Why the "Twitter Experts" Have it All Wrong - Part II

For the next section, we have to drop the dating analogy and get down to business, as in most parts of the world, it is frowned upon to have multiple girlfriends/boyfriends or husbands/wives.

Now because we have a gazillion followers, we need to automate in order to monetize, so we sign up to a Twitter auto reply tool.

Wrong Point #1 – Not cool to market by direct message

Many e-books and courses teach you how to build the biggest, fastest list of followers so you can “engage” them in conversation. I guess because it's free you think you can afford to try to get followers that are a number vs. offering an actual chance at engagement.

No wonder the popular consensus seems to be NOT to try to market by direct message!  If your list is that unqualified, you'll suffer an awful lot of rejection and abuse if you try to engage someone in a conversation that they aren't interested in.

What if you didn't try to get the biggest random followers list? What if you curated a proper engaged group of followers, respectfully?

Let’s put it in the context of the cocktail party that everyone likes to compare Twitter to. As you look around the room, you see a lot of people that you're just NOT interested in, for whatever reason us poor humans decide this, and you find a few you think you would like to approach.  You “Follow” the ones you think may be interested. I guess it sort of sounds like Stalking, but the internet term is often more gently said as lurking. 

The Twitter experts seem to suggest you should try to FOLLOW the conversations of everyone in the room immediately, even if they don’t appear to have anything interesting to you to say.

Once you have “followed” the ones you found interesting, you can hear what they are saying, and follow any public conversations they are having.  If you like what you see, you should “like” a few of their comments to see if they engage.

What if you started by following 30 or 40 per day?  What if you actually TARGETED who you followed?  Say for example, you went to your biggest competitors twitter followers list, and actually took the time to look briefly at the profiles of those on that list and selectively follow the ones that seem interested in the kind of product or service you sell?

It would sure cost a lot more and take a lot longer that buying some auto follow machine that promises you the world wouldn't it?

Or would it?

I guess this is where the biggest disconnect is on Twitter.  People think it is about followers, yet those same people writing their “FREE EBOOK on How to get a gazillion followers in 3 minutes” would never suggest you spend money advertising an all-natural nut and granola bar to people with a nut allergy.

Anybody in advertising and marketing would agree, you need to try to curate a list, or hone your marketing dollars in on the target audience that will buy your products or services.

I would rather have 500 people who specifically LIKE what I have to say, and I LIKE what they have to say, versus 500,000 random people of which I do not KNOW who is engaged or not engaged.  This would allow me to not only HEAR the conversation, but to control it.

Isn't business to a degree about controlling the narrative?

If I build a like-minded community vs. random followers for the ability to brag about my Twitter followers to feed my ego, I will sell more with less effort, AND have people bring their like-minded friends to follow me.