>the use of Twitter as a form of engagement with the public has not so far come close to being tested. Agree. It would be interesting to see a rigorous definition of "public" there. Has it not been tested
a) because the "public" are not on Twitter, b) because the politicians are so new, c) because no one has tried or d) because they genuinely aren't interested?
>they have deliberately set out to amass followers by mass following people That is mainly a trick picked up from Internet marketeers, and is one that is easy to get wrong if you're not an Internet marketeer :-) I'm not sure whether "mass following" is much different from approaching people in any other arena. I'd suggest that the difference between a welcome invitation, or a chugger in the street, depends on the manner of the invite and the content of the subsequent conversation, and that that applied to Twitter. For politics, I think that a partisan-looking commentary is more likely to offend.
For example, in more mature Twitter "segments" they do NOT like an auto direct-message after they follow you.
>I’ve noticed that “unfollowing” someone on Twitter is much less stigmatized than “unfriending” them on Facebook.
Agree. That, I think highlights the potential - people engage on Twitter easily initially, but can be put off easily.
> I also cannot believe we only have 29 politicians that are neurotic tossers and/or narcissistic egomaniacs, can you? YES. Just not those 29 :-)
I'll be posting later in reply to Sylvester having let it steep for a bit - I think the article is quite lazy, because there are useful examples around if you look. It sounds like the arguments people have about blogs before they write their own.
andrewroche
· 9 months ago
What I love about Twitter *is* that sense of sociality without having to get into relationships. Like talking to people on a train or in a queue.
Fabienne
· 9 months ago
The lowly states of politwitter evidenced that according to Twitter Grader, there is not one political twitter stream in the top 50 for the UK.
Andrew Wee
· 9 months ago
You're making the assumption that the Twitter Grader score means anything more than a number.
It uses a brute force approach, such that a twitter snob (ie: following 100 and having 1000 followers) would likely get outranked by someone who follows 20,000 twitter uses and has 5000 followers.
I'd not use grader for anything other than coming up with a semi-random number.
Matt
· 9 months ago
One more. I'm not sure about the Twitter Grader stats - it may be a problem with "location", but Tom Watson MP is 99.96 which puts him in your top 50. I do agree with the point, though it may be just a matter of very few politicians having been on there for long.
Pete
· 9 months ago
It's a glorified facebook status update. Those who use it are invariably tuned in to the political blogs that are the only useful links ever seen on the site. The technology used is totally laughable and whilst it's being championed by Ross and Fry it will remain a fad, in time it will disappear. The lastability with sites such as Friends Reunited and Facebook has already been questioned and as noted above this is actually when a 'proper' relationship exists in some ways. I for one am already bored of seeing what the people i went to school are doing now. Much the same, people will become bored of what Andi Peters had for breakfast (always the same, anyhow), what Stephen Fry is 'luvving' right now and people will bookmark their favourite blogs or apply for email updates. I'd place money on Twitter dying prior to ever hitting the true mainstream in the manner of facebook, myspace and Friends ReUnited, unless there is a major overhaul which in itself will take away the uniqueness that people claim to love now. Twitter = lose / lose.
Oli
· 9 months ago
I like your post. I got so wound up by Guido's post yesterday that I blogged about it this morning. http://www.gratisguidance.co.uk/www/?p=3330 What these politicians are showing is that they are not original thinkers and need guidance! Twitter defeats them because it is so new that there isn't a 'proper' way to use it yet. They are using the rules of old media to define its use. It isn't about numbers or eyeballs, its about 20:20 feedback!
Where Twitter wins is its features and its potential - I really like the search and the ability to create trends from individuals content. This is also a real time tool - unlike almost anything else on the web - including Google!
Give it 18 months and the politicians might finally get to grips with the idea, although by then, I see Twitter being joined by a whole range of other micro platforms, and the real winner will be a site which can do a meta search and present the information coherently!
Matt Wardman
· 9 months ago
My comment is up now, with a list of 10 useful things that *have* been done with Twitter:
Matt, I just read through your list and none of the examples you cite can be done better on Twitter than they can be through regular blogging or email groups / campaigns. Saying that something "useful" has been done by Twitter doesn't mean that it's a useful medium relative to the alternatives.
FuziSlippers
· 9 months ago
I think that what you say here is probably true of most of the online sites that politicos use (myspace, facebook, etc.). The trick is working out how to reach out to (and snag) people who are not already in your corner (and thus subscribing to your twitter, those folks are already on board with you, presumably).
Matt Wardman
· 9 months ago
>Matt, I just read through your list and none of the examples you cite can be done better on Twitter than they can be through regular blogging or email groups / campaigns. Saying that something "useful" has been done by Twitter doesn't mean that it's a useful medium relative to the alternatives.
I agree that it is possible, but not with your conclusion. The people who did it had the option of using all the other alternatives, and made a decision to use Twitter instead.
If it is not a useful medium to the alternatives, why did they choose Twitter?
I'd suggest that was because in these circumstances it was the better option. I think that demonstrates usefulness.
I haven't done a piece about it yet, but my opinion is that Twitter basically does to blogging what bloggling did to online news/discussion forums - it is a similar process, but easier and quicker. Twitter has the elements of blogging - interaction, permalinks, replies, brevity and ease of use over the previous form. The main handicap at present is the restriction on SMS messages gere.
It won't replace it - as blogging is a better form for longer/archival pieces (among other things), but it is a good complement, as blogs have turned to be a good complement to forums.
Darren Lilleker
· 9 months ago
Interesting post, and equally interesting how easy some find it to criticise anything politicians do. One the whole what they try to do is employ tools available in order to get their message across to a wider group. What many suggest they do is try to use different tools and platforms to reach different audiences. Blogs will reach those with a keen interest in what they have to say on what every subjects they tend to post on, Twitter can reach wider and is an easy way of telling local journalists, colleagues or even constituents what they are up to, Facebook is easier to reach constituents and party members - that may change but there does not always have to be a desire or intention to reach the wider public or propagandise to them, just like any other major organisations they are seeking to reach a range of audiences using different means available to them. Maybe there are 627 MPs who do not see Twitter as a tool they can manage or use effectively, ok fine. Interesting how Guido and Iain Dale criticism others for narcissism while using the same tools. Perhaps it would not seem so hypocritical if they were mainstream journalists but lets face it us bloggers and twitterers must think someone out there care what we think in order to start using the tools - just a thought. Cheers for the post Fabienne, interesting stuff
All Comments
>the use of Twitter as a form of engagement with the public has not so far come close to being tested.
Agree. It would be interesting to see a rigorous definition of "public" there. Has it not been tested
a) because the "public" are not on Twitter,
b) because the politicians are so new,
c) because no one has tried or
d) because they genuinely aren't interested?
>they have deliberately set out to amass followers by mass following people
That is mainly a trick picked up from Internet marketeers, and is one that is easy to get wrong if you're not an Internet marketeer :-) I'm not sure whether "mass following" is much different from approaching people in any other arena. I'd suggest that the difference between a welcome invitation, or a chugger in the street, depends on the manner of the invite and the content of the subsequent conversation, and that that applied to Twitter. For politics, I think that a partisan-looking commentary is more likely to offend.
For example, in more mature Twitter "segments" they do NOT like an auto direct-message after they follow you.
>I’ve noticed that “unfollowing” someone on Twitter is much less stigmatized than “unfriending” them on Facebook.
Agree. That, I think highlights the potential - people engage on Twitter easily initially, but can be put off easily.
> I also cannot believe we only have 29 politicians that are neurotic tossers and/or narcissistic egomaniacs, can you?
YES. Just not those 29 :-)
I'll be posting later in reply to Sylvester having let it steep for a bit - I think the article is quite lazy, because there are useful examples around if you look. It sounds like the arguments people have about blogs before they write their own.
It uses a brute force approach, such that a twitter snob (ie: following 100 and having 1000 followers) would likely get outranked by someone who follows 20,000 twitter uses and has 5000 followers.
I'd not use grader for anything other than coming up with a semi-random number.
What these politicians are showing is that they are not original thinkers and need guidance! Twitter defeats them because it is so new that there isn't a 'proper' way to use it yet. They are using the rules of old media to define its use. It isn't about numbers or eyeballs, its about 20:20 feedback!
Where Twitter wins is its features and its potential - I really like the search and the ability to create trends from individuals content. This is also a real time tool - unlike almost anything else on the web - including Google!
Give it 18 months and the politicians might finally get to grips with the idea, although by then, I see Twitter being joined by a whole range of other micro platforms, and the real winner will be a site which can do a meta search and present the information coherently!
http://bit.ly/T6Tan
I agree that it is possible, but not with your conclusion. The people who did it had the option of using all the other alternatives, and made a decision to use Twitter instead.
If it is not a useful medium to the alternatives, why did they choose Twitter?
I'd suggest that was because in these circumstances it was the better option. I think that demonstrates usefulness.
I haven't done a piece about it yet, but my opinion is that Twitter basically does to blogging what bloggling did to online news/discussion forums - it is a similar process, but easier and quicker. Twitter has the elements of blogging - interaction, permalinks, replies, brevity and ease of use over the previous form. The main handicap at present is the restriction on SMS messages gere.
It won't replace it - as blogging is a better form for longer/archival pieces (among other things), but it is a good complement, as blogs have turned to be a good complement to forums.
Cheers for the post Fabienne, interesting stuff