Mathew Ingram at GigaOm recently (re) shared some data from PEW Research Center, and added his own commentary on how media companies are still \u201cdoing it wrong\u201d on Twitter.<\/p>\n
While I agree with the premise that many brands of media could improve their use of Twitter, I don\u2019t actually think there is a \u201cright\u201d or \u201cwrong\u201d way to use it. Or any social platform for that matter.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s go through a few of Mathew\u2019s comments:<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, it also shows that the main thing most (media outlets) do with those accounts \u2014 and the main thing most of their reporters also do \u2014 is simply broadcast links to their own content all day long.<\/p>\n
\u2026I suspect this is because most media outlets have simply plugged an RSS feed or other automated process into their branded Twitter account, pumping links out and hoping to drive traffic to those stories.<\/p>\n
Personally, I don\u2019t see anything wrong with this. This report is only looking at data from a few major news outlets, but in fact many new, socially sophisticated media companies are using Twitter like this.<\/p>\n
As an example readers here are familiar with, check out Techdirt on Twitter. Their brand account is basically a feed of content. Techdirt focuses their effort at the source and is interested in growing their community in a way that is platform agnostic. By doing this, they have nurtured an extremely active community across the web. Not just Twitter \u2013 their stories frequently receive in the 100+ range of on-site comments, break the hot threshold on sites like Reddit and Stumble and are mentioned \/ linked consistently at any given time by Twitter users as well.<\/p>\n
The point? Your brand of media absolutely can use Twitter as a feed if you have a holistic digital strategy and provide a legitimate reason for users to join the community. If your source content and the people producing it are definitive leaders in your category and providing value, that value is and appreciated \/ reciprocated by an activated web community. For some approaches, Twitter might just be another path in to your community as a feed.<\/p>\n
But one of the biggest flaws in the behavior that the Pew report describes doesn\u2019t have anything to do with links: it\u2019s the fact that none of these major news outlets are using Twitter to ask their readers or viewers for help with news stories, or for their opinions about something the organization has done.<\/p>\n
I agree with Mathew, in an ideal world a brand would both listen and respond \/ solicit feedback across platforms. But there are many ways to ask your community to input on stories. My main problem with this comment is it is purely about Twitter. And the social web is more than Twitter \u2013 what about Facebook, Reddit, blogs, etc? It\u2019s just one (albeit powerful) channel in a mix of many.<\/p>\n
But apart from the other factors that hold many outlets and individual journalists back when it comes to engaging with readers through social media \u2014 fear, a lack of time, a lack of knowledge about the benefits, etc. \u2014 some organizations have only themselves to blame, because their blinkered social-media policies handcuff most of their staff by preventing them from acting like human beings\u2026<\/p>\n
This last comment is spot on. Media professionals need to be set free and empowered to thread, research and connect in public on the social web. Unfortunately this seems to be the exception, not the norm. The recent story of Men\u2019s Health editor Larry Carlat being given the ultimatum between keeping his job or deleting his Twitter account is just the latest example of a generation of media who cling to the past.<\/p>\n
But overall, I don\u2019t agree that there are hard and fast rules to how you should use other people\u2019s platforms. Each brand should flesh out a digital strategy at the macro level, then translate it into use of other networks. It might involve engagement in social outposts such as Twitter, but it might not (pending resources, goals, etc). The answer, as it always is in a changing media landscape, is \u2018it depends.\u2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Mathew Ingram at GigaOm recently (re) shared some data from PEW Research Center, and added his own commentary on how … <\/p>\n