Last week I wrote a post about social media from the reader’s perspective. This week, after digging through Facebook and Twitter home pages loaded with unnecessary twaddle, I’m feeling much more militant. And I’m asking you to join me in taking action. Here’s what I propose: a 5-tweets-a-day rule.
I’d like to see the thought-leaders out there commit themselves to no more than five posts in a 24-hour period. More importantly, I’d like readers to commit themselves to “un-following” or “un-friending” tweeters who exceed the 5 post limit.
Radical? Perhaps. But I hold the following truths to be self-evident:
- A reader’s attention is a privilege to be respected, not an obligation to be exploited.
- 5 messages a day is a generous allotment — more than enough to sustain communications of genuine substance.
- Twitter behavior will not change unless there’s a penalty for abuse. When excessive tweeters see their friend and follower numbers plummet, they will curb themselves.
What would The 5 Tweets Rule accomplish?
- It would encourage tweets of real substance by adding the key element of quality communications: thought. Instead of creating reflex posts, tweeters would be forced to ask themselves, “Does this comment really merit one-fifth of my daily allotment?”
- It would discourage empty chatter: the endless posts about exercise regimens, travel arrangements, goofy YouTube videos, what happened last night on American Idol, etc.
- It would save Twitter from itself. If participants fail to voluntarily limit themselves, readers — as a matter of self-defense — will abandon the platform.
Surely there will be objections to this rule. Let’s review some of them:
“This is censorship!”
No, it’s not. Censorship is the imposition of control, through law or force or both, by a central authority. The 5 Tweets Rule is more like a boycott: the voluntary action of many consumers. Tweeters remain free to say what they please as often as they like. Likewise, readers are free to say, “Enough!”
“It’s contrary to the open spirit of social media.”
In any real social situation, when are we ever at liberty to speak our minds without restraint, without regard for basic social norms? Never. If I were to go to a party and talk incessantly without regard for other guests, I’d expect to be ostracized or directed unceremoniously to the door. Why should online social media be any different?
“I find way more than five interesting things a day to talk about.”
Sure you do. But just how interesting are they really? With a five post limit, you’re forced to make a judgment call: it’s not merely a matter of being “interesting,” but interesting enough to deserve one of your now precious five daily posts.
“It inhibits conversation.”
On the contrary, it stimulates conversation by clearing our home pages of unnecessary noise and allowing a greater variety of voices to emerge on our screens.
“You’re an @$$hole. Who the h*ll are you to tell other people how to behave?”
Maybe I am an @$$hole. But that’s beside the point. When someone chooses to follow me, I consider that an honor. When I choose to follow you, I’m showing respect for you and what you have to say. Is it really too much to ask you to reciprocate that respect by practicing self-restraint?
Let’s set a date: April 5
We all need a little lead time. I propose that we set aside April 5 (note the “5″) as the day we collectively initiate the 5 Tweets Rule. On that day, if you choose to participate, un-friend and un-follow those tweeters who regularly abuse our attention by spamming us with more than five tweets in a 24-hour period. If you have more energy, send them a direct message explaining what you’ve done and why you’ve done it.
Take the pledge: “5 tweets are sweet, six are nix.”
We need collective action. If you’re ready to make Twitter “safe for democracy,” show your commitment by leaving a comment below that indicates that you will both limit yourself to five tweets a day and un-friend or un-follow tweeters who abuse the rule — and your respect.
Related posts:
- Keeping Your Twitter Community Healthy
- Personal Brands RULE on Social Networks
- Social Media: A Reader’s Manifesto
- Guest Post: When Navigating The New World Of Sponsored Tweets…
- Has Twitter Become Broadcast Media?
Tags: 5 Tweets Rule
Thanks for making this point, Jonathan! As marketers, we constantly remind our clients that they need to “be the filter” and provide less that is more to their customers. Then, we throw away that rulebook when we get on FB or Twitter… very odd. I’ve had the same feeling you’ve had lately – that I have to page through so much that is of little substance to find the golden nuggets. I’m pledging to keep it to 5 – a nice round number.
I’m not necessarily looking for “tweets of substance” always. Sometimes I am, sometimes I’m not. Sometimes I want to play with people, and sometimes I am talking about work or “things of substance.”
I’m not any more interested in limiting myself or anyone else in their Twitter behavior than I am in limiting their behavior in real life. If I bug you, don’t follow me, if I think someone is annoying I might unfollow. I have a good filter though; I have thousands of people I follow, but I can easily scan and decide what’s of interest to me. Somedays, something of substance is interesting, while other days, someone talking about a Cat Show or their lunch might. Depends on my mood, their sense of humor and many other variables.
What if I said all blog posts should be no more than 500 words, and let’s set a date to have everyone start complying because I don’t like long blog posts?
To me, this is just someone else hoping to put their preferences on other people. If you like 5 tweets a day, please find and follow those that agree with you.
Can we talk personal responsibility here. If you don’t like what other’s Tweet, stop following them. As the bad guy said, “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges,” and we don’t need others making rules. If someline wants to Tweet a 100 times a day, that’s fine with me. I likely won’t follow them, but it’s their decision, not mine.
Fascinating post, Jonathan.
Definitely worth consideration, especially from the standpoint of effective marketing and communication. I use twitter primarily for my work, so perhaps that makes a difference in one’s perspective on content and frequency.
Thanks!
Remember, I’m speaking about Twitter within a professional business context. The people who participate in The Daily Fix aren’t ordinary communicators; we’re the ones (ostensibly) other professionals turn to for sound advice and good judgment.
So what would you advise your clients who are interested in Twitter? Would you really encourage them to “to Tweet 100 times a day,” or would you encourage a “think twice, post once” policy that emphasizes quality over quantity? After all, the whole point of social media is (so we’ve been told) to encourage two-way conversations. Do we really show respect for the other half of the conversation when we post injudiciously?
Jonathan,
Twitter is about conversation. A conversation with a business might very well take more than five Tweets, and that’s just one conversation.
I think what you mean instead of Tweet (a generic term for anything we say on Twitter) is marketing communications messaging. I would limit that to one or fewer a day, but not by mandate, by common sense and a good understanding of marketing.
Lewis,
Ultimately, I think we can agree that appropriate volume is not for either of us to decide, but up to our followers.
Where we differ is this: I see a time coming when the novelty fades and people will want to reclaim their time. Will they tolerate numerous Tweets in the sprit of “conversation”? We’ll see…
My thoughts are quite simple on this topic,YOU follow your own rules. if I want to tweet more I will,if I dont, I wont, if I dont like what I read, I ignore it,or unfollow that person. If you follow too many people, that was your choice. Twitter is tool that is used by multitudes of people for varying reasons.OBVIOUSLY for you it is business, I dont care about your business, I dont expect you to care about my opinions on marketing, sports, or what beer I drank, if I drank. Your proposal suggests that your time is more important than people that tweet more often than you prefer.You are suggesting to us how to be editors of twitter, that is YOUR right, imho.. get a grip dude! you wreak of arrogance,
Robin,
No, I reek of cheap perfume.
Bang on Jonathan.Just say business tweet upfront so that hundreds of tweeters who love to hear that “tom had salami in the morning and actually felt sick and now is alright ” tweets to be of great importance, stands up for freedom and some body can get ecstatic about it!!!
Twitter was a late entrant into sns space and to differentiate they had to think hard and god they did it! They are hiding themselves under many banners but are one helluva SNS.
So I’m not so sure about this. I’m new to Twitter and willing to try anything, but 5 Tweets a day seems a little stingy. I also enjoy replying to others…would that count within the 5 tweets? I’m also not looking forward to unfollowing people and then having them unfollow me. Seems a little farfetched, but maybe I’ll give it a shot.
You make great points in this article. Limiting the number of tweets would certainly make it easier on the readers.
In a sea of auto-responders and auto-followers on Twitter, it’s hard to get noticed without steady, consistent Tweeting. Unfortunately, it’s become an issue of you can talk longer and faster.
I am so in -
I will ‘nix at six’ beginning 4/5!
I’m not sure we need a rule. Let people decide. There are tools out there that already let you see the average number of tweets a day posted by people. If someone has a huge amount of tweets per day, I’m reluctant to follow them, but that also depends on how helpful, informative or entertaining those tweets might be.
I know I’m on the outside here, but I’m calling “the emperor has no clothes”. I’ve never seen any practical reason for a mass audience for Twitter. Sure, I can see a few niche applications, but 99.99% of everything I’ve seen tweeted is garbage, nonsense, a waste of time.
With the size of message, we are basically talking about interruptive headlines with no context and no meat. Why do I care? What thoughtful contribution is being made to any social space? How is a one-way stream of tweets a conversation? It appears to me more like a guy standing on a street corner, blowing a whistle randomly for attention.
I suspect if serious Twitterers followed Jonathan’s suggestion and self-restrained and edited their thoughts down to a few essentials, I probably would find the medium more interesting and more worthy of attention, but after 3 years of trying, I still don’t get it.
A couple of mighty strong responses here. Guess that goes with Jonathan’s “militant” theme.
I get what Jonathan is saying but may not agree to five per day — or any other number.
But some of the biggest Twitter Litter comes from those who claim to be communications experts. And I’ll say it one more time: I do not care where they are sitting on an airplane or whether they like bagels vs toast.
It’s incumbent upon those Twittering in the name of communications to consider their followers.
I don’t always unfollow them because they do post some gems. Hard to throw the baby out with the bath water sometimes.
Maybe it’s time someone responded to a ponderous poster with a “TMI” message. I’m just not sure I have the guts….
Like Paul (3-31 post), I see only limited value in using Twitter professionally.
1) I haven’t got time to follow more than 2 or 3 witters, and I wonder where others find the time to follow more, especially if (a) they have jobs,(b)they have families & friends, (c)they have a LIFE!
2) Why would anyone wish to conduct a business conversation in front of postentially thousands, millions of people(?!!?) – if it develops into serious biz, use e-mailor (G_d forbid!!) the phone.
3)As a Career Consultant, I can say with authority that anyone whose Twitters are verbal diarrhea or more than about 20% Litter will not be thought of seriously by any employers save SNS’ themselves.
Full disclosure: I’m 60 yrs. old, a former manager with 14 yrs. helping Sr. Execs and mid-career folks find work they love to do.
While I certainly understand the sentiment, perhaps we’re overlooking the central issue: just because we see Twitter as a marketing tool doesn’t mean it is to the vast majority of users or the creators. The underlying rationale is that if we limit the number of tweets, we streamline efficiencies, increase productivity, bump the bottom line, boost the margins, go viral, etc. We, or rather the author and supporters, are imposing business rules on what was born of silliness, gerbil-like attention spans, and (God forbid!) the meandering thoughts of people concerned with doing something other than making a buck in any venue humanly possible. Sure, marketers have every right to tap into Twitter. And the average tweeter has every right to toss them out on their virtual ear when they start imposing rules of etiquette more akin to the online boardroom than a website that uses cartoons in its logo.
A clarification:
When I suggest a 5 Tweet limit, I’m not referring to the vast majority of participants who use Twitter for genuinely social purposes: keeping up with friends, following bands or teams, or just plain hanging out, etc.
I’m speaking very specifically to the audience of The Daily Fix and the people like them: people who deliberately use Twitter as a vehicle for asserting their “thought leadership.” There are many people who do this and many others who advocate it.
My point is that over-posting fundamentally contradicts their purposes. You can’t rise above the clutter by creating more clutter. When you persist in indiscriminate posting, you’re neither encouraging conversations not demonstrating leadership — you’re just adding more noise to an already noisy world.
Jonathan …. Is this your Twitter profile? http://twitter.com/jonkranz
You just joined Twitter 2 months ago, follow 7 people, are followed by 27, and you’ve made 19 total updates?
I’m sorry, I don’t want this to sound too harsh, but I don’t think you truly “get” Twitter, and are subsequently not in a position to mandate such rules. For example, you “dug through twitter pages”. Why didn’t you find these thought leaders and just follow them? Interact with them for a while– You were looking at someone else’s page, and found what you thought was a list of “twaddle”. Well, when you follow people you just see some of the updates interspersed with other people’s updates (not all of them in one stream as you experienced) — and all of that is actually contingent upon how often you check in on Twitter, and how many people you follow. Someone might update 30 times today, and you could miss all of them. The number of posts are not the issue, it’s the content within them– and if someone consistently posts twaddle, then you should “unfollow” them. But one man’s twaddle is another man’s gold–
Everything that you noted about Twitter, can be said about verbal communication. What if I told you that you could only say 5 things a day and if you said more than 5 things a day, that people should stop talking to you? Think about how you interact, and how fast that allotment would go–
Or what if I said: there are too many bloggers. Too much twaddle. Every blogger can only post 2 blogs a month. If they blog more, you should never go back to their site–
See where I’m going here? The last two seem ridiculous because those forms of communication are so ingrained in who you are–
I can’t support a 5-a-day limit, but I agree that there’s a problem, Twitter is a victim of its own success and is fast becoming an advertising platform and the fun part of Twitter is getting lost in that.
I’d like to suggest an option to block “syndicated tweets” so where a person or company automates the distribution of tweets the tweeter gets the choice to block them.
Then people who use twitter for “organic” conversations (eg; Stephen Fry) could post the 50 a day as per usual, and have a conversation. And those using automated services to advertise their own site could still post 50 a day – but to a smaller audience who actually wanted to see them.
Jack,
A few points:
Twitter’s impact goes far beyond its official number of followers. Many people choose to link their Facebook status updates to Twitter; in effect, I’m following, and am followed, by many more people on Facebook than can be seen or measured on Twitter.
As far as not having enough experience to “get” Twitter (a common theme on The Daily Fix), that’s simply irrelevant. The real issue is experience in communicating; I think I have enough (as do most other people who allegedly don’t “get” Twitter) to make a judgment call.
Finally, I’m not in a position to “mandate” anything. Come April 5, I’m cleaning house; today, I’m telling people why and am encouraging them to do the same. Nothing mandated. Nothing enforced. Just pure free will.
IN TIME YOUR SUGGESTION MAY BECOME A BEST PRACTICE
Right on. Twitter is getting watered-down before most clients even understand how social media can be valuable. As trusted experts, shouldn’t we marketers be delivering RELEVANT and thought-provoking tweets??
Let’s ask ourselves next we’re about to hit ‘Update’ – “is this about helping my ego, or is it about helping my audience?”
For more on this topic, see Nova Spivak’s article: Can Twitter Survive What is About to Happen to It?: http://tinyurl.com/al84xv
Jonathan -
). They are different tools used to communicate with different audiences. Subsequently they need to be treated differently. I’m also against the Facebook redesign which may be adding to your frustrations, but that’s another conversation all together.
Exactly. You are a communication expert, which is why I’m surprised at your stance, and it leads me to believe that you don’t get the communication patterns on twitter. You found a few “annoying apples”, and you are basing your entire judgment on them (would you want someone to tell you how to use the telephone because they watched a few high school girls use a phone?). I’m not trying to sit here all high and mighty with the “you just don’t get it” defense. Your post leads me to believe that you didn’t objectively study the patterns but rather went looking to pick a fight. Look above. Counting your original post, you’ve posted 6 times on this one topic alone (if you reply to this post, then 7). Look at all the conversations you are having with your readers. All the interactions. Twitter is a micro-blogging site. Why are you holding it to a higher standard? What if you had written two blogs yesterday– you could be up to 12 …. 15 posts in one day– easy.
And you are “cleaning house” because you feel Twitter isn’t for you. This issue doesn’t seem to be the straw that broke the camels back. Twitter was obviously never for you, and you are seemingly looking for a scapegoat. And that’s fine. Do whatever you want. Twitter, like blogs, or the telephone, is just a tool. But you suggesting to those that do find value in it that they should limit their interactions seems disingenuous at best. You wrote this piece like you have been on Twitter for years, and have a substantial following. You wrote this piece to assert your thought leadership on the Twitter space, and acted like you just had an epiphany–
For the record, I’m against linking Twitter and Facebook Status for a vast majority of users (so I guess we kind of agree on that?
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.
Johnathan -
I welcome your ideas! I don’t view them as mandates or rules. Instead, many people are attempting to set guidelines for behavior to make social interactions easier on everyone. Social/Business and Business/Social rules are different. For example, when I run into a good friend at a business networking event, I say hello and chat, but don’t monopolize their time – my friend is there to network as well. However, if I run into a good friend at a party, I might talk to them most of the evening. Commonly understood guidelines help everyone.
Boy did you open a can of worms, but as a newer member of social media I am glad you did. I have only been on a few months but have already stopped following some people that post constantly. I am speaking about “professionals”, not about the average person just out there tweeting for fun. AND, I have a client that just started and already I think they are going overboard repeating the same crap over and over and not using Twitter in a relevant way (again as a marketing tool).
I think it comes down to that for the “professional” marketer….relevancy and I believe that is your intent to address that issue here with your proposal.
I don’t know what the number should be in terms of limiting your tweets, but I applaud you for taking a stand and at least getting marketers to think about how they are using Twitter and to try to be more responsible vs. boring the crap out of people. I for one am going to make the suggestion to my client before I have to unfollow them!!!!
BTW, count me in as a new follower for you!
Sheila and Tinealene:
Thank you both for making an important clarification: we’re not talking about limiting “social” Twitter behavior among ordinary persons/friends; we’re addressing appropriate behavior when using Twitter for professional/marketing purposes. Two very different things.
Birds of a feather flock together. You don’t need a rule for that. It just happens.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Ann
http://largepet.info
I think this essay makes good sense as a general guideline for many Twitter users, whether they use Twitter for personal or professional reasons.
As the saying goes, though, “you can’t legislate common sense.”
(Of course, the author wasn’t proposing legislation, just self-regulation.)
“What would The 5 Tweets Rule accomplish?
* It would encourage tweets of real substance by adding the key element of quality communications: thought. Instead of creating reflex posts, tweeters would be forced to ask themselves, “Does this comment really merit one-fifth of my daily allotment?”
* It would discourage empty chatter: the endless posts about exercise regimens, travel arrangements, goofy YouTube videos, what happened last night on American Idol, etc.
* It would save Twitter from itself. If participants fail to voluntarily limit themselves, readers — as a matter of self-defense — will abandon the platform.”
No IMO, your ideas would totally destroy why I use Twitter. If people could only leave 5 tweets a day, most are going to use those tweets to PROMOTE THEMSELVES. Which turns Twitter into nothing but one big commercial.
Sorry Jonathan, but not everyone uses Twitter the same way you do, as many have pointed out, many of us use Twitter as a conversational tool.
And as Lewis correctly stated, no one is forcing you to follow anyone that leaves more than 5 tweets a day. You have COMPLETE control over your own Twitter experience, so I quite honestly have no idea why you are complaining about people that Twitter too much. Just unfollow them.
Case in point, I hate how Guy Kawasaki uses Twitter. So I don’t follow him. Problem solved.
If you don’t like how someone uses Twitter, unfollow them, and your problem is solved.
Still not sure what the issue is here…
Jonathan:
I’ll say that taking into account the title of the post, you’ve done a great job of getting folks to think about the issue and how it would or would not work.
Mr. Swift would be quite proud of your effort… if it was the intention.
For those wondering what I’m talking about, click here.
Even if it was not, the idea should be to think about how Twitter works for you instead of worrying about how someone tells you to use it. I’ve recently gotten into tough discussions about the fact that engagement in social media in general is important. I was told that I shouldn’t tell anyone how they must use it; the weird thing was, I was simply saying that engagement was necessary – not necessarily how that engagement needed to take place.
Great use of the tools in place to generate discussion.
Here’s the link I was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Sorry, Jonathan but your inexperience with Twitter does show. As Robin, Jack, Mack, and others have pointed out, there is no way to articulate a “rule” for how many tweets will be found useful by a particular person’s followers. The right number depends on who they are and what they’re tweeting about that day.
Your attempt to backfill by limiting your proposed five tweet rule to professional business communitcators falls apart in several contexts. Suppose you and, oh, say Robert Scoble got to debating some relevant issue. And others chime in. Do all of you have to shut up at 5 tweets, regardless of the points and nuances being explored? Would you expect a great conversation to end like that if you were together in person?
Or suppose Charlene Li is live-tweeting from an industry conference. Those streams quickly get above 5 tweets in each session, let alone for the whole day. High value stuff.
If you’re not finding value in the folks you follow, find new folks. And as Mack wrote, unfollow the ones who annoy you. But don’t pretend you know how the rest of us should use a communication tool we find valuable.
Oh, and don’t pretend you can so neatly separate the social from the business. A prolific tweeter, social media expert, and friend, Toby Bloomberg (@tobydiva), passed on this quote in her new Twitter book (#SMGPS):
“All lasting business is built on friendship.” – A.A. Montapert
The book is being written on Twitter, btw, and is yet another example where your 5 tweet rule cannot apply.
Spend the time to understand the medium, before you start trying to dictate it’s rules.
Tom
I realize after seeing your subsequent comment on this post that you were proposing this in a business context, but I think most people do not make this distinction on Twitter. I am certain that I won’t lose you as a follower by leaving my remarks here, because I am a “prolific” tweeter with over 14,000 updates there now. Most of these tweets were the result of conversations that I had with friends (both new and existing).
Thankfully, I have recruited two agents who work for me from Twitter, and I have had several sales from my efforts there since last fall.
To propose an arbitrary limit on tweets, whether it is 5 or 10 or even 100, illustrates your ignorance of the medium, frankly. If I attend a conference or a party, this is tantamount to limiting me to speaking only 5 sentences while there.
One more quick thing: This post might be better received as satire, since the original “Modest Proposal” was just that.
Jonathan Swift suggested that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. Clearly, this was not to be taken seriously. Just a thought -
Where do all the twits get the time to leave comments — don’t they work full time?
I’m trying to figure out if you just posted an April Fool’s post a little early, or if you are really being so irresponsible as to make these recommendations without having actually TESTED things like response rate, follow/unfollow rate, etc.
As Jack said, “Your post leads me to believe that you didn’t objectively study the patterns but rather went looking to pick a fight.”
Come back when you have evidence. In the meantime, I’ll keep doing what’s actually working for me.
See, the real value of Twitter doesn’t come from the click-throughs to your blog and other stuff. The real value comes from relationship-building, and relationships are built via conversation far more than via link-sharing.
Case in point — my latest joint venture deal should be worth 7 figures to me over, say, the next 5 years. How did I get it? I was introduced to them by someone I met on Twitter, who I connected with over our mutual love of listening to heavy metal when working late at night.
WAY more value than a few more visitors to my website. And it wouldn’t have happened if I weren’t using Twitter conversationally, or if I were completely focused on business there.
Jonathan,
I think you are pretty much completely missing the point.
Twitter is about the conversation…connection, communication not “broadcasting”. There are much better outlets for that sort of thing. If you, or anyone else for that matter, imposes ‘rules’ on how to use Twitter…it would die. Plain and simple.
It is a fairly straightforward proposition to limit what you see in your stream. I have close to 14,000 tweets over the course of nearly a year. I talk business, I post links I find interesting, I have amazing…and not so amazing conversations with people. Many of the folks I spend time with on Twitter have become friends in real life, business associates and trusted confidants.
Twitter has opened up an entirely new world to me. It has provided opportunity that I never new existed. This did NOT happen by ‘following the rules’. People got a chance to know me. Yes…I’m silly sometimes. Yes, I have bad days. Yes…I post what I had for lunch.
But that IS the point. I don’t hide behind some facade of corporateness that you seem to be implying we should. Frankly…I AM my brand, and that is what is communicated via Twitter.
So…if you don’t like it…leave. Unfollow. Block. It’s pretty simple.
And if this IS satire (I am SO hoping), isn’t it sad that only 3 of us were even suspicious it might be?
I agree with this to an extent. But i don’t think we need to limit our tweets to 5/day. I do think we could cut the pooptweets. Like: I’m bored or
I’m listening to a certain song. Drinking coffee. These tweets are really annoying! Please don’t integrate your blip.fm with your twitter!! Just be tweet savvy!
Just Saying here. Who are we to decide what is substance? If you don’t choose to hear/read someones banter well then don’t follow. But, don’t limit others fun. To many rules make Jack a dull boy. To each his own. Tweet On.
A few points:
Yes, I was alluding to Swift in the title, but my suggestion is not a satire; I don’t think limiting your tweets is the equivalent of eating Irish children.
Lots of people seem to be accusing me of “dictating” something. That’s silly. Even if I had the desire to dictate a rule, I certainly don’t have the power to do so.
Then there’s the issue of expertise. I’m not a Twitter expert. So sue me. Few of my clients, customers or prospects are, either. And this much I do know about communicating (and Twitter — and no other social media tool — is going to change this): the audience, not the speaker, sets the rules of engagement. You can choose to speak on your terms or on theirs. I choose the latter.
I just tweeted this article. I think it may have been number 6 or 7 of the day. Can I have the link love and free traffic here back please? I wouldn’t want to waste the time of the people I have in my community.
Jim Genuine,
I’m now following you on Twitter. Is that enough love or were you expecting something more?
Jonathan,
I loved reading the post as much as the follow up comments. The discussion/debate/arguments were worth reading.
thanks!
P.S. I will follow your 5 twit theory soon..
Interesting proposition: I think the concept is solid but better utilized as a tactic for a CEO/CMO/COO with limited time to engage in social media.