Comments

  • Pingback:fastspottracey (Tracey Halvorsen)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving: Ever wonder what 100k Twitter followers will do for you? @kanter and I found out for you. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • This is a great example to refute those who claim Twitter is just a numbers game. Nice to see some facts to back up what I’ve long maintained, namely, “Influence wanes without relationships.”

  • Pingback:ChrisCree (Chris Cree)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post] <-- "Influence wanes without relationships." – Posted using Chat Catcher

  • That’s certainly been my experience as well, Geoff. Just because someone is “following” you doesn’t mean they are following you. It’s imperative that companies remember that numbers are only meaningful to the extent that they represent human beings. Too many businesses (and rank-craving individuals) think that if they can just get bigger numbers, all will be well.

  • Pingback:RichBecker (Richard Becker)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100k Twitter follows will get you by @GeoffLiving [link to post] (Apparently, not so much)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Good post Geoff. It would be interesting to follow the unfollow stats too. Since people blindly click and follow people on the “suggested users” list I suspect the rate of unfollows is much higher then if you built your list on pure engagement which of course Beth is super at.

  • Hi Geoff:

    I think you’re right here.

    I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how there are different types of influence — reach and affinity.

    Reach=numbers
    Affinity=relationships

    I agree with you that can’t get results in social media without affinity.

    There’s a difference between building a following on Twitter quickly through being on the suggested list or other tactics and one person at a time.

    You might want to link to the post I wrote about being added to the Twitter Suggested List about the impacts that I was tracking.
    http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/10/should-twitter-add-more-charities-and-nonprofits-to-suggested-users-list.html

    Now, should I retweet this post and should we track it?

  • Pingback:rhodesjason (Jason Rhodes)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving: It’s better to cultivate a rabid community than a massive following. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kayawalton (Kaya Walton)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving Ever wonder what 100k Twitter followers will do for you? @kanter and I found out for you. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:glfceo (Tatyana Kanzaveli)

    Twitter Comment


    Ever wonder what 100k Twitter followers will do for you? @kanter and I found out for you. [link to post] (via @GeoffLiving)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Falling in line with the 90/9/1 ratio of community engagement (where 90% of all users will lurk, 9% will participate somewhat and 1% will actively participate)… bigger IS better.

    Geoff is correct in that an uber-tweeter will lose some of the ability to have meaningful relationships. Perhaps that is only in the loss of time and forced shortening of statements due to all the additional @replies and fresh comments they will now be responding to.

    Will the new list features help these uber-Tweeters regain their relationships?

    See my full response on my OpenAmplify blog: http://community.openamplify.com/blogs/ampthis/archive/2009/11/03/what-100k-twitter-followers-gets-you-dave-s-take.aspx

  • I analyzed this problem a few months ago. I ened up with a higher conversion rate, but I have much less followers and definitely not casul and more engaging. Take a look, comments appreciated:

    How To Boost The Conversion Rate On Twitter http://bit.ly/vovAO

  • I don’t know, Dave. I kind of see that ratio dwindling based on these results.

    You can’t just assume lurkers care. I think we overvalue the amount of Twitter followers. There are so many passive accounts, dead or folks that don’t check regularly and read every single Tweet that assuming there’s a lurker is probably incorrect.

  • Pingback:Marc_Meyer (Marc Meyer)

    Twitter Comment


    Before you read his quick post, let me quote @geoffliving “Influence wanes without relationships” [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • I think real relationships will dwindle, but for pure marketing oomph, bigger numbers = wider reach. The stats hold up, whether it is an online community or a Twitter user’s following.

    Of course, only time and experience will tell in Beth’s case… guess we will just have to get timely updates :)

    Many more people in Beth’s new following will fall under the 90% unengaged label, but there will also be far more people who are the 9% slightly engaged and 1% actively engaged.

  • I think you are still mistaken, Dave. The cost of capture does not outweigh the reach and actual click through. A marketer would be better invested in approaching an email list or a different tactic all together.

  • Pingback:xtopher1974 (Christopher Edwards)

    Twitter Comment


    Ever wonder what 100k Twitter followers will do for you? [link to post] A discussion of influence. (via @GeoffLiving and @kanter)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • I think each is a tool in one’s shed to be used at different times in different ways. I don’t think we are really disagreeing, just coming at in from different points of view.

    Now that Beth has a bigger following, she is seeing a drop in engagement ratio via the stats you produced. However, her clicks, RT and replies have all gone up… thus producing a greater level of engagement overall.

  • Pingback:kencamp (Ken Camp)

    FriendFeed Comment


    Wh… [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:pprothe (Patrick Prothe)

    Twitter Comment


    Very powerful thought. RT @Marc_Meyer: @geoffliving “Influence wanes without relationships” [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:davidiangray (David Ian Gray)

    Twitter Comment


    Great mini case study of twitter influence RT @GeoffLiving ‘better to cultivate rabid community than massive following’ [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:dfriez (Debbie Friez)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You blog post with the comments, correct link here: [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:wordymouth (Michael Sommermeyer)

    Twitter Comment


    I’ve heard it before and this cements it: Large followings produce poor relationships. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:businesshabitat (Business Habitat)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post] <-- "Influence wanes without relationships." (via @ChrisCree) – Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Yes, but the # of followers vs. click through ratio don’t justify an aggressive strategy to try and build a massive following. In Beth’s case it was happenstance. I would not be intentional about it though… Big waste of time and money.

  • Agreed — massive build up for build up sake is a waste of time and money.

    Growth by other means is great and the ratios for engagement will follow those above no matter how big.

  • Pingback:seporchid (renee chen)

    Twitter Comment


    “What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You.” by Geoff Livingston [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • I don’t envy her the spam she must be getting right now but I have to add that of the recommended follows on Twitter Beth is one of the truly worthy follows!

    This whole MLM idea of the more connections you have the better is just bull and you demonstrated that nicely. Thanks.

  • Pingback:wordymouth.com » Blog Archive » Influence Fades Without Relationships

    […] his base, he continues to take a hyperlocal approach and is building relationships he can sustain. Geoff Livingston looked at what a large number of followers really results in and he concludes that influence wanes […]

  • Oh, forgot to add my initial metaphor for building a fast following – it’s like eating empty calories.

    Jane. There hasn’t been much @spam – and if I get I block it and report them. What’s worse is the unsolicited emails from PR people asking for retweets of content that I don’t write or have an interest in.

  • Pingback:ckieff (Chris Kieff)

    Twitter Comment


    Great analysis of the impact of higher Twitter followers [link to post] by @geoffliving #sm32

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:ckieff (Chris Kieff)

    Twitter Comment


    Great analysis of the impact of higher Twitter followers [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:guruofnew (guruofnew)

    Twitter Comment


    @YokmokAventuras I understand. Think your soc media program is awesome. Check out this quantity vs quality post: [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:jfouts (Janet Fouts)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You (or not) [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:guruofnew (guruofnew)

    Twitter Comment


    No surprises here for me. You? RT@jfouts What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You (or not) [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:socialbrite (The Socialbrite team)

    Twitter Comment


    @geoffliving explores the effect of @kanter being added to Twitter’s recommended list & argues “you lose engagement.” [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:LPT (Laura P Thomas)

    Twitter Comment


    Reading: “What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Geoff Livingston’s Personal Blog” ( [link to post] )

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:Meryl333 (Meryl at Beanstalk)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Geoff Livingston’s Personal Blog [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kanter (Beth Kanter)

    Twitter Comment


    @socialbrite I thought @geoffliving was saying – numbers aren’t as important as relationships [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:twittea (Rafael Peláez)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Geoff Livingston’s Personal Blog: Sin Descripción [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Hence the theory of “100 loyal fans.” That’s all you really need. Not 100,000 trend-chasers.

  • Pingback:lostdogs20 (Tina)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @Twitter_Tips What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post] /great point.

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:Twitter_Tips (Tips, Tools, Status)

    Twitter Comment


    What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:sharoncain (Sharon Cain)

    Twitter Comment


    Good reminder to keep focused on your target audience RT @Twitter_Tips What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:GilbertoBR (Gilberto)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @Twitter_Tips: What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kats2009 (~ Kristy ~)

    Twitter Comment


    SPAM! RT @Twitter_Tips: What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:BTRIPP (Brendan Tripp)

    Twitter Comment


    I guess I should be happy about my 3% c/t rate! … RT @Twitter_Tips What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:lfabert (lfabert)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Geoff Livingston’s Personal …: Everyone always seems fascinated wi.. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:thegoldeneagle (thegoldeneagle)

    Twitter Comment


    cloud creds! RT @Twitter_Tips: What Does 100,000 New Twitter Followers Get You? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:timepass (Shane Jacob)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post] – nice read, bigger is not always better

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:debbieweil (Debbie Weil)

    Twitter Comment


    @geoffliving opines on @kanter’s 126K followers: “Influence wanes w/out relationships; Bigger isn’t necess better” [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:smichm (Melissa Smich)

    Twitter Comment


    Interesting: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You: Less impact? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:reitstuff (Mike Reiter)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You: fortunately, I don’t have this problem [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:ScottMacIver (Scott R. MacIver)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @northernchick: [link to post] What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Fascinating.

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:PRSALANews (PRSA-LA)

    Twitter Comment


    Geoff Livingston Blog: More casual Twitter followers equal less influence; [link to post].

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:northernchick (kathryn jennex)

    Twitter Comment


    [link to post] What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You

    #BlogPotomac Keynotes @kanter and @shelisrael at the White House – v. interesting

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:maniactive (Laura Bergells)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving New Blog Post: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:NahumG (Nahum Gershon)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @GeoffLiving: New Blog Post: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:wolbersdr (wolbersdr)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Geoff Livingston’s Personal … [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:PenandPress (Pen and Press)

    Twitter Comment


    Quantity or quality in Twitter? Blog reminds us that communication is about building relationships: @GeoffLiving [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:Doallas (Maureen Doallas)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @gyoung9751 More casual Twitter followers = less influence. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:gyoung9751 (Glynn Young)

    Twitter Comment


    More casual Twitter followers = less influence. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:padres84 (Greg Tish)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @heidiotway: Do you really want 100,000 followers on Twitter? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kamallard (Kiley Mallard)

    Twitter Comment


    My takeaway: social media is about relationships… RT @heidiotway: Do you really want 100,000 followers on Twitter? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:StormyBrownrigg (Stormy Brownrigg)

    Twitter Comment


    Is #socialmedia all about numbers? Or is there more to it? RT @heidiotway: Do you really want 100,000 followers? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:IvetteMarques (Ivette Marques)

    Twitter Comment


    If I’m not interacting/gaining anything it’s not worth it. RT @heidiotway: Do u really want 100k Twitter followers? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:heidiotway (heidiotway)

    Twitter Comment


    Do you really want 100,000 followers on Twitter? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:dmims (Deanna, MarketDone)

    Twitter Comment


    RT: @heidiotway Do you really want 100,000 followers on Twitter? [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kg (kristy hopenhagen)

    Twitter Comment


    @wheresPAUL similar but diff post + insights from @geoffliving & @kanter: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post] #nptech

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:yamasas (yamasas)

    Twitter Comment


    [twitter] What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | Geoff Livingston’s Blog [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:MikeKalil (MikeKalil)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @KateDickman: GREAT article for those who think the more followers they have, the better. [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:paconmiller (paconmiller)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @akhilak Great ex of why social media still based on relationships. RT @TargetStars What 100K Followers Gets You [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:TargetStars (LaTosha Johnson)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:akhilak (Akhila Kolisetty)

    Twitter Comment


    Great example of why social media still based on relationships. RT @TargetStars: What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

    • Pingback:TargetStars (LaTosha Johnson)

      Twitter Comment


      @akhilak Thanks for the RT. It’s been awhile! How are you? Hope all is well.

      Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:norestrictions (No Restrictions Ent.)

    Twitter Comment


    A case study on followers from the Twitter “recommended” list [link to post] (ht @KateDickman via @wherespaul)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kanter (Beth Kanter)

    Twitter Comment


    @erictpeterson answer to your @twitalyzer question part 1 http://bit.ly/U89o6 and part 2 [link to post] ur thoughts?

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:askdebra (Debra Askanase)

    Twitter Comment


    Relationships, people! How did I miss this? @geoffliving on what 100K twitter followers gets you: [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:TXWriter (TXWriter)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @askdebra: Relationships, people! How did I miss this? @geoffliving on what 100K twitter followers gets you: [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:socialnetdaily (Social Net Daily)

    FriendFeed Comment


    Here’s What 100K ‘Twitter Followers’ Gets You [link to post] http://friendfeed.com/e/55056928-5fbc-4509-baed-505b4fc7e256

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:a_vran (Annie Vranizan)

    Twitter Comment


    What 100K Twitter Followers Gets you [link to post] Great study by @geoffliving and @kanter

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:kanter (Beth Kanter)

    Twitter Comment


    @GeoffLiving re-reading “What will 100K Twitter Followers get you?” [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  • Pingback:SocialMediaBust (Social Media Bust)

    Twitter Comment


    RT @geoffliving What 100K Twitter Followers Gets You | [link to post] Hmmm..another day older and deeper in debt?

    Posted using Chat Catcher

Comments are closed