Posts tagged as:

twitter

5 causes just as likely as the one @danzarrella seemingly picked out of a hat

by Ian Greenleigh on April 10, 2010 · 6 comments

What are we really seeing?

I’m not going to explain the scientific method to someone that describes himself as “The Social Media Scientist.” In fact, I have enormous respect for Dan Zarrella and Hubspot, and I know he understands it. So why he writes an article like Twitter Accounts with a Profile Picture Have 10 Times More Followers Than Those Without beats the hell out of me.

Bottom line is, you can’t notice a correlation between two things and then assert one is the cause of the other without eliminating other possibilities.

Here is where he asserts causation: Effect of Profile Picture on Followers [emphasis mine].

Oh, and here, too: “…if you want to get followers on Twitter, it’s a good idea to upload a picture of yourself.”

And here are 5 likely alternative explanations for the correlation Dan noticed.

Number of tweets. Maybe those without pictures tend to tweet less, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
Spammy content. Maybe those without pictures tend to tweet spam more often, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
Age: Maybe those without pictures tend to be newer accounts, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
Location: Maybe those without pictures tend to live in locations where Twitter use is less common, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
Lack of effort: Maybe those without pictures tend to put less effort into acquiring followers, and it is this latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.

I could go on and on. But that’s where you come in! Extra points for funny hypotheses left in comments.

As I’ve said before, Dan noticed something interesting here just by sharing the correlation he found. That alone was worthy of a blog post and perhaps a larger conversation. I don’t understand why he had to then jump to a conclusion and taint the larger effort. I really don’t. Based on our conversation (click “show conversation” after jump), he doesn’t seem to think there’s a problem with what he did. Cognitive dissonance? Who knows?

Remember, I’m writing this because I’m a fan, and posts like this might help influencers like Dan get better—and by extension, our study of the social media universe can improve. But I won’t say posts like this will do much of anything. That, after all, would be assuming causation .

{ 6 comments }

Social Media: Our Sleazy, Scheming, Sexy Society

by Ian Greenleigh on March 3, 2010 · 2 comments

Have you seen the social media underbelly? It’s not too hard to find. Type in one or two of the words that most appall you here and you’re bound to find some shadowy figures tossing them out without reservation. Gangs are now using Twitter and Facebook for recruitment. Talking heads are horrified–horrified!–that teenagers are using Chatroulette for virtual hanky-panky.

photo credit: jonny2love

And what about the spammers? The auto-DM’s from shiny-toothed circuit speakers selling e-books , the incessant requests to become “fans” of boring businesses we’ve never heard of, the phishing scams, the millions of zombie-like broadcast accounts that constantly speak but never listen–what about them?

“Yikes”, says the business owner, “Why on earth would I want to dive into that cesspool?”

“No thanks”, says the pure-intentioned soul, who simply wants to make friends online.

Is the water a bit muddy? Without a doubt. But if all we see is the filth, we miss the bigger picture:

Social media is simply a reflection of our society.

How muddy? ( photo credit: Newsbie Pix)

The same imperfect, complex, corrupt, exciting, beautiful society in which we do business every day. The same one, in fact, inhabited by our dearest friends, crooks, liars and everyone in between.

Sex and violence sells, so the media reports on these dark corners of the social media experience and leave some of us with a bleak, yet entirely inaccurate, understanding of this online world.

Stretching the truth in an entirely different direction, we find the schemers. If they can convince us that social media is a utopia of easy money and happiness to which they hold the key, we are one step closer to attending their pricey feel-good seminars or buying their surefire profit system.

Social media is neither den of iniquity nor Shangri-La.

This is social media. ( photo credit: helenadagmar)

400 million people use Facebook, for an average of an hour per day. To the surprise of many, who we say we are on Facebook is a remarkably accurate portrait. We are fast approaching 50 million tweets per day. These numbers can’t be ignored because they represent people.

The world is using social media. If the world is filled with your prospective customers and friends, you should be, too.

{ 2 comments }

What Klout Can’t Calculate: Dimensions of Influence

by Ian Greenleigh on November 24, 2009 · 7 comments

Sorry to get your hopes up. This is not a screed against Klout. I’m not angry at if for ranking me too low, or listing a mortal enemy as one of my influencers (fortunately, neither is the case). Just the opposite, I find that Klout has managed to pull off something remarkable. The list of so-called “twitter-graders” is lousy with failure and lack of imagination. The volume of data created by the actions of the average twitter user is enough to fill a long, boring book. The minds at Klout took these data, decided which should serve as metrics, weighed the various streams and came up with first influence-measuring tool that stands up to the “five friends” test. Pick five of those you most closely follow on Twitter, plug them into Klout, and see whether, for the most part, you agree with what’s served up about each. You probably will. That’s huge.

Klout’s new feature, a way to find, track, and list influencers, is similarly impressive. As can be expected this early after its arrival, it can be hit or miss. The way it locates online leaders by vertical or subject, however, is a powerful step in the right direction. Brian Solis has an accessible exploration of the mechanics behind this “Twitter list engine” over at PR 2.0.

But here’s the thing: Klout and other tools like it do not track the offline influence of online personalities. This has a lot to do with a question as old as science: Correlation or Causation?

Are these people and brands influential because of their new media efforts, or did they already carry influence as they created a new media presence? What about the individual or brand that is highly influential, but has barely begun to leverage their reputation by building a social online presence?

This third type should interest conversation marketers just as much as (if not more than) the other two. Budding efforts are simply easier to engage with. Some will argue that it’s better to target those with large networks and, therefore, extensive reach. But it’s a trade off. Yes, these new media participants have the power to perpetuate your message through their extensive networks. Yet, your voice will be just one of so many vying for their attention.

Offline influencers with a limited new media presence are more likely to see and hear you. As one of the few that find and engage them, your message will be all the more resonant if you approach them in the right way. They are also more likely to reciprocate and to appreciate any help you send their way.

Smart new media marketers get in front of both groups.

Klout and other influence-measuring tools can’t measure offline influence in any meaningful way, and we shouldn’t expect them to. But should we want them to? A complete picture of one’s influence is multidimensional. Such evaluation should require user input and a discussion about concepts that are unapproachable mathematically. To me, this is refreshing. There is still a need for a human touch in evaluating the influence of other humans.

{ 7 comments }

twitter

Ian Greenleigh’s blog.

The Latest

Reach me