I, @alexpriest, tweet a lot. Some of you might consider that an understatement. But I also listen a lot. That’s why I follow over 3,000 people on Twitter–because it’s not just a microphone, it’s also a speaker.
Today’s Twifficiency fiasco (don’t you dare click that link, much less authorize the service) is all the proof you need that there are simply too many talkers and not enough listeners on Twitter. Despite it’s creator’s supposed brilliance, it’s spammy and worthless. Still, even among the people I follow–all of whom I consider remarkably intelligent people–almost every other tweet I saw tonight was about “Twifficiency”. Everyone was just so excited to have found the next big tool for measuring “Twitter influence” (an idea in and of itself that’s completely abstract and pretty much bogus, if you ask me) that they were thrilled to try it out, regardless of the consequences.
That in and of itself isn’t that big of a problem. Even I clicked on it at first. But on Twitter time is fleeting and everything moves extraordinarily quickly–I clicked on the link early this morning, before it had blown up the way it did. Immediately after realizing what it did, I closed it, deleted the auto-tweet, and posted a warning to all my Twitter followers. Rather than these warnings spreading (mine, and others), instead the link itself spread like wildfire, as Twitter users found themselves overwhelmed by the desire to talk and not to listen.
Had I waited a few hours, I would’ve quickly seen that “Twiffiency” was bogus and spammy. I would not have clicked the link. But even as I write this–after 8:00 p.m. on the east coast–people are still clicking away at that link, convinced it must be something worth trying out despite the myriad warnings floating around the Twittersphere. Simply put, there are too many talkers, and not enough listeners.
This points to a larger issue with Twitter. I love the network, and I’ll likely use it until the day they shut it down or the day I die, whichever comes first. But there’s no doubt that far too many users see it as a soapbox, and there’s not enough listening happening. It’s not just spreading a few spammy links, it’s that people simply aren’t utilizing it to its full potential.
There’s a lesson here–you knew it was coming: Twitter is a learning tool. Not a tool for screaming through your digital microphone to your umpteen-thousand followers. It’s not a tool for mass marketing your brand. It’s not a tool for venting, ranting, or debating. Not fundamentally, anyway.
It’s a tool for listening.
If you use Twitter to listen, only then does it become a tool for any of those other things. By listening to the voices on Twitter–including your own, on occasion–you can figure out what the conversation is. You can figure out who the people are you want to talk to. You can figure out your audience, your target, your customers. And then you can slide yourself right into that conversation.
But nobody wants a screaming, blathering salesman barging into the middle of their bar-talk. So don’t do it. Listen. Just stop talking every once in a while, and listen.
August 17, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Hold up my dear. In line with your comment about being an active Twitter user and listener – have you ever stepped away from the service (class, perhaps?) to return to hundreds of tweets with no time to scroll through the history? I don't believe I've gone through more than 50 past tweets, now less, as it's simply not worthy of my time. That's not to say that those I follow don't have tweets worth reading, but rather prioritizing where I focus my energy. I prefer to follow Twitter in the moment, the here and now – to engage and communicate with those currently actively listening and tweeting, that's where I feel relationships are built (and enforced offline).
If one is online all day with a Twitter application open then they may indeed have seen the trending tweets about this pointless application. Or, you could be me, who is almost online as much as you but was working "offline" for once – I open Tweetdeck, see two (people I respect) tweets on what seems to be a new Twitter influencer app and click the link. (Side note: what Twitter or Facebook app DOESN'T ask to access data? They ALL do!!) I've used many of these and there's always a last option asking if you want to share your results – most of us don't, thus you might think most of us don't use these application – think again. Unless you are on here to LITERALLY TWEET WHAT YOU EAT then please, don't tell me you don't care about metrics people!
End result – I auto tweeted my results, and without even having enough time to check my feed I left it there, for a while! It happens, we're human. We can't always listen…sometimes we just stop by to shout. And that's okay with me
August 17, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I'm not saying if you did it you're an awful person! It happens to all of us.
What I *am* saying is that if we spent half as much time listening as we did actually tweeting/retweeting/talking back and forth–especially us marketers–then we'd probably find it much easier to achieve our goals. I'm simply using this twifficiency nonsense as an example of the nature of Twitter.
Like I said in my post, I clicked on it too! But by the time I got home almost every other tweet I saw was either a) someone who had clicked on it and been auto-tweeted or b) someone warning about NOT clicking on it. Meaning that for *most* people who are active on Twitter (with exceptions–some of us get busy, I understand!), they probably should've seen a warning/news article/etc. on this already. If they'd spent as much time listening as they had tweeting, they would've realized the conversation was NOT about "how twifficient people are" but instead about "how much nonsense and spam this twifficiency crap is."
I rarely scroll through the history, because you're right, it's not necessarily worth of my time. But *this* example in particular is very much "in the moment, the here and now" and this what people are actively listening and tweeting about (and subsequently building relationships!).
My point is simply that there is a LOT of value in listening on Twitter, and that often we get so distracted by tweeting, retweeting and chatting back and forth, that we forget to sit there for a minute and see what people are *actually* talking about. Which is remarkably important, if we want to stay relevant.
Finally, you're right–it was a tricky spammy little app! Which is exactly why I fell for it this morning. But after warning fellow users all day–and seeing other warnings–I thought it was a telling statement about how much we tweet versus how much we listen.
August 17, 2010 at 9:42 pm
I certainly agree that marketers/brands need to listen on Twitter. But people/individuals don't have that same need…take a look at whom you follow, how many brands tweeted this auto Twifficiency tweet today?
August 17, 2010 at 9:46 pm
This post wasn't exactly written for your average person/individual
Even then, I think you learn a lot from listening. Everybody should listen more often–not just on Twitter, but in life. Trust me, I talk a lot, I should follow my own advice.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Twitter: Too Many Talkers, Not Enough Listeners | alexpriest.com -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Tweets that mention Twitter: Too Many Talkers, Not Enough Listeners | alexpriest.com -- Topsy.com
August 18, 2010 at 9:16 am
Great discussion up there and I can see both sides.
On the opposite end, I think sometimes my personal filter (as well as the ability to actually filter out tweets or users with the apps I use) causes me not to listen as much BECAUSE there is too much talk about one topic or from one person. Both can cause people to tune out that topic/person to the point where they actually miss something when it is indeed worthwhile or new or important.
I "fell for" the twifficiency early yesterday morning (which of course I clicked on in an account other than my personal account–a total of 4 times–and got 4 different answers…). Then realized it wasn't helpful or even interesting–and auto-tweeted which was annoying. Then sure enough I soon saw all the "it's spam don't click it" stuff. Some people were still clicking, and on top of that, now people were tweet-complaining. (I even snarkily RT-ed a complaint about how much the twifficiency complaints were getting annoying. How is that for internet noise?) Then, I tuned out the chatter. And yesterday, I never once saw these articles about the kid that created it.
I do not doubt that at some point in my feed yesterday there were links to these articles but I didn't see it until this morning because everytime a new twifficiency tweet came through, my brain saw it as just another "victim of the spam" OR as another person complaining about all the victims of the spam's tweets coming through.
It goes without saying that listening and tweeting should be equal. But sometimes, the more tweets you have to process, the less likely you will do so.
Or maybe that's just me.
August 18, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Great points! As for the article about the kid, I didn't see it until I wrote this post and was searching for news on it, so don't worry.
Obviously we can't catch everything, and just like I told Lisa, there are plenty of days when we can't catch hardly anything. But when you said you "tuned out the chatter" you were still listening. You were just listening selectively–it means you saw there was something you didn't care about in the conversation, and you *chose* to ignore it. That's part of listening, too.
August 18, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Great thoughts, Alex. I too clicked on it first, then read the red warning that it would auto-tweet results, and closed it. I'm not all about using a ton of different tools just to find out your 'influence' (which, let's be honest, just because you have followers doesn't mean you're influential, nor does it mean you're better at Twitter than anyone else), and I'm even more against bragging about the scores, but I do think just seeing your 'score' every once in awhile can be fun, even though there really isn't value in it other than seeing if you went up from the last time you checked.
Then I began to see the spam remarks, warned my followers to use it with caution, even if it did use oauth, and then realilzed it wasn't really even the terrible thing I thought it was – simply another Twitter evaluation tool, nothing more, nothing less, just the fact that it auto-tweeted results was the problem that Twitter world freaked out about.
There is a lesson to this, though – beware of the links you click on and where they come from, and be careful what and who you let access your account information. Take everything with a grain of salt, and, as you said above all, listen to those you follow – they may be smarter than you realize!
August 19, 2010 at 10:07 am
Yes!
And you're right, seeing your "score" every once in a while can be fun, and there can be value in those services, but only from a self-evaluation perspective–they can't really be used for comparison.
August 18, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I like how you said Twitter is a 'learning tool.' That's exactly why I started my blog and the corresponding Twitter account. I wanted to learn more about a community and it's worked from both talking and listening using this platform.
August 19, 2010 at 10:07 am
Absolutely! I learn more from Twitter than just about anywhere else, every single day. It's an amazing tool for learning, far too many people miss out on that aspect of it, I think.
September 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Good dispatch and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you on your information.
September 24, 2010 at 10:51 am
Nice brief and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you as your information.
January 25, 2011 at 1:35 pm
To be tweetly successful of twitter you have to learn your audience… and the best way to do so is by listening. What peaks their interest? What makes them tune out the buzz and actually listen to you?
February 10, 2011 at 1:08 pm
The truth of the matter is that they are all so busy speak at the same time that it becomes hard to the message communicated because there are so many people shouting at the same time. At the times when I hear the message the communicator has no time to respond to my query because he or she is only concerned with hearing his/herself. I too believe that twitter has lost its value with all the autobots. Thus when I send the are you a bot or human call and you don't respond I take you off. The bottom line is one buys from humans not bots!!! jmtc