I continue to find Twitter such a fascinating laboratory.
It’s like fast-forwarding time, like those speeded up hot-house films, and exaggerating the human condition, in so many ways. Trends, memes, flame wars … cool!
The sheer number of eyeballs involved (naturally) draws the whole spectrum of homosapiens — from the Valley Girl celebrity culture to the shallow snake-oil salesmen, to the NZ Qualifications Authority and vehicle testing stations … and millions (literally, millions) in between. Wow.
The common ‘measure’ of influence (no. of followers) is, in my opinion, totally bogus. (Easy for me to say that. What are my social media ‘qualifications’? Zip.)
Like that Social Media revolution video — we can all agree something is happening, something is being consumed (time and attention, the currency of the internet age) but how much of it is meaningful?
If you’re the author of a book chosen by Oprah’s book club, the rewards are tangible, the effect is undeniable — as real as physics — just as we discussed here a positive ‘tweet’ from Stephen Fry can skyrocket sales of a book.
But these superstars apart — how do smaller players get on? The vaaaaassssst majority … including those fervently, shallowly seeking to create a ‘following’ so they can ‘monetize’ them.
Or, one step removed, those who teach others how to ‘build credibility’ using the same ‘breakthrough techniques’ to monetize a following like this which, it turns out is a review of the Pe-lonker bloke who sent me the fax spam about himself.
(Wee rant over.)