stage 1)

July 1st, 2009

Interesting OPML experiment

A couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of people to send me their OPML files (for those of you who aren’t aware, an OPML file is what tells your RSS reader what feeds you’ve subscribed to — it can act as a way of moving your subscriptions between readers.) Some of the more trusting among them agreed, and that gave me the raw material for the first bit of my experiment.

Some red herrings

Along the way I uncovered a couple of things that were interesting but not (entirely) relevant to the experiment.

  1. Some people are cagey about sharing their list of feeds: whether they consider it intellectual property, or whether they think that it may be too revealing, I don’t know.
  2. Lots of people said things like “oh — my RSS reader? Haven’t looked at that in a while. I get all my news off Twitter these days.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in influence, networks, research | 4 Comments »

Thinking differently about word-of-mouth

June 30th, 2009

Birds of a Feather

The current approach to WOM is to try to stimulate positive WOM while addressing or countering negative WOM. A sort of “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and don’t mess with Mr In-Between” strategy.

But what if we could do it a different way?

This idea stems from a conversation I had back in February with Martin Kelly and Andy Cocker of Infectious Media. Since that time I’ve chatted it through a couple of times with various interesting people. It’s not properly thought through yet, but following a chat a couple of weeks ago with Ketchum London’s new Head of Digital, the excellent Fernando Rizo, I’ve decided to put the idea out into the public domain to gauge what (if any) interest there is and whether I should continue to work on it.

“Word of Mouth” is hard to do well

I’ve read lots of word of mouth marketing case studies (there’s a great list over at WOMMA) and it strikes me that WOM is hard to do well for a few reasons. I don’t want to go into these in too much detail, but here are a couple of the structural issues:

  1. Unless I’m a journalist, an A-list blogger or media personality or have some kind of platform, I probably have a very low reach.

    Despite everything pointing towards personal contact being the best impetus for positive word of mouth, most word of mouth campaigns compensate for my low reach by trying to get me to self-service my relationship with the brand and the campaign.

  2. “Viral” distribution just doesn’t work the way most people seem to think it does; and this is particularly true when it comes to WOM.

    While I’m quite likely to tell stories about my personal experience of a brand and fairly likely to tell stories that involve a mutual friend, I’m much less likely to tell stories about other friends’ experience, and not likely at all to tell stories about friends-of-friends.

    Furthermore because of the ‘clumpiness’ of most people’s social graphs, geometric progression (the “I tell two people and they each tell two people and so on” effect) just doesn’t happen.

Homophily

One of the many reasons that WOM works is a thing called homophily — which roughly translates to “birds of a feather flock together”, or “you can tell a man by the company he keeps.”

I’ve written about examples of this before: for example, my analyses of twittering US Congresspersons and Westminster MPs which showed that one can predict with some reasonable degree of accuracy the political colouration of any given twitter account based on their mutual friends and follows (if you want to know more about the methodology, it’s worth reading Robert Hanneman’s chapter on cliques and subgroups.)

But there’s another side to the homophily coin; the social pressure to conform to the group’s norms.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in influence, networks | 8 Comments »

Should we ask employees to tweet client stories?

May 15th, 2009

wall of spam

Here’s an interesting ethical question: is it OK to ask employees to share company and client news through their personal social networks?

Here’s a hypothetical example. An agency has just launched a new ad campaign and posted the TV spot on YouTube. Is it OK to send an all-hands email asking people to share the link on Twitter and Facebook?

Let’s take it a little further. Is it OK to ask them to sign into YouTube using their personal accounts, and rate the video? It seems harmless enough, doesn’t it? You’re not telling them how they should rate it, after all.

But what if you asked them to leave comments? Any normal agency or client side social media policy will tell them that they have to disclose their relationship with the makers of the video. And you wouldn’t really want a whole bunch of comments that start “Hi, I work for the agency that made this ad and I think it’s really great,” would you? What makes the two things different?
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in opinion, twitter | 10 Comments »

Oh, Vienna.

April 22nd, 2009

On Monday evening I was in Vienna. Thanks to our partner agency IKP Porter Novelli I had the opportunity to talk to some of the best and brightest businesses in Austria.

The presentation was given in a fabulous private salon (Austrians seem to be keen on the “private” thing — perhaps because it helps them get around the EU smoking ban) which promised “Guten Wein mit Wirtschaf, Politik & Kultur.” I don’t know where my presentation fit in.

As we were going up the stairs I saw signs that my presentation had been advertised under the title “Facebook, Twitter & Co”, so I carefully changed the title of the presentation accordingly. The bits behind the title page never really changed.

If you’ve read the Integration Triagle presentation post, then the last third of what follows will be familiar and I suggest that you stop reading when you see Arnold Schwarzenegger for the second time.

I really need to credit Paul Mead, MD of VCCP Search for the meat of the first third of the presentation: it’s pretty much a facsimile lift from an inspirational presentation I saw him give a few months ago that has changed the way I’m thinking about Social Media planning. Thanks, Paul!

After the presentation, the IKP Porter Novelli team took me out for drinks. The next day for breakfast, they made me ham and eggs. Then Franz Ramerstorfer took me to a “typical Viennese café” for coffee and Sacher Torte. This is Franz.

Franz Ramerstorfer, IKP Porter Novelli

Franz is the Porter Novelli network’s “Digital Ambassador” in Austria, and leader of the Digital Taskforce out there, so this sets a new standard for Ambassador behaviour. I do hope the other ambassadors take notice. Thank you Franz and everyone at IKP for a great opportunity, and a great time!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in porter novelli | 2 Comments »

Today’s “Integration Triangle” presentation

April 15th, 2009

These are the slides from a presentation I did this morning on the topic of the Integration Triangle. I’ve talked about this here before in the article “5 Straightforward Ways To Integrate Your Communication Activities” — this includes some quick case studies.

I created these slides to support the presentation I was giving: they aren’t the presentation itself. This means that while you’ll be able to have a good guess at what I was saying most of the time, there will be moments when my meaning is opaque.

There are 70 slides in the presentation, including the front and back cover. Nevertheless, I gave the presentation in under 25 minutes. To save you doing the maths, that averages out at around 3 slides every minute (actually, there was a 4 minute delay in the middle of the presentation — so it’s more like 3-and-a-half slides per minute.)

In fact, my slides fall into two categories — those on which I spend fewer than 5 seconds, and those on which I spend more than a minute. This is more an artistic decision than anything else — I think that lots of slides going past very quickly give an appearance of pace and energy (which I dearly need first thing in the morning), but can rapidly become exhausting to watch and hard to follow without the occasional pause for breath.

Even with 70 slides, there’s so much more that I can say about the “Integration Triangle” as a planning tool — but I was trying to keep this to a single simple message. I’m hoping that (whatever they thought about my presentation, and no matter whether they liked it or believed what I was saying) the audience will remember what it was that I was saying, and be able to tell a version of the story themselves.

There’s just so much that we can talk about when it comes to the whole Digital PR thing that it all becomes rather overwhelming. I’ve just got off the phone to a colleague in Vienna (where I’m speaking next week) who wants me to talk to his audience about “Facebook and Twitter and Blogs” (oh my!) And I’ve got 45 minutes to do this. Of course I can do it. But what on earth is the “one thing” I want them to remember?

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in opinion, porter novelli | 2 Comments »

PR agencies and privacy

March 12th, 2009

Photoblogger

I believe that — like Caesar’s wife — those who work in the public relations industry must be above suspicion when it comes to all online engagement (whether personal or professional.) Later on in this post, you’ll see how I’m hoping to use our social media policy to moderate our behaviour as a company, while freeing up our colleagues to experiment with social media. But I’m not expressing it well. What should I do?

Last summer I shared a draft of the Porter Novelli Social Media Policy that I’d been working on.

It’s one of those documents that some like and some don’t. A few people, for example, think that it’s too restrictive.

The sticking point for most people seems to be the bit that says (under 2.3.3):

Your profile must include an explicit statement that you work for Porter Novelli. Include the following minimum information: “I work for Porter Novelli, a global public relations company.”

For a couple of reasons, this item has popped up again. A few weeks ago, I tweeted that Porter Novelli people should disclose their full name and company affiliation in their Twitter bios, and referred to a post-and-comments on this blog that went some of the way to explaining why this should be. This tweet was picked up by a few people, some of whom commented. Willem (@hippowill, Ice cream for everyone!!) was probably the most eloquent, saying (among other things):

I’m not looking for work, but if I do I’m not interested in applying for Porter Novelli or any other agency that would feel the need to require my agreement to online guidelines, telling me how to talk, write and represent myself – and not the agency I work for – online.

So I’ve been meaning to get back to him, if nothing else. I feel that either I haven’t explained our policy properly, or he doesn’t get it — which amounts to the same thing. I don’t mind being wrong, but I do mind being misinterpreted. This stuff is important!

Yesterday, I had a brief conversation with some of our graduate prospects — young bright people who are looking to work for us. And it turned out that one of them, Anna Svensson (@svanna) had already written a post about it, asking Does your future employer have the right to control your online interaction?

In her response, Anna points out that (while she still feels that we’re “trying to control [our] employees a bit too much”) what we’re actually attempting to do is more “a form of issues management” (exactly!) It’s a good post, but it’s one of those that’s worth reading for the comment stream. I’d recommend you take a read.

But here, I think, is the big question:

Should a PR agency’s social media policy be different?

Different, I mean, from other companies’ policies? You see, I’d argue “Yes, they should.” I’m basing this on a lot of previous material. Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest guidelines, for example, explicitly state that public relations is a “special case”:

Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations or governmental entities; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization’s image.

The italics are my own. Public relations (and social media relations) people are – I think – likely to be more distrusted than usual. Our errors will be held up to ridicule by our customers, and by our peers, and will live forever in the popular schadenfreude, achieving the mythical status of the fake blogging fiascos of 2007, or poor bloody Kryptonite/Bic Biro events of 2004 that still turn up in presentations and training workshops.

We’re also under more pressure to make mistakes. Between us, PR professionals around the world represent hundreds of thousands of clients, and several million campaigns every year. As the pressure increases in every region to take these campaigns online, mistakes will be made.

alliwantforxmasisapsp

While I was writing this policy, I came across lots of policies from other organizations. Most of these were old-school “blogging policies” (Forrester’s Charlene Li posted a list ofBlogging Policy Examples back in 2004) and there’s a list at the NewPR Wiki.

We wanted to do something a bit different. As I state in the policy preamble, we wanted it to cover “Anything you do online where you share information that might affect your colleagues or clients.”

I’d done a bit of quick-and-dirty internal research when I joined Porter Novelli. At the time (and even today) the great majority of our colleagues weren’t bloggers. As a result, any “blogging policy” would be irrelevant to them. And yet, at the same time, a majority of our colleagues were on sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Bebo, with some (mostly dormant) accounts on other social networking sites like Orkut, ASmallWorld, Hyves and the like depending on where they were coming from. A smaller number — while having no blog of their own — had commented on a blog or online news story, or posted in forums at least once in the past three months. Some of them were sharing photographs over services like Flickr, and (thankfully) a very few had — according to WikiScanner — anonymously edited Wikipedia (and, with one exception, always for non-client-related interests). Almost all had voted on something — even if it were only a poll — in the past quarter.

Some of these engagements were on behalf of clients, but the great majority were “personal business” — or as Willem might put it, representing themselves – and not the agency or clients for whom they worked.

The guiding principles for the policy

We were trying to keep things as simple as possible.

I rather like Comcast’s policy as quoted by Rohit Bhargava in his post Comcast’s Actual Social Media Policy No One Knew About:

Their official point of view is that their employees are allowed to participate authentically, as long as they disclose their affiliations, don’t divulge secret or proprietary information and don’t act as though they are an official spokesperson or allowed to speak on behalf of the brand.

That’s a lot better, I think than the often misquoted Microsoft “Be Smart” (taken out of context from a post from Robert Scoble” and a couple of often-quoted soundbites along the lines of “Our corporate policy is, be smart. We don’t talk about things we don’t know about.”)

Only the most arrogant would believe that “be smart” is suitable advice to include in a policy — instead it was a glimpse at the philosophy that underpinned the blogging policy that Microsoft were working on at the time. Scoble explicitly agreed with what Yahoo!’s Jeremy Zawodny says:

The only advice I have … is this: please make sure it’s abundantly clear what the rules are. You’re getting to be a big company. Don’t rely on unwritten rules or company tradition/culture to do the job.

So I was trying to keep it simple and flexible. Hence the guiding principles:

  1. The web is not anonymous. Assume that everything you write can be traced back to the company, if not you personally.
  2. There is no longer a clear boundary between your personal life and your work life.
  3. Do not lie or withhold the truth.
  4. The web contains a permanent record of our mistakes. But do not try to change things retrospectively.

Furthermore, I borrowed a philosophy from someone much wiser and smarter than I (and who was more fitted to our corporate culture than — say — Microsoft’s), Cluetrain Manifesto co-author David Weinberger who says:

All I can promise is that I will be honest with you and never write something I don’t believe in because someone is paying me as part of a relationship you don’t know about. Put differently: All I’ll hide are the irrelevancies.

So what’s the thinking behind Paragraph 2.3.3 then?

Well — there are several.

1. We’re proud of the people we hire, and we hope they’re proud to work for us

One of the most satisfying ways we recruit is through WOM recommendation from our colleagues, who have let their friends how much they enjoy working with us.

Because we think that our people are the best advertisement for who we are and what we do, we’d like to see them promoting their personal brands as much as possible. We actively encourage people to begin blogging, set up networks on LinkedIn, get on Flickr, Twitter, and the like. We don’t actively monitor these accounts, but do

2. It prevents us from forgetting that there’s no “private” anymore

I think that a good PR person is someone who manages their relationships well; who can tread the fine line between doing good work for their clients without abusing or exploiting their relationships. Who recognizes the value of their personal network, and their personal brand.

When I’m doing background research on someone I’m meeting, I’ll check Google, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. Who are they? Where have they worked? Who do we know in common?

Have you heard the story about photos of Bono and “bikini-clad babes” turning up on Facebook? Have you every searched for Carpphone Warehouse on Flickr?

PR people (who work with them on a daily basis) are already aware that these tools are also a great tool for journalists. So only someone very naive should think that there’s a divide that people will respect (“Oh — I won’t look at their Twitter or Facebook accounts because that’s personal, and I’m only interested them in a business context”)

By encouraging our colleagues to label their accounts with their place of work, we are also encouraging them to be aware that (even in their private lives) they may be seen to represent us.

3. It prevents us from accidentally forgetting to disclose

OK — everyone should disclose where appropriate. We know that. But in the heat of the moment, it’s easy to forget. It’s particularly easy to forget when you have only 140 characters to express yourself “I work for Porter Novelli, a public relations company that represents brand x” will take up more than 50% of your available space.

4. It prevents us from “accidentally” “forgetting” to disclose

Imagine that sentence being read out with heavy-handed sarcastic finger quotes.

There are all sorts of schoolboy errors that we won’t be tempted to make if everyone who works for us is clearly labelled “Porter Novelli.”

Working in the nineties at media planning and buying agencies and creative agencies leaves me with an abiding memory of being asked to “click on any of our banners that you see while you’re surfing.” These days, thank God, technology and good auditing has put paid to this kind of abuse.

This kind of astroturfing (the term we use for faking grass-roots support) is the kind of behaviour we have to prevent. Leaving comments on forums and blogs, voting on polls, ‘seeding’ UGC campaigns with content or sending apparently spontaneous branded ‘consumer’ messages via Twitter or Facebook is exactly the kind of thing that junior staffers will be asked to do by people who don’t get it. The fact that all our staffers are marked with the equivalent of a digital watermark prevents people from us as a company asking them to misuse their personal accounts.

I talked above about “personal networks” and “personal brands” — it’s essential that we as a company don’t ask people to exploit those; we want to hire people who have good networks. We want to help our colleagues develop those networks and brands. But while they work with us, we want them to use them on behalf of our clients. You can see how easy it would be unthinkingly to ask them to abuse them. By asking our colleagues to put the name of our employer on their accounts, I think we take a step towards preventing that.

This is a complicated idea — but one I hope that I’ve now explained better.

5. It prevents us from accidentally astroturfing again

Remember, Porter Novelli is a global organization. Different territories are at different stages of their digital market development. This is both an advantage (we can better forecast and plan for what future developments will look like in those markets) and a disadvantage (we may be condemned to repeat mistakes we — or our competitors — have made in more developed markets.)

Does this make it clearer?

To those, like Willem, who think that we’re being too strict I’d ask — does this make more sense? Do you still believe that there is “public and private?” Do you think that we’re simply doing this to advertise ourselves and control our employees, or do you think that we are doing it (as I suggested) to moderate our behaviour as a company, and freeing up our colleagues to experiment with social media?

What can I do to improve this? Now you know what we’re trying to do, all suggestions will really be welcomed.

Tags: , ,
Posted in opinion, porter novelli | 21 Comments »

Methodology and thoughts behind those PR Week Twitter stats

February 26th, 2009

There’s a school of thought that says that what’s important in social media is to attempt to create debate, not consensus.

Cat Among The Pigeons

Peter Hay from PR Week and I appear to have been rather successful in this. This morning, PR Week published an article, Twitter has suddenly exploded. Almost immediately, Twitter (or at least our particular neighbourhood of Twitter) suddenly exploded.

One or two people were rather scathing: suggesting that the stats demonstrated that Peter and I didn’t understand the “essence of Twitter” or that they were “obviously flawed”, or that we had “redefined shallow”.

Indeed (horror of horrors) some people even went so far to suggest that Porter Novelli had ginned up the results to put us at the top. In fact, in PR week’s list, we came second. But no doubt this was a Machiavellian ploy — it’s details like those, Pooh Bah would say, that “give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”

I joke, but I can completely understand people’s strong feelings about this; PR Week was torn between a desire to cover our approach (and give credit where appropriate) and a need to keep the article readable and relevant to the greater proportion of their readers.

I’d like to share our methodology with you all so that you can repeat our experiments, should you so wish. After that, I’ll talk about the methodology that we were originally going to follow,

Tomorrow (once it’s had a chance to blow over), I’ll post some quick thoughts on the whole storm-in-a-Tweetcup thing.

Methodology

We used Michael Litman’s (@litmanlive) list of UK Media Tweeple. This was based on original work by Stephen Davies (@stedavies) but has been wikified so that agencies can (should they so choose) keep their information up to date.

Lots of people on the list were pretty borderline — there are in-house teams and vendors there, as well as agencies with a significantly broader remit than simply “PR”. I am a relative newcomer to the world of PR, and was more than happy to let PR Week define who is PR and who isn’t, but we erred on the generous side. We are Social, for example, made the cut to be on the research list.

Had we had the time, I’d have sent a note out over Twitter asking everyone to update their entries. Time, however was not on our side, and I didn’t even get around to hinting at what I was doing until the evening of the 23rd.
PR Week Twitter Stats Yahoo! Pipe
By then though it was already clear that I had a large job on my hands; there were almost 350 people on the list. On the whole, the UK PR community should be proud of how quickly it has reacted to the whole “Twitter thing”.

I took the list, published it as a Google Spreadsheet and — using a Yahoo! Pipe that I adapted for the purpose, queried the Twitter API for the summary data on each account on that list.

Twitter gives you all sorts of interesting information, but what we were grabbed were the following:

  • Date joined Twitter
  • Number of Friends
  • Number of Followers, and
  • Number of Updates.

That allowed us to create this spreadsheet, from which the stats mentioned in the PR Week article were taken.

Again, Porter Novelli took no part in the editorial decisions (although they seem pretty straightforward.) You will recall that Peter and Gemma were writing for a general readership, not for the Twitterverse!

Methodology we’d like to have used

Those of you who’ve read my blog before will know that my real interest in Twitter is more complex than the previous methodology would suggest. When Peter and I first discussed the exercise on Monday we had been hoping to do something more along the lines of the network analysis that we’ve been fiddling with at Porter Novelli.

Here are some points to bear in mind.

First of all, not all followers are created equal. If I have only ten followers, but they each have a thousand followers, that may mean I have more opportunity-to-influence than if I had a hundred followers with only ten followers each.

More to the point, the fewer people those ten people follow themselves, the more influence I wield within their networks (if I am one of only ten people they follow between them, I will have greater share-of-voice than if I am merely one of ten thousand.)

Secondly, the followers whom I don’t share with the rest of the network count for more than those who follow several (or many) of my peers. The more “exclusive” my follower-base, the greater my control over on the flow of information within the overall network, and the greater my value to the network.

I’ve been doing some work looking at unduplicated reach among twitter networks. For example, looking at Porter Novelli’s own global Twitter footprint, it was interesting to see how many of our contacts were duplicated.

So what Peter and I really wanted to do was to use some of these techniques on the PR Week data set. For those of you with a mathematical (or social network analytical) bent, we were going to run some eigenvector shizzle on the whole bizzle. Oh — and look at unduplicated reach for the various companies on the list.

What went wrong?

It was always an ambitious project. The 344 people who were under analysis had a fairly daunting 95K followers between them. The Twitter API lets you make 100 requests an hour, and each request returns data on up to 100 followers. Even if we were to assume that everyone had followers in nice tidy multiples of 100 (they don’t) then it would have taken 9.5 hours to download the data using one Twitter login.

The trick of course, is to use more than one login. Tim Hoang (@timhoang) and I quickly registered 50 temporary accounts to power the API requests. Twitter’s terms have historically been quite relaxed about this sort of thing, and we’ve always been very careful to try and stay within the spirit of those terms.

But.

Twitter has been hit lately by a bunch of bad things (like spam bots and pyramid schemes), and they’re tightening up their defenses. This past weekend, they’ve tightened up a lot, and things that used to be fine just aren’t.

We managed to collect information on only around 60K followers out of the 95K. This was too large a margin of error to correct (although we made several attempts to do so).

So — we had to abandon our grand plans, and revert to the simple counts approach (as detailed above.) This won’t stop us trying to improve our processes, but we’ll need to talk to Twitter about that.

Some thoughts

Kate Hartley from Carrot Communications (who sits with me on the PRCA’s Digital Working Group) joked that it’s strange how PR people create research-for-news-stories for their own clients on a daily basis, but are miffed when their own techniques are used against them. At one level, I agree with her — I think that some people are probably disappointed that they aren’t the ones with their names on the research.

But there’s more to worry about than that. Here are my thoughts.

  1. For God’s sake get over yourselves! We’re talking about Twitter here, not the economy. Worry about something important, why don’t you? I still can’t get over the fact that — when a pilot managed land an airplane on a river, the story we all tell each other is “how it broke on Twitter.” What — the story’s not about a man who magically landed a f*cking plane on a f*cking river? Are we really getting this right?
  2. How influential you are on Twitter is not a real thing. It doesn’t really matter how many Twitter friends you have (although I’ve now got heaps, thank you very much!) Context is everything. My boss, who runs Porter Novelli’s EMEA network and sits on our Executive Committee is on Twitter. She is more influential than I, and will continue to be, no matter how many Twitter followers I accrue.

    Twitter is just one channel through which exercise your influence. Don’t give up on your blogs, your Facebook pages, your Amazon reviews, or your Last.fm playlists or your IM friend lists, for God’s sake. But remember, it’s who you are, and your relationships that matter; your “context”, and not your “counts.”

  3. The really interesting question isn’t “who are the Twitterati” or twitter influencers. I’m interested in the Twitter thing mainly because I want to see how well it reflects real life. After today, I’d probably say that it doesn’t very well, wouldn’t you?

Be warned — I may just follow this research up with some research on “how many phone numbers PR people have on their mobile phones.”

Tags:
Posted in pipes, porter novelli, twitter | 21 Comments »

Swedish Politicians on Twitter

February 22nd, 2009

Twixdagen does for Swedish politics what Tweetminster does for British. Hampus Brynolf (@hampusbrynolf) just sent me a link to this map he’s pulled together for their blog:

Twixdagen's map of Twittering Swedish politicians - click to visit the original post

You’ll need to click through to his blog post to experience and interact with the map properly.

Hampus says that he used aiSee to generate an SVG file which could then be opened in Illustrator to “search and replace” on shapes, colors and lines (which explains the good-looking graph.)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in networks, twitter | 2 Comments »

Next Page »