Category Archives: communication

Twitter to Verify Celebrity Tweets

Twitter says it will start experimenting with verifying the Twitter accounts of renown people and agencies according to an article from CNET.  (Here’s a link.)  Well, that’s a relief.  Does this mean if a person has the same name as a renown person they are SOL in terms of being able to use the name on Twitter?  Hahaha!!!  Somebody is already sitting on my real name and this person sends no Tweets, but follows “feministnews”. (And people wonder why most people use handles and avatars …)  But getting “down” to us unremarkable people; we have bullies, mean people, and name sharers, who ruin our existences too.  Going back to the time I Googled my true name and found two other name sharers who write about things and have personal identities that I don’t want to be associated with because they could be an impediment to my professional life.  Sometimes I wonder how many job interview opportunities I’ve been been denied out-the-shoot because someone Googled my true name and found online identifies or pictures of name sharers that looked unappealing.  Sometimes I feel like changing my name to kuroneko003 so people can find the real me online.  It’s too messed up.

Anyhow, all of this has me thinking about magic lore and how magic users hide their true names because a name is a very powerful piece of information that can be used to manipulate a person, and even kill a person.  I guess this lore arose from reality long ago and still holds true today.  Your true name can be used against you, so best guard it and hide behind an avatar.

Celebrities on Twitter

I’ve done something completely contrary to my personality and decided to follow a celebrity on Twitter.  I never thought I’d do this because I find what most celebrities have to say is meaningless.  I’m also skeptical that celebrities actually use Twitter to address their fans.  Rather, I had come to believe, based on no information, that either random people pose as celebrities or celebrities hire some poor smuck to handle their online identity.    Based on this conjecture, celebrities online are pointless.  That said, on a whim, I decided to follow “trent_reznor.”  I have no idea whether it’s the real celebrity, but the mix of optimistic idealism and random crankiness fits my perception.  My feeling about this so far is 90% of his Tweets are pointless.  What attracted me to follow him were his fund raising efforts and rest of it is passing amusement — but then again, I consider Twitter in general to be “passing amusement.”  (I, also, have to admit I had it in mind to blog about the experience as I am now).

Today “trent_reznor” left an interesting Tweet:  “The price of attempting to engage an online community is high and probably ultimately not worth weeding through the sewage.”  With 600,000+ followers on Twitter alone, plus fan forums and whatever other online assets “trent_reznor” owns, I can’t exactly call any of this a means of intimate fan engagement.  Imagine if only .2% of his followers per day were brave enough to send replies and personal messages through Twitter, that would mean he gets 1200 little messages a day.   That is beyond any human’s capacity to sift through, even if a person had nothing else to do all day but Twitter.  This leads me wonder whether there’s any meaning in this.  Well, meaning is up to the individual.  Replying to a celebrity and hoping the celeb reads your message and gives a crap is pointless.  However, you can imagine if a celebrity gets a ton of overwhelmingly positive messages then that can be a source of positive affirmation and inspiration.  I see my replies to anyone on Twitter as more of a commentary on the Tweet, rather than trying to actually reach the person.  On the other side, for the celebrity, Twitter is what they make of it.  It’s merely a tool to send messages out to broad audience that has interest in what the celebrity is up to.  I think “trent_reznor” used Twitter well for his charity effort and to give updates about his current tour.

To sum it up, fans and celebrities should not expect Twitter and forums to lead to an intimate relationship between celebrity and fan.  Fans need to understand to a celebrity their replies are most likely taken in aggregate to gauge the general feeling towards the celebrity.  I hate to put in these terms, but basically fans are willingly giving marketing machines data when they reply to Tweets and participate in forums — and yes, believe it or not, “trent_reznor” has a marketing machine, though he may be loathed to admit it.  For the celebrity, Twitter is an excellent way to broadcast to those that genuinely take an interest in the celebrity.  In this sense, depending on the saaviness of the celebrity, a lot of good can be done, particularly if Twitter is used to rally support for a cause or to disseminate event information.  Beyond, that, celebrities should understand prattling on about their personal life will become fodder for the tabloids, though, I imagine there are plenty of fans who hang on every word that is Tweeted, mainly because they live in some twisted fantasy world … well whatever … I imagine dealing with crackpots is one of the prices of fame ;p.

Food for thought for the marketing end of celebrity-dom:  it may not hurt to buy a week from a web programming geek to get a filter and analysis package set up to collect data from fan’s reply Tweets.  I think if you get a general sense of the Tweets coming at you, you can send a “personal” reply to big blocks of followers who have Tweeted very similar messages.  You can, also, gauge the feelings towards your products — be they music, movies, prose, or whatever … Consolidation of messages into general themes can take out most of the noise and, then perhaps, some gems can be extracted from the “sewage.”
Now Tweet that!

The News Agencies Are Digging Their Own Graves

I’m beyond irritated with the quality of news we get in the US.  It seems their latest thing is trying to scare the crap out of everyone about the “Swine Flu.”  This morning I even saw rumblings about the Swine Flu thwarting the economic recovery.  If I’m not mistaken, the news agencies are funded by advertising and the amount companies spend on advertising is linked to how well the economy is doing.  So … isn’t it best for the news agencies to have a good economy?  It seems to me their deliberate drive to scare the crap out of everyone is very short-sighted.  Sure panic and sensational headlines may grab eyeballs, but those eyeballs aren’t the ones paying media producers to deliver the news.  I’m not saying that the news should only report good things — but what I’m suggesting is perhaps the news should get back into the business of delivering the news instead of opinion and tabloid sensationalism.  A balance of good and bad news would be nice.  Clearly separating the news from opinion and taking a serious look into what is news worthy and what is not would be nice.   Seriously, does 40 confirmed cases of the Swine Flu, which so far has manifested itself as the normal flu, equal a pandemic and the precursor to global financial meltdown?  And, seriously, do the media producers wish for global financial meltdown, because that would mean they would go extinct too.  So media producers and news people out there, give the news some thought before you start spouting sensational headlines and spinning everyone up with apocalytic prophecies and crazy what-if-a-frog-had-a-glass-ass scenarios.  Be responsible in your reporting and most importantly quit “driving” world events into the ground!  It’s irritating.  So irritating in fact, that I’ve limited my access to news to ~about 1-min/day to make sure the world still exists, while at the same time keeping myself from spiraling into mental depression.

Women 55+ are Fastest Growing Segment on Facebook

Here is a very interesting story from CNN about the growth of Facebook book usage among senior women.  It makes perfect sense after reading the article.  Senior women want to keep up with their grandchildren and scattered family.  One of women interviewed says she gets more communication out of Facebook than over the telephone.  Hahaha!!  Indeed!  I wonder where the young folks will flock to next to live their imaginary lives away from adults?

Fun Stuff Coming out of NAA Conference

I’ve been following the news coming out of the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) conference.  Here’s a link to latest thread as Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt adds his 2-cents.  Basically the newspapers have discovered that “free” isn’t a business model while, at the same time, they have no idea how to regain control of the distribution of their content from the millions of bloggers and aggregators out there in the world.  The thing I don’t understand is why they object to bloggers and aggregators providing links to their content and why they are acting like the music industry folks and “hating” upon their customers.  First of all links are the life’s blood of the internet.  If you want people to find your content, then links to your content  (along with quality content) will help put your content on top of the Google stack (links are the Internet’s “street cred”).   What news agencies don’t want is bloggers and aggregators reprinting content in whole without crediting or linking back to the source.

Let’s take a look at my interaction with Ad Age.  I pay a subscription to Ad Age because I find the content compelling.  I ended up getting a subscription because of links from the CEA news aggregator.  Some Ad Age articles are free, but not all of them.  I wanted access to this news so I pay for it.  What a concept!  In my blogging I put links to Ad Age in them and if my readers want to read the Ad Age source they can choose to pay and read the source article.   Mind blowing isn’t it?  So what’s the secret?  Um … it’s called compelling content!

So with respect to bloggers, news agencies want them to find their content.   News agencies want bloggers to pay to read content and then repackage the headlines so they compel their readers to follow the links back to the source.  Those readers, then, will be confronted with the choice to pay to read further.  So my message to the news agencies is that they should show some love to bloggers rather than “hating” upon them.  Most people like their news pre-digested and spoon fed to them.  Get used to it!  Understand who it is that wants to get beyond the headlines and serve that audience.  Quit worrying about the masses for which the “cesspool” of the Internet and headlines are good enough.  Let the bloggers and the aggregators have the close relationship with the masses — use them as envoys.   I think Eric Schmidt got it right by telling the news agency execs and reps,

These are ultimately consumer businesses, and if you piss off enough of them, you ultimately won’t have any.