Yesterday a study was published that examined which Twitter users are posting the most widely-read tweets. The results weren’t really a surprise, finding that 50 percent “consumed” tweets are posted by just 0.05 percent of Twitter users. Considering folks like Lady Gaga and Ashton Kutcher attract millions of followers (9 million and 6.5 million each), it’s no shock that every tweet of theirs gets a lot more views than tweets by everyone else.
So while there is still a lot of chatter on Twitter – to the tune of a billion tweets a week – the majority of tweets receiving attention are coming from a select group of users that have massive followings but aren’t often following many people back. This type of Twitter handle is a media platform – a way to broadcast news and information to a large audience. But it’s not just media outlets with those types of handles…
Celebrities, athletes, musicians, politicians, companies, etc., all have those types of Twitter handles too, and it’s really their perfect media platform. Instead of worrying about how the media will portray them, they can craft their own tweets (messages) however they want, share only the information they want public, and self-promote without shame. Throw in some sponsored tweets for good measure, and it’s a money-making machine. (In May 2009 I wrote that Twitter was a popularity contest for celebrities. Almost two years later, my statement still rings true).
The evolution that Twitter has gone through, beginning as a small social network and becoming a giant media platform and RSS feed, is not a bad thing. We already have a monster social network in Facebook, and Twitter is a great way to get real-time news and information on any topic. It’s just important to understand that half of Twitter’s attention is going to a very, very small and select group of users that aren’t going to interact with you (and sometimes post a sponsored tweet that will pay them $10K).
LinkedIn is personally thanking its first 1 million members, with emails directly from co-founder and chairman, Reid Hoffman (a copy of the letter is below).
As you may recall, Facebook launched a big ‘thank you’ effort when whey crossed the 5 million barrier, and LinkedIn is clearly following their example by making this big milestone about their users rather than the service. It’s a classy thing to do.
Potential jurors for the Barry Bonds trial were greeted with a 63 question survey at the beginning of jury selection. Among finding out what their current opinion of Bonds is, there is also a question that’s phrased for those people that are (somehow) unfamiliar with blogs.
Introducing question #32…
Really? Blog in quotes? Specified that they’re found on the Internet? I’d be curious to know how many people haven’t heard of a blog before and wouldn’t be able to tell you where one can be found.
By now you’ve all probably seen the school bully video (if you haven’t, it’s above). No matter which side of the fence you’re on, one thing that will make your eyes roll is a recent interview that the bully did.
While this entire scenario might say more about the boy’s intelligence then anything, it goes to show how important it is to figure out what you want to say before an interview. Walking into an interview without a plan puts you in a position where it’s easy to fail. If you want to be successful, you must figure out what messages you want to get across, and incorporate them into responses that are are interesting, informational and accurate.
Of course, it’s also advisable to show remorse in a situation where you were wrong…
If you’ve watched Inside Job, a documentary about the financial crisis, you’ll see that even adults with decades of business and real-world experience don’t know how to show remorse. In the film, CEO’s and executives of hundred billion dollar companies stand in front of the camera and Congress and claim that they did absolutely nothing wrong (it’s actually quite disturbing to watch).
So beyond the need to learn how to say, “I’m sorry,” this schoolyard bully and the many arrogant and greedy financial executives interviewed during Inside Job need to learn a PR 101 skill: how to prepare for an interview so you don’t come across sounding like a mean, evil person.
Even if you aren't subscribed to the NYT, you'll be able to access their content for free through Facebook posts (like this one)
Last week the New York Times announced a new subscription model that would effectively put up a paywall for many users. Under this new system, people that aren’t subscribed to NYTimes.com are able to view 20 articles a month (that are subscriber-only) for free, before being blocked from reading certain stories. However, there’s a rather big loophole.
The New York Times has confirmed that people accessing their content through Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. will be able to view subscriber-only content even if they’ve already reached their 20 article monthly limit (similar to how you can access articles in The Wall Street Journal for free through Google). With this option in place, with the Times’ subscription model work?
The New York Times has already tried subscription-based access before (New York Times Select) which brought in $10 million in revenue, but wasn’t fully adopted by readers (it had 227,000 subscribers). It has also been reported that executives at the company were split on if a subscription model was their best option, especially since the value of their digital advertisements has been growing steadily.
It’s also been thought that this new subscription was meant to motivate people to sign up for weekend print subscriptions, which would give them unlimited online access. This would boost print circulation, and in return, ad rates.
So what do you think of all this? Do you plan on subscribing to the New York Times?
Earlier this week, we heard from Bloomberg Businessweek that Facebook would be offering a Groupon-inspired discount deal service. Given its potential customer base of over 500 million users, the social networking site definitely has a good starting foundation as it hopes to take advantage of the bourgeoning online-deal market.
Anyone else not surprised? Don’t get me wrong: Facebook is awesome and all, but once again, it’s taking a pre-existing idea from another social networking platform and incorporating it into its own one-stop social metropolis. Facebook has been a copycat from Day 1. Even prior to its conception, we had MySpace, FriendFeed, and several other social networking platforms that eventually floundered and or just never took off.
So what made Facebook succeed where others had failed? In short, exclusivity. Whereas MySpace was a very public platform where any creep could try to add you as a friend (Remember that creeper who was at least twice your age, lived across the country and was always commenting on your pictures for no good reason? Of course you do.), Facebook was initially a private club for college students. Only later, when it had established itself above the common man’s social networking sites, did it eventually open its doors to everyone.
Throughout Facebook’s young life, it has continued to adopt popular online tools in an effort to provide its user base with the be-all, end-all source for online interaction: in May 2007, the Marketplace launched, a lá Craigslist. In April 2009, the Facebook news feed underwent a drastic makeover that resulted in a suspicious resemblance to Twitter. In August 2010, Places kicked off, but while FourSquare doesn’t have nearly as many users as Facebook, it still seems to enjoy a higher volume of check-ins – for now, anyway. Later that year, we talked about the Facebook Deals introduction (and Foursquare still seems to be doing just fine).
Over the last six years, this social networking monolith has tried function as our online interactive Swiss army knife. Sometimes its efforts are impressive, and other times less remarkable – I actually had to see if Facebook Marketplace was still active when writing this post. While it is an enormous platform, I personally think that even the likes of Facebook won’t be able to do it all while holding everyone’s interest.
At the very least, imitation is the best form of flattery though, right? What do you think of Facebook holding the crosshairs over Groupon, or any of its other social adoptions?
Today the New York Times announced a new subscription model that will put a pay wall in front of a lot of its content. This is a big move for the newspaper industry, which has suffered as more and more people began canceling their newspaper subscriptions and getting their news online.
The New York Times will offer readers three different subscription. They all comes with access to NYTimes.com, and each option caters towards either smartphone users, tablet users, or people that use both devices. Additionally, people with print subscriptions will have access to all online and digital content. Details on the various subscription offerings can be found here.
This new model is great for the New York Times and should bring in a lot of additional revenue. It also seems like a fair system for readers, who can cancel their subscription at any time. However, other newspapers may not be able to follow the same road.
The New York Times is unique, because it is at the front of its industry in terms of content and coverage, Smaller newspapers that don’t have the same level or quantity of coverage likely won’t be able to entice readers to pay additional money to access their content online.
What do you think about this new model? Will you pay for additional access to the new York Times?
This morning the Wall Street Journalreported that the New York City Ballet plans to enforce a social media policy for all employees – administrative and artistic – to regulate how they use social media channels.
The ballet has a refined reputation and recently 24 year old, ballet dancer Devin Alberda (@dalberda) has been tweeting his work frustrations, much to the ballet company’s dismay. The Wall Street Journal article describes:
“Plenty of professional ballet dancers have Twitter accounts, parting the curtain on a long-cloistered world with details on their backstage warm-up process or what they’re snacking on during intermission. But some, such as Mr. Alberda, go a step further, posting the kind of workday gripes or jokes dancers might say to each other but that are rarely aired publicly. The company now is negotiating a social-media policy as part of contract talks with the dancers’ union, the American Guild of Musical Artists.”
The ballet’s executive director, Katherine Brown, said in a statement to the Journal: “Because social media usage has dramatically increased and will continue to do so, like many organizations the company is exploring the development of social media guidelines for all artistic and administrative employees with respect to their professional lives.”
If this policy is approved, the New York City Ballet would be the first major performing arts company to enforce such guidelines. The Boston Ballet is also looking into a social media policy for it’s company.
RaceTalk has frequently covered employee Twitter disasters (search our posts by “tweet #fail” to read all the previous posts on the topic) and Devin Alberda’s tweets are just another example of why every company should add social media guidelines to their employee handbook, regardless of industry. As social media channels, particularly Twitter and Facebook, continue to bleed into employees’ professional lives, these types of parameters are necessary.
On January 24th, AP sports writer Jon Krawczynski observed an NBA referee, Bill Spooner, tell a coach that he’d make up a bad call to his team, and posted a tweet:
Spooner claims that he never muttered those words, and Krawczynski swears he heard the conversation correctly. In either case, Spooner, a 22-year NBA veteran, was so inflamed over the tweet that he’s suing Krawczynski. According to ESPN, Spooner’s suit seeks over $75,000 in damages along with both an unpublishing and retraction of the statement on the grounds that the tweet is a defamatory accusation.
Now consider this: Krawczynski currently has 2,087 followers, and the game during which this occurred was the Minnesota Timberwolves vs. Houston Rockets, two teams with a combined 51-85 record. What does this mean? No one was paying attention!
But Spooner didn’t want to let this tweet, which criticized his job performance, pass without a fight (and let’s face it, fans generally assume referees make bad calls and makeup calls all the time). Therefore he filed a lawsuit and ended up with feature coverage on the subject on ESPN, FoxSports, BizJournals.com, SB Nation, MinnPost.com and more. So now there are a lot more people aware of his bad calls (if the tweet is indeed true).
While this isn’t the first scenario of someone creating adding publicity around a tweet they want buried, it’s a good example of how to draw attention where you don’t want it.
At the beginning of the current NBA season, the co-owners of Whiskey Tango (located 20 miles from Miami) decided to make a bet with their customers: if the Miami Heat lost the game, they’d get free drinks for the night.
The actual agreement stipulates that customers must have showed up at the bar at least 30 minutes before the game, and can’t leave until after its over. And the deal doesn’t cover the entire bill – just $25 per person.
In either case, it’s a good deal for the customer (if they’re a Heat fan). They either see the Heat win a game, or they get $25 off their check. The owners originally decided to do this for the first game of the season, but when the deal drew in larger crowds then expected on an opening night loss to the Celtics, they decided to keep it going the entire season.
To-date, the Heat have lost 21 games, and more are expected to come. After $30,000 of discounts on opening night, a recent loss to the Knicks cost the owners $5,600, the largest loss of any one night so far. In total, the owners have paid out $85,000 worth of discounts.
While $85,000 might seem like a big loss, it’s actually a major, major gain. The bar drives in far more people then it would have otherwise for every single Heat game. Additionally, since people have to stay there the entire game (and before), they’re at the bar at least 3 hours. That’s a lot of time to spend money on food and drinks. Also, the &85,000 in drinks that have been given away has actually cost the bar about $30,000. And for that, they’ve been covered by CNBC, ESPN, CNN and more.