I wrote the following post some time ago (last year, in fact) and it's been languishing over at minim-media.com, partly because I was raaather het-up when I wrote it and wanted to let it settle and partly because I wasn't sure it was quite appropriate for minim-media. It's even less appropriate for caitlinrowley.com where that blog has moved to, so I'm shunting it over here because, while I'm not so angry any more, it's still an issue I feel quite strongly about.
This week I've been thinking quite a bit about online behaviour and how it differs from the outside world, and today the idea of online sincerity came up too. In particular I found an article on autofollowing and auto-direct-messaging people who follow you on Twitter, and I was really quite shocked by it. Now, I know that many people (the author of the article I read among them) take the view that if somebody follows you, it's only polite to follow them back, and in the real world this reciprocity makes sense – if someone invites you to dinner, then it's polite to have them over for a meal at your place sometime too; if someone at work helps you out on something, then it's good policy to lend them a hand when they need it. In the real world, these little courtesies are part of the glue which keeps society from falling apart.
Online, though, is not the real world. It's something else, something "other", something all to itself, and the concepts of autofollowing and auto-DM seem to me to go directly against the principle of reciprocity that exists in the real world because it lacks personal connection and the building of a true relationship.
Autofollowing, for anyone who isn't familiar with it, is a system whereby if someone opts to "follow" your feed on Twitter, you automatically follow their feed. The thing is, some people have thousands of people following every little 140-character post. I have a paltry 257 followers as of today, but I'm following a mere 167. And not all of those 167 are following me – and I'm glad of it.
As with drawing traffic to your site, the numbers don't matter – what matters is the quality of the traffic that is generated. For a website, that's "are they likely to buy something or become a customer in the future?" or "Are they reading what I'm posting? Are they joining in discussion?"; for a Twitter feed, that's "are they actually interested in me?". The article I read stated their belief that it made good business sense to autofollow on Twitter because you don't know when the follower might be your next big-business lead – which is a point which has a certain validity – and that if they've shown they're interested in reading what you have to say, then it's polite to show an interest in what they have to say.
So you have 2,000 keen and eager followers. And you autofollow. That means you have 2,000 + however many other feeds you're following because you're interested in them but they're not following you (for whatever reason). That's a vast amount of feeds and there is no way in the world that anybody can meaningfully follow 2,000+ feeds – there's just too much information. Mix in the fact that the majority of those 2,000+ feeds are going to be generated by total strangers and consist of them telling you about the special cheese sandwich they had for lunch or that they're going for a run now, and I trust you'll start to see where I'm going with this.
Reciprocity in the real world is about respect and building up selected existing relationships. Automatic reciprocation without any sort of filtering seems to me to be shallow and insincere and – more importantly – disrespectful. If you're following more people than you can reasonably keep a track of, then far from showing an interest in what you're saying, you're not respecting what they have to say because you're not actually paying attention.
I don't have a problem at all with businesses and individuals using Twitter for their own marketing-driven purposes. That's just fine. People can opt to follow or not follow and it's down to them which they choose – nobody's forcing you to read someone's advertising tweet – and a lot of business people, especially the more savvy ones, are producing interesting feeds and encouraging big audiences. I think this is brilliant – it helps them by increasing profile and audiences, and helps the followers by providing information they're interested in. But it seems that some businesses are not just interested in reputation and audience-building. They want direct contact with their followers. And this is where auto-direct-messaging comes in.
I read about auto-DM and what instantly flashed into my mind was "twitter-spam".
One of the great things about Twitter is that – in theory – where there is a 2-way connection between users, there can be conversation. Someone asks something, and the other person replies. Where there's a 1-way connection, there is information output, and in theory, the first will only happen when there is genuine interest on both sides, which is based on an interest in each other's tweets. What happens when someone auto-dms all 4,000 of their followers? It's not really inviting conversation – it can't be. How can anyone process 4,000 simultaneous conversations? Which means that all it does is reach into our personal space and give us a message that we may or may not be interested in receiving – something that could be done just as easily in a standard tweet without invading my personal space.
DMs are about personal conversations that I want to keep private or that I feel are getting a bit long and want to take out of the main thread so people don't get bored. DMs for that reason are, for me, high-priority messages. It doesn't matter so much if I miss a tweet in the main timeline of Twitter feeds. It does if I miss a friend asking a particular question of me, and me alone. So what auto-DM does is put a spam message in the middle of my private conversation. It's like having an ad start to play when you're on the phone to a friend.
So I don't auto-follow. I assess each and every one of the follow messages I receive, to see whether I'm interested in following that person's feed. Sometimes I am. Sometimes I'm not. But just because I'm not interested in that feed, doesn't mean I don't think that person sounds like a nice chap – just that I'm not seeing much in their feed that directly interests me, and that I have better things to do than find out what they had for lunch.
So in short, if I don't have time to read every tweet I get – or even every other tweet I get; if I don't know anything at all about the person who I'm following – how then does that benefit either them or me? Perhaps they'd get a small furry glow from being followed by me, but there'd be no replies to their posts, no meaningful exchange – no follow-up, which ultimately means that there's no real connection, just words. And lip-service makes no-one happy. Better, surely, to be honest with your followers – track only those who offer feeds that genuinely interest you, and use a Twitter programme which allows you to see @ replies from people you're not following to make sure you don't miss any responses to things you've tweeted from your audience. Now that shows real integrity and respect.
I'm sure others will disagree with me - if you have an alterative point of view, I'd like to hear it. No flame wars though, please :-)
Recent Comments