Twitter Won’t Allow Your Brand to Build a Strong Community
D[space][username][space] (no comma).
That’s what a DM looks like on Twitter. I’ve screwed it up, you’ve probably done it too. Is it a big deal? It might not have been big news last week, but I did notice Chris Brogan failing a DM and shooting his cell phone number to his 70,000+ followers. That’s all for now on that subject.
The big news this past week was the change in how Twitter users will experience @ replies. To be more accurate, it has to do with how approximately 3% of Twitter users will experience @ replies (according to the Twitter Blog). As I earn my Social Media MBA (look to @arikhanson and his blog for that reference), the change in replies makes it difficult to connect with important influencers, but what does it mean for brands and companies on Twitter?
It may have only been 3% of users capitalizing on the ability to creep in on the conversations of others, but those 3% were passionate about the subject and using Twitter intelligently. Evan Williams was forced to respond within hours of the change because the hashtag #fixreplies became the top trending topic on Twitter. I understand the rationale that the users, in general, might not want to see partial conversations of those they follow, but I disagree that the option should be removed. Rather than promote running away from partial conversations, the option should have been roled out the other way. Force people to see half-conversations and let them choose whether they want to jump in and follow the other side or simply ignore the few tweets pertaining to a specific superfluous topic.
The most powerful words in social media marketing are engage and empower. The option to see one side of the conversation promotes both engagement and empowerment. Take @mnChevy for example: a car lover and follower asks when Chevy’s newest addition will hit the streets. This car lover has a bunch of followers that aren’t yet aware of the mnChevy account, so they miss the tweet and Chevy misses out on the chance to engage and empower their target market. On the other side, mnChevy answers the question, replying to the car lover. Many of mnChevy’s followers are interested in the release of a new product, but rather than ask, they assume they will look it up online somewhere later…and forget about it. Those followers also miss the tweet about the release; another missed opportunity. Just because a user did not ask the question, you cannot assume they were not interested in the answer.
That would be an isolated case, but an important example. Whether you scale the example up or down, the idea does not promote community. How many networking events have you attended where you join a conversation in which you only know one side? You build your network by meeting the other side and gaining a contact. Your community expands – empowerment through engagement.
How can you remedy the situation as a brand on Twitter? Fairly easy actually. If you want to simultaneously reply to a follower and broadcast the message to all followers (whether they are following the subject of the reply or not), simply do not put the @ reply at the beginning of the tweet. Either put the name later in the tweet, or add a character (such as a period) before the @ reply and Twitter will not recognize the tweet as an @ reply. This way, all of your followers see your reply and have the opportunity to engage the subject of the reply and build a community around a common brand (your brand). Information reaches a larger audience, communities reach higher levels, everybody wins.
What do you think about the changes? Were you part of the 3% that noticed? Does your position on the topic change as you consider personal use of Twitter vs brand use? Do you run a corporate account that was impacted by the change?
I agree completely. Seeing 1/2 the conversations leads me to new connections and conversations. Its the essence of social media. Thanks for the tip about putting a character before the @reply!
Although I found myself pretty irritated by the change (and frankly, still am), I’m very excited about what Twitter plans to change once this is all resolved. If the rumor is true and the goal is to let you decide each individual’s @replies in your stream, then I will be one happy camper. Mostly because the people whose @replies I value I can turn on, and the people whose don’t particularly appeal to me I can leave off and just get the good, juicy tweets I want, straight from the Twitterer’s mouth. Or fingers. Or mouth, I guess…if they’re really weird when they type.
Really sucks for Mr. Brogan. I’ve only made one DM mistake and it wasn’t a bad one. The thing about it is that I’ve been much, much more careful in what I put in DMs as a result. So hopefully the rest of us can keep our wherewithall on that front. That’s a great reminder to kick off the post though.
Anyway, good work Scott. It’ll be hard to get out of the habit of just clicking “@ reply” and typing it out, but hopefully I’ll start remembering to put something in front of the person’s name if I feel the reply has some value to the rest of the Twitterverse.
Also, my stream has slowed down a ton since the change. Which is nice, but it’s nice in the sense of a fun roommate moving out. Sure there’s more space, but is that empty space as worthwhile as the former roommate was to have around? In my opinion, not so much.