Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Pinterest
Google+
LinkedIn
Re #7 "Fakers & Cheaters", it's time to turn your swords into plowshares and realize this is how the world works. The author (Stacey Acevero) says she's worked as a model on national tv such as E!, VH1 and MTV, and you know what? When those entertainment stations report on Lady Gaga's and President Obama's Twitter followers, they report the gross number that Twitter displays next to their avatars, NOT the net number you get from Fakers.StatusPeople.
There may be some validity to her (your) point, but only Don Quixote would continue to repeat this old rant.
(You're up against the Time Warners & Comcasts, etc.: all the big entertainment conglomerates will report the biggest numbers since it's in their interest to do so: they own the stations, the magazines, and the stars. Who in their right mind would voluntarily downgrade Rihanna's follower count from 27M to 10M? Oprah's following from 15M to 3.6M? Or CNN's from 6.5M to 1.8M? None of the newspapers, magazines and gossip shows, so it ain't gonna happen.)
1 Like
@ltcassociates interesting take. I'm not sure it's about the Oprahs or Lady Gagas, it's about the PR pros, the marketers, heck any business that is looking to get REAL value out of social. Numbers look good in TV and in reports, but if those followers aren't real community members, advocates or anything of the like, your time is wasted. I think the comparison to those icons is unfair in the context of this post because this post for for regular joes like us building businesses and doing marketing. We don't have that fan base already - and it's not logical to create expectations of getting those kinda of fan bases either, fake or real. The big guys don't have to downgrade and revel fake followers because they don't have to. It's the marketers, PR pros and businesses that have their butt on the line when trying to create trust and repor with their audience on social, hence my post. I believe in authentic social experiences.
Eek, trying to reply to this via my phone made that a bit of a mess :) **The big guys don't have to reveal their fake followers because they already have that huge fan base offline and its known. For newly created ABC brand and XYZ brand the consumers and prospects will be more discerning. I believe people look much more closely at a brands social presence now before they opt-in to communities on social because they want value out of that like or follow. Don Quixote if you will :)
@sacevero @ginidietrich I respect your opinion and your response. Having said that, would you allow me to shake things up just a little bit more before we leave this topic for good?
You wrote, "It's the marketers, PR pros and businesses that have their butt on the line when trying to create trust and rapport with their audiences on social, hence my post. I believe in authentic social experiences."
You're describing a tension between an illusion that goes only skin-deep, and something authentic and real. You are arguing for the latter, am I right?
So here's a thought-experiment: would you be willing spend the rest of 2013 going w/o make-up? Would you be willing to take a simple photo of yourself (first thing in the morning, no make-up) and change all of your on-screen avatars to that?
Do you understand where I'm going with this thought-experiment? (I'm not trying to provoke you or get under your skin-- honest!) I'm trying to make you think about a real-world analogy about how we perceive others, and whether a "means to and end" can lead to real, authentic results.
/ just give it some thought...
[...] Not that that’s bad. It isn’t. We love our guest bloggers, which is why Lindsay Bell honored the top 10 from last July through December just [...]