The top 70ish people to follow in UK PR

So I’ve been playing around with a great little website called TweepML. The site basically allows you to create and share lists of tweeters that anyone can then follow at the click of a button.

It’s a great way to find new people to follow as recommended by others. Of course I’m sure some people will start complaining about spam, but becuase Twitter is ‘opt-in’, I get a bit confused by this argument (not DM spam of course, I get that). If someone follows you and you don’t want to follow them, it’s simple – don’t!

Anyway – rant over! – to put the service through its paces, I put together a list of the people I find most interesting/useful/entertaining as a tech PR person on Twitter.

You can check out my list here. And please do let me know who I have left off…!

Twitter is not always the answer

It was really only a matter of time. First we had the copycats, then the APIs and apps followed closely by those looking to monetise. Now, as ever, agency-land is trying to consolidate its position in a Twitter-focused world with the launch last week a “Twitter agency”.

Twitter Partners has launched with a powerful list of potential clients and despite a distancing post from Twitter itself [possibly following comments to NMA suggesting the company is an official 'partner'; it isn't], the new company has been racking up publicity all over the place.

So are Twitter agencies the future? Or just a vehicle for publicity or a band-wagon for big brands looking to display their social media prowess?

The main problem as far as I can see: this approach is far to narrow to be truly effective. And its the same niggling problem I have with any niche agency. If you specialise too much, you are in danger of missing the bigger picture. At its simplest level, Twitter is one of many social networks (and not even the biggest), even if it is currently the network du jour.

Sure, big companies, with big internal comms or marketing teams, can more effectively manage their roster of agencies and ensure uniformity (though many don’t seem capable of this) and consistency of branding and messaging.

But, companies without this internal resource (or skill) would be wise to avoid this route of agency selection.

It is for this reason that I feel that rather than narrowing, agencies (and the clients that appoint them) should be broadening. I want to be able to go to a new client and suggest a strategy suitable for their business needs made up of a range of tactics suited to this strategy. This might include SEO, online PR and micro-blogging, but it might not.

I’m all for using new tools, but let’s use them where they are needed rather than as another feather in a cap.

picture credit

Can Twitter do no wrong?

It looks as though Twitter will soon announce plans to charge businesses and power-users for additional features. Twitter’s rise in the US and UK has been incredible over the last few months. For me the main marker has been the celebrity influx – seeing Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross catching up with Jason Calacanis and Robert Scoble demonstrates how the user base is evolving.

I’m actually quite surprised that Twitter is making this step already. This surprise is perhaps due to the way other social networks have dragged their feet in the past, relying on VC money to consolidate a user base before experimenting with monetisation. Facebook has perhaps proved that this is a bad strategy. But it was in no way certain that Twitter would buck the trend. It has enough in the coffers to continue growing its legion of fans for some time.

So Twitter’s move is a bold one. The new ‘definition box’ at the top left seems to suggest that some sort of advertising is on its way – even if only experimental. And advertising does seem to be an obvious step at least in some form.

But these latest rumours are for me the most interesting development. I think its a potentially winning formula for a few reasons:

Additive rather than subtractive

What Twitter has done so far is to build a highly simple, but effective network. When something works so well, the obvious next step is to add more and more functionality. Twitter has stuck to simplicity. The other common trend is to bring in ‘premium’ layers that restrict certain existing functionality behind a pay-wall. Restricting what users currently get for free is a very dangerous approach. It is good to see that Twitter seems to be planning to offer additional business-focused features at a price on top of existing functionality. This will improve experience for these users rather than restrict it for all.

Reduced reliance on advertising

We all know that advertising is suffering and online ad spend, whilst continuing to rise, will reach saturation soon. As advertising pounds are stretched further and further it will become more important for sites like Twitter and Facebook (and news portals) to find other options. Twitter’s reluctance to merely slap advertising all over the site is, in my mind, refreshing.

Adds value to Twitter.com

One of Twitter’s key strengths is its API. By allowing other platforms, software and devices to access its, the popularity of Twitter has grown. This is again in opposition to Facebook’s closed approach. However, the API does reduce the importance of Twitter.com as a destination. And this reduces the effect of on-site advertising too, although including adverts in the API would be an option (with a potential for revenue sharing with application developers), but one that would significantly impact user experience.  By adding more value to Twitter.com (i.e. the new features) you give power-users a reason to return to the site.

It will be interesting to see further details when these are made available, but in theory, this is a bold step that has the potential to be very successful. It also seems to give a degree of credibility to the use of Twitter as a promotional/marketing channel (if this were needed).

Did you forget what the product was?

When did you last have some Skittles? I can’t even remember. It was so long ago.

But, to be fair, I’m not really their target market.

SO WHY ARE THEY SPENDING MONEY MARKETING TO ME?!

The social media/marketing/PR gossip-machine has been in overdrive this week with the “news” that Skittles has replaced its homepage with a Twitter search page. Woohoo!

Gawker is in awe of the personal PR potential this affords us all:

“And Twitter users are, as planned, including the word “Skittles” in their posts in order to have the honor of appearing on the Skittles.com home page.”

An honour indeed.

So, a few questions for Agency.com and Skittles:

1. Who would really want to go to the Skittles homepage? Its a frigging sweet!

2. Who is your target audience?

3. Where do you find these people?

4. Do they read Brand Republic or AdAge?

5. Are they even on Twitter?

The FT in all its social media wisdom proclaims the stunt a  success:

“Early indications suggest the campaign is a success. The Skittles meme went viral on Twitter, and “#Skittles” is today’s most-popular term on the micro-blogging site.”

Wow, a success? After only a few hours? Twitter really is amazing! :)

But what will this actually do for sales of Skittles? Yes, this website is not a vital marketing vehicle for a brand like this, so you might argue ‘why not?’. Econsultancy praises it as an ‘amazing social media campaign’. Is it? Can we really call a campaign ‘amazing’ after only a few days? It’s interesting certainly, but how do we measure success? Surely in the same way we do with all kinds of marketing: sales, revenues, returns…

Of course brand engagement and ‘conversation’ is important, but it wont run a successful business on its own. Too much social media seems to exist only for itself or for the enjoyment of those who ‘get it’. This, in my mind, is a narrow and dangerous approach. Innocent are an example of a brand that continually seems to ‘get it’, but for all the right reasons. Their site creates meaningful content and develops valued relationships with its key audiences. Skittles doesn’t seem to have made a real effort to engage or to add anything into the mix.

So my real question is whether Skittles will see measurable results and long-term benefits. The ‘buzz’ around this seems to stem mainly from social media ‘gurus’ and the like. It’s a stunt. One that makes ‘us’ think, but will if affect the bottom line? Will it reach those that matter? I really do hope they prove me wrong.

Eu, MPs, Eyebrows and the Birmingham Post – Interesting Stuff 25/02

Rummaging through my feedreader tonight, I came across a number of interesting little nuggets all of which could justify their own post, but unfortunately, due to time pressures, that is never going to happen! So here they are all mixed in together. Enjoy.

What’s in a (SEO friendly) name?

A great little story from the Telegraph centering on a French town called Eu which has decided to change its name because it is unable to get enough Google-juice to ramp up its ailing tourist industry. Its not an easy process though. If ratified during a town referendum it will take five years to become legitimate. That is certainly a long-term SEO strategy!

iMP

Via Graham Jones, I came across this interesting study looking at how MPs are using the Internet. According to the report (which I haven’t read in full), 92% of MPs use email, 83% of MPs have a personal website, 23% of MPs use social networking and only 11% of MPs blog. As Graham suggests, these numbers are quite scary in some cases, but they possibly explain why the Digital Britain Report was so disappointing!

Twitter to the rescue

Channel 4 today sourced an interview with a eyewitness of the Amsterdam plane crash via Twitter (via Journalism.co.uk). Presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy made the connection via a tweet asking Jonathan Nip to “direct message me a number to ring you on please?”.  Twitter saves the day again (at least for Channel 4!).

Joanna and the Birmingham Post ‘Get It’

I’ve given newspapers quite a tough ride in the past as I still don’t think many of them are making much of an effort to really transform themselves for the digital age. However, one journalist that really ‘gets it’ is the Birmingham Post’s Joanna Geary (soon to become web development editor at the Times). She has published a great slideshow demonstrating the work she has done at the BP over the last few years:

Birmingham Post: A Regional Newspaper Case Study

View more presentations from joannageary. (tags: pr media)

JiveBrow09

At a time when so much advertising fails to excite (perhaps due to the growth of online viral videos?), Cadbury’s eyebrow ad is, for me, one of the best in a long time. Its great to learn that they are now running an online event to maximise its success. JiveBrow09 will be run in conjunction with MSN and will encourage people to record and share their own versions of the ad. Safe to say, I wont be one of them – but a great idea nonetheless!

Finally my post on the Wildfire blog earlier this week on the Ryanair blogging fiasco has been driving huge amounts of traffic all week. You might like to read the update that I’ve posted tonight.

Twitter mugs? (only those who bought one!)

So I like Twitter, I really do. But there is a thin line between ‘like’ and raving obsession. And this is potentially it:

a Twitter Mosaic Mug

Yes, now you too can have all the avatars of your favourites twits [sic] everytime you make a cuppa…

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear…

Just me or is this a wee bit wrong?

Twi££er

[a pants SEO title, I know]

Credit to http://www.flickr.com/photos/zizzy/

Credit to http://www.flickr.com/photos/zizzy/

With the media scrum around all things Twitter at the moment, it’s no surprise that the ‘revenue-model’ issue would raise its jealous little head.

If I was in charge, I wouldn’t be worrying about revenue models. They are on the tip of an iceberg. Now the focus should be on improving the service as numbers grow and securing its position amongst the legions of copy-cats that have and will come along.

But hey, its not my company.

Twitter to charge?

So today, Marketing has alleged reported that Twitter is to start charging businesses to use the service.

Hmmm.

This story feels slightly odd. It has been widely reported before that this was on the cards, but would Biz Stone really reveal all at this point in time to Marketing?

Much as I love Marketing, I think they might be jumping the gun slightly. Stone said:

“We are noticing more companies using Twitter and individuals following them. We can identify ways to make this experience even more valuable and charge for commercial accounts.” [my emphasis]

I would suggest this is merely one model being looked at. And I doubt it would be possible to implement. The chief obstruction in my mind is how on earth they would differentiate (and/or police) brand accounts and personal accounts? Maybe by limiting follower numbers? But then some of the biggest Twitter ‘celebrities’ have huge numbers on their personal accounts – and yet they are possibly the most powerful brands using the service [a subject for another post me thinks]. Any my own account often transcends biz/personal boundaries…

Robin Grant from Wearesocial makes some additional, valid arguments in the comments under the original article [it seems his words were slightly skewed too...]

I’m sure Twitter will resolve this issue well before the VC cash runs dry. Either they will sell up to the big G, or will work out a way to fund themselves with the x million users they currently have and the endless numbers they will surely attract in months to come.

I HATE SOCIAL MEDIA (only joking)

Over at the Guardian, Bobbie Johnson has written a little piece entitled Why I’m finished with ‘social media’

In it, he suggests that social media isn’t new so why all the jumping on the bandwagon every time a new celebrity signs up to Twitter or has a shower.

In the comments, a number of people have replied, venting their fury about all things Twitter and proudly stating that they have now quit. So there.

But they are missing the key thrust of Bobbie’s post. He’s not saying that he is finished ‘using’ social media, but that he is fed up with the social media ‘craze’.

And I see where he is coming from. I’m also fed up of hearing about the latest celebrity doing x y and z. But then I get fed up of that anyway in the ‘real world’. I hate Heat magazine et. al. So of course I am going to get fed up of hearing about it on Twitter.

Bobbie’s other point is: “‘Social media’ is mainstream – we don’t need to claim any more victories for it.”

Again, I partly agree. But some platforms aren’t mainstream yet. Just because the technorati and digerati  have been using Twitter for ages doesn’t mean its dull to the rest of the world. I find the Twitter phenomenon fascinating. And so do all the people out there (journalists and PRs included) that are learning about it for the very first time [i.e. the public].

But Bobbie’s eventual conclusion is correct – “Social media is people. People talk about stuff. The end.” – and this is often forgotten. Social media is just a different platform for content or conversation or broadcasting or listening or research or socialising…

What we are seeing is two levels here:

On one hand, we have the ‘platform’ itself. What it does. How it’s used. Takeup. Popularity. Strategies for using it in marketing/business etc. As a medium or a platform, social media does continue to evolve and change and, for digital analysts/influencers/marketing-bods, this is interesting. It’s not fair to liken it to the telephone or the pub.

On the other hand we have the content on the platform itself. The ‘Stephen Fry is stuck in a lift’ story. This is gossip, news (yes, to some it is) etc.

So you have the platform – Twitter/pub/telephone – and the content – ‘Stephen Fry is stuck in a lift’.

You can choose what content suits you and of course you can choose which platform suits you. If you don’t like the content then buy a different magazine or follow someone else. If you don’t like the platform then select a different one.

Just don’t blame the platform for the content. And don’t blame the public for liking the content. And don’t blame the PRs/media for liking that the public like the platform/content…

An audience of 100,000 – how powerful is that?

So Stephen Fry has become the second most followed person on Twitter. He is now only bettered by a certain US President!

[Don't worry, this isn't a jumping on the social media bandwagon post]

That is quite some going and 100,000 is a big number.

In the PR game, where ‘reach’ is obviously important, what does this say about media and influencer outreach?

A few things to consider:

- 100,000 people wont be seeing (let alone acting on) every one of Fry’s tweets

- I wonder how many of the 100,000 use Twitter on a regular basis

- Targeting is also important and perhaps difficult here

- Being ‘remarkable’ is surely even more important when targeting people like Fry

Having said all that, I was just on TweetDeck looking at the TwitScoop (a constant update of what is ‘hot’ on Twitter) and I noticed that “Bletchley” and “bpark” were coming up particularly strong.

When I clicked to find out more, I found that the only reason for this was that @stephenfry had just tweeted about it and his followers were re-tweeting his post.

Power indeed!

About

This is my story. I've always been fascinated by the internet. My first passion was music and I studied a music degree at Birmingham University. But once graduated I quickly went back to the web working as a digital marketer. I also ran a web startup for a few years. In the need of a new challenge, I turned to the world of PR and now work as an Account Director at EML Wildfire. My interest is primarily looking at how PR professionals can make the most of the web and digital marketing. This blog contains my thoughts and things I find inspirational.

© 2012 Danny Whatmough - Made by me