Twitter strategy revisited

It’s been fun to, ahem, follow all of the rather serious Twitter research (isn’t The Science of ReTweets just the best title?). The studies that seem to get the most attention are those that examine the ego-boosting or deflating number of followers – what’s too many, too few or just right.

In Praise of Obscurity,” Clive Thompson’s column in the Feb. 2010 issue of Wired, states the obvious to anyone who’s ever been in a class of 15 people and then in one that has 500:

“Once a group reaches a certain size, each participant starts to feel anonymous again, and the person they’re following — who once seemed proximal, like a friend — now seems larger than life and remote….Social media stops being social. It’s no longer a bantering process of thinking and living out loud. It becomes old-fashioned broadcasting.”

At his Twitter Boot Camp last June, Tim O’Reilly chided the New York Times, saying that “just using Twitter as an RSS feed for your site is a missed opportunity.”  Twitter’s supposed to be all about building communities by having two-way conversations between the followers and the following.

At the time I instantly agreed with him.  But Twitter is no longer an amusing recreational hobby.  It’s now a business juggernaut – and that implies a company should use it tactically any way that it wants.

The NYT has 2.3-million-plus followers, is supposedly following a measly 193, and doesn’t ever seem to retweet or respond to a follower.  But every tweet has a link to the NYT site.NYT Twitter 2-4-10

The NYT doesn’t claim it wants to be your friend and talk to you.  Its Twitter bio states right up front that the NYT is “Where the Conversation Begins.”  It’s not where conversations continue, are facilitated, passed on or anything else connected to being a personal relationship builder.

I do think news orgs must build closer relationships with their audiences.  But Twitter isn’t – and shouldn’t be – the only way to do it.   What is important, however, is transparency in how a news org is using its main Twitter handle.  If a news org is just not that into you, it should say so.

 

 

What does “traffic” mean?

As heard from Martin Nisenholtz at the OMMA Global conference last week, Twitter drives 10 percent of the New York Times’ traffic.

What does this mean?  Is it 10 percent of page views?  Unique visitors?  Visits?  Page views per visit?  Visits per unique visitor?

Nisenholtz, the senior VP of the NYT’s digital operations, reportedly said that the NYT’s Twitter account has 1.8 million followers and growing.

OK.  That’s a nice big number.  But it doesn’t tell you anything about whether any of those followers – or anyone who got to the site through Twitter – really engaged with the site.  How many followers go to the NYT site?  How often?

I have no doubt Twitter is an important source of traffic – however it’s defined – for the NYT and other news sites.  Let’s take the time to dig deeper so we really understand Twitter’s impact.

Rhyme of the ancient web analytics analyst

Here's a riff on a famous poem from Rishad Tobaccowalla, CEO of marketing agency Denuo, speaking at OMMA Metrics and Measurement in New York today:

Data, data everywhere
I think I could sink
Data, data everywhere
Will someone please help me think.

James Robinson, director of web analytics at the New York Times, offered complementary thoughts about how it's a "fallacy" that more complex data is more valuable, and that "it's not about the data, it's about the insights….it's not about the page views or click-throughs – it's about making New York Times customers happy."

For those of you who want to play web analytics games, make a bingo card out of Jodi McDermott's list of web analytics buzz words.  Jodi, also known as Widget Girl, chaired the day-long seminar and is director of data strategy at Clearspring Technologies.

Who said web analytics wasn't fun?