Followers, fans, friends and fools

Allegedly, a rose would smell just as sweet with another name.

Except it wouldn't.

Words have associations that affect the way we think, which is why a good copywriter is worth their weight in gold (or aurum, if you prefer).

Some email marketers allow themselves to be misled by terms like open rate, delivery rate and blast.

The first two sound like they measure something they don't actually measure at all. And blast encourages you to think of email as a one-to-many, untargeted marketing approach. Which is not helpful.

A new danger is the terminology surrounding social marketing.

Current social networking terms like "friends," "followers" and "fans" mean something in the "real" world. The mistake is to assume they mean the same online. They don't.

Online, these labels can be based on nothing more than a single click. They are imposed, not earned. And they suggest a depth to the relationship that rarely exists.

Offline, a friend, follower or fan is loyal and (to an extent) forgiving.

Online, they are likely not.

A real "follower" will listen to you spout inanities for an hour. An online follower will give you about 0.5 seconds before moving on to the next Tweet.

A real "friend" will do something for you with no expectation of payment. Most online "friends" ask "what's in it for me?"

Why does this matter?

Many of your online followers, friends and fans will pay attention only for as long as you keep delivering value in your updates, posts, Tweets and messages.

If you let those labels seduce you into assuming offline levels of loyalty, you'll be tempted to tip the value exchange too much in your favor.

You'll assume you have enough goodwill in the relationship bank to get away with entirely self-serving content. You'll let standards slip, and fall into the one-way, push, broadcast marketing mentality that is the antithesis of social media.

Let me quote the wonderful Anne Holland:

"Loathing Facebook friends who "suggest" I become "a fan of" someone, usually themselves. Vomit self promotional."

So if someone becomes a fan, follower or friend, it's you that needs to keep on earning that status. Not them.

What do you think?

Permalink | June 05, 2009 | 8 comment(s)
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter

8 Comments:

Great post Mark. And let me just go on the record as saying that I would "listen to you spout inanities for an hour" any time. Not that I'm suggesting you do this.

But I agree, the labels for much of this stuff doesn't quite fit.

Michael
By Michael Katz | Blue Penguin, on 05 June, 2009

I've always found that if you simply be yourself, especially through this medium, you will be more respected.

In turn, people will be more likely to listen to to you and respond positively.

Keep the B.S. to a minimum, please.

I'll normally drop you as a follower or friend at the first indication of any type of nonsense.

you know who you are!

:)
By Ronnie, on 05 June, 2009

You're right. I see this a lot with Twitter too; everyone getting excited about how many friends they have and thus think that makes them important. Just because you have a lot of social media connections doesn't mean you're an expert for sure!

I agree that people should continually "earn" respect with good ideas, rather than simply spouting off ridiculous industry jargon.
By Nick Herinckx, on 05 June, 2009

Yes ... and yet we've had real, valued relationships grow out of social media beginnings. Sometimes growing into on/offline friendships.

I suspect these words' definitions will evolve (or new ones will be coined) to capture the ways we relate online. I bet similar concerns were explored when we started sending letters over long distances ... and then telegrams ... and telephones ...
By Tom Collins, on 06 June, 2009

Michael: an hour is just warming up time.

Ronnie: I think minimum BS is good advice for any medium.

Nick: yes, firm believer that quality shines through or at least ensures longevity.

Tom: yep, and we shouldn't forget either that some of those friends, fans and followers really are genuine friends, followers and fans.
By Mark Brownlow, on 06 June, 2009

As always, a great post, Mark.

You hit the nail on the head: relevancy matters, and we must earn the right to be in the inbox (or to have a fan on Facebook) every time we message to our customers. Assuming permission and "fan status" is always risky.

Another scary mistake it to assume that customers who connect with you in one channel are interested and willing to connect in others.

This lack of respect can get you blocked by the spam filters in email marketing, as there is a penalty for irrelevance and high frequency: the complaint button.

Thanks!

- Stephanie Miller
Return Path
@StephanieSAM
By Stephanie Miller, on 09 June, 2009

Thanks Stephanie. You're absolutely right: the same argument applies to email or any messaging channel.

The days are long gone when people were so thrilled by the ability to get email etc. that they kind of didn't care what was in it!
By Mark Brownlow, on 09 June, 2009

So true, so true! I get so tired of people telling me how many followers they have on Twitter when even their own mother probably doesn't bother to read their tweets.

All the best!

Melissa
By Melissa Paulik, on 24 June, 2009

Comments closed for this post