When people like Ashton get 1,000,000 followers, I say, “Big Whoop.” He’s a celebrity. And people like Larry King and Oprah who have a zillion followers, but follow no one, are communicating the same old way: “Them to Us.” It’s no different than watching them on TV.

Now, if those celebrities would actually follow some people and LISTEN to other people, then I would say they are using social media the way it supposed to be used. It should be a two way street.

I have about 3,300 followers, and I can’t come close to reading every tweet. But, once in a while I see something I like, and I’ll start up a conversation with that person. Out of the ocean of tweets, I can scoop up a cup to drink when I want to. The bigger my ocean, the more chance I have of finding someone interesting.

I make no bones about the fact that I am building my social media so that I can do business with my friends. Twitter and Facebook help me build more friendships. I count on the fact when people know and trust me, if the don’t buy from me, they may refer someone else.

A few nights ago, I was goofing with some friends on Twitter. It was silly stuff, and I am sure we were all giggling in front of our respective keyboards. But, a tweet popped up from a woman I didn’t know. I followed her, checked her profile, and read her web site. It turns out we have similar business interests, and I have approached her about maybe doing some business together some day. That’s how social media is supposed to work. I get a possible business connection because I was having fun on Twitter.

And, yes, please, I would love for you to follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/Jaykoch
DM me and tell me you found me from this blog.

jay

The root problem is that in our minds we use the standard definitions for followers and following, but these groups of people have little to do with those definitions. Nor do followers and following have anything to do with the more serious “friends” you might have on Facebook.

Remember, we don’t have to follow someone in order to read their tweets. Either through search or through RSS — we can read lots of tweets from people without adding ourselves to their follower count.

But that’s not the point. Following has nothing to do with listening. It’s about community. It’s about providing an opportunity for having a private, neighborly chat (only mutual followers can DM). It’s about offering a token of recognition, of social connection.

Not following someone who follows you is just rude. It costs you nothing to return the favor. By snubbing people, you only make yourself look like a snob. To not follow is like refusing to shake someone’s hand — you better have a really good reason not to.

Many of the arguments against following so many people come from people who are still using the Twitter website as their primary interface. It’s actually a lousy tool for effectively engaging the twitter community. Move on to something like Tweetdeck which lets you build groups of people you like to listen to more closely, track keywords on every topic you find interesting, and more easily engage in conversation with 1000s of insightful people.

Unless a twitter account is malicious or spam (or you oppose the user on some sort of moral or political grounds), there’s no reason not to follow.

Agreed, to a large extent. The problem I see is with the auto follow, which causes issues. I am not against following people, by any means. And you summed it up expertly when you said -

” If you only follow the people you know, then how will you network and meet new people? I’ve recently made some great new friends on Twitter.”

How many times have you accepted a friend request on say facebook; you check it out; accept; and then they message asking what you do?

Duh!

Take a minute to look at my profile and AT LEAST know a little about me so you don’t look like an idiot who is just out for numbers!

Yes, making the connections are CRITICAL! And, make sure it isn’t hollow and meaningless. It’s only worthwhile if there is value!

EXPECT Success!

Jackie Ulmer

I agree with both of your points. I don’t care if Mike is at a “Higher Level”, that just makes him more of an ASS to care less about people that don’t FIRST care about HIS program. Ann Sieg has never and doesn’t use that approach, Mike is a lot more full of himself. Belcher, on the other hand, is using that “I care about EVERYONE” technique (which he really doesn’t) to lead people into HIS marketing funnel. I believe that his approach is to appeal to EVERYONE and go through the numbers, which is equally as lame as what Mike is doing. And as far as P. Twitty goes, he is lamer than ALL the rest of them. A fantastic marketer, but what type of Tweeter wants EVERYONE to follow him but will only follow back his selected list of celebrity buddies? Why doesn’t he just ask people to get down on their knees and bow to him like some of the Obama followers do? A true LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND. Great post!

Jeff ( the Electrical Soldier of Prosperity )

“I’d rather have 100 “real” followers than 500 “blind” followers who don’t read my tweets.”

How do you know who is real or who is blind?

Paul

ps great article

It’s Law of averages…. AND Social proof!

Thanks for the post!

Dbk