This is a Dear John letter to my Tweople.
Listen, it’s been great hanging out these past few months. Twitter feels like it’s hitting the mainstream and things are really heating up. And that’s the problem.
When I first started using the service, it was like I was listening in to the superstars of marketing, writing, and social media. I’d been reading their blogs for year, but now I was offered a glimpse into their real lives (OMG, Guy Kawasaki likes spam musibi!).
And this Twitter thing had a positive business application as well. By watching the superstars, I was able to stay current with up-to-the-minute news. I read the articles they recommended, decreasing the time I spent searching for good content and increasing the time I spent reading it. I was even able to engage them myself and network a little.
The most important aspect of all was that I could follow discussions occurring between them. If Brian from Copyblogger and Liz Strauss get into an argument, I want to know about it! These conversations taught me to be a better marketer, expanded my thinking, and consoled me that the best minds were wrestling with the very same issues I was.
When Things Went Wrong
This break-up: it’s not me, it’s you. It’s the fact that you’re too good for me.
As I found more and more smart marketers to follow, I expanded my customized news feed and my learning capability. Don’t get me wrong, I was very selective. But I wanted too much.
Everything that made Twitter useful to me was being overshadowed in the torrent of content, ideas, and conversation. I was following people who were too good, too interesting, too smart – and it was just too much.
Roundtablers, Cacophonists, Spammers, and Me
I’ve noticed four (very) general variations when it comes to a particular person’s follower/following volume and ratio.
Roundtablers are content with following a handful of people and usually have only a handful follow them back. Maybe they prefer the intimacy of these small conversations.
Other folks are very popular and want to reciprocate. The result is a large numbers of followers and followees (think @JasonCalacanis). It’s a cacophony of voices.
Sometimes the ratio is uneven. If you follow 5,000 people and only 10 have deemed you worthy of a follow back, you look like a spammer. Either that or you got excited after just joining Twitter and went on a rampage.
And then there are people like Ike Pigott, Greg Verdino, and me who have lots of followers, but are following (relatively) very few.
You Guys Really Think You’re All That?
We follow a few people and lots of people follow us. What gives?
We’re content producers. We’re not in it because we care about the number of followers we have or amassing a cult behind us. (I am referring to most people with similar Twitter ratios; not speaking for Ike or Greg, of course.)
We write. We produce content that interests us. Thankfully, it interests other people too and that’s great. We still read a lot, but there is limited time in the day. We might be open to starting a relationship or engage in discussion, but we’re selective.
A recent HP Labs research paper about Twitter (hat tip to Jeremiah Owyang) claims that “the number of people a user actually communicates with ['friends'] eventually stops increasing while the number of followees can continue to grow indefinitely.” In other words, you wouldn’t gain my attention if I reciprocated to everyone who followed me. In fact, it’s likely I would interact less. “[U]sers with many actual friends tend to post more updates than users with few actual friends.”
By keeping my interactions meaningful, I can create more friendships and that will probably result in more tweets for the community at large. Which means I can provide more relevant content for you (which is the goal for me anyway).
I know there are technologies that can help me sort and organize tweets, but I’ve still only got one pair of eyeballs. I’m not interested in Tweetdeck or anything like that – maybe I’m stuck in my ways. But I do know you deserve someone who can give you the attention you deserve. And it ain’t me, babe.
And that’s why, in order to stay sane, I’ve gotta qwit you.
(Image courtesy of misteraitch via Flickr)
So just out of curiosity (I’m not a Twitter follower, just a Twitter user that found your thoughts interesting), are you saying that you’re quitting Twitter all together, quitting all your followers/those you fallow, or just quitting specific Twitter users that you are not close to?
Very interesting post and one that I’m sure will raise a great discussion. Looking forward to watching the comments roll in and the opinions fly. Eric.
I can’t speak for DJ either, but it would appear that he is “qwitting” the bogus etiquette that says you must follow everyone who is following you.
“Success” for me on Twitter is having smart conversations. It’s hard to have a conversation in a crowded room, and adding even more voices to that stream makes it more difficult.
I’m sure there are many, many smart people who are on Twitter that I am not now following. That’s okay. Life will go on.
I have a method to my Twitter madness, and I will be happy to share.
As users have increased, as 3rd party tools have been introduced, and soon as economics become a factor the twitter experience is (and will continue to change). I agree that the experience I have with twitter now is not as rewarding as it was before. I think what we’re going to see is a point where people start to throw courtesy out the door and just follow the people they feel are truly relevant to them.
Thanks for all your comments – I really do appreciate them.
Eric, sorry I wasn’t clear. (I was thinking on the train about how I needed to explain.) I’m only going to follow the people who are totally relevant to me, those from whom I can learn, and those with whom I have valuable conversations.
It’s like Ike said – the room has become too crowded for me. And it’s not as though I’m opposed to complexity. I have 3 gmail accounts and 2 Twitter accounts (and a full time job that does not include this blog), and I’ve kept up just fine until now. It’s just that the marketing/blog/business account (@MarketerBlog) needs some trimming.
Len and I are in the same business, but I keep tabs on him via my personal/Chicago account. It’s just the way I organize my life. I encourage others to do whatever they think is best for them. This is just my personal statement, that’s all.
Were it not for Tweetdeck – which I’m aware you’re not interested in – I would feel the same way. Using Twitter via the web is too difficult once you reach a certain mass of community – and you’re dead on that it loses a lot of meaningfulness at a certain point.
However, Tweetdeck allows me to stand close to the stream while focusing on the community of people that follow me and that I follow. All without losing my mind trying to keep up.
Furthermore, it’s that community that keeps me being a good content producer – interacting with that community results in good ideas and content for me, and having good content helps me interact better with the community. I should note, though, that we may be approaching Twitter for different reasons.
I agree with Charlie about Tweetdeck. In fact, I never saw how Twitter was interesting at all until I got off the web interface and got plugged into the real time stream. At the same time, I’m not following a whole lot of people, so my thoughts on this could change.
BTW, check out @tferriss for the best follower/following ratio!
Hi Hunter – I’m still struggling to find value in Twitter. Could you please explain for Twitter Dummies like me: “I never saw how Twitter was interesting at all until I got off the web interface and got plugged into the real time stream”
Great post. I’m finding the same thing. To steal the tagline from the AM/PM convenience store chain, there is literally TOO MUCH GOOD STUFF on Twitter. Sure, there’s still some “I really love Reese’s Pieces” drivel on there, but not much.
Twitter is getting to be like pizza. Either good, or great. It’s creating new challenges in figuring out how to parse and sort that much content.
I’m not sure that quitting is the way I’ll go, but times they are a changing – for sure.
Good decision.
@ Mary, I’ve got a guest post about Twitter coming out on BloggingWithoutABlog.com this Friday, which might help.
Here’s what I meant about real time. When people sign up for Twitter, they start posting tweets through the web interface, at twitter.com. This gives you a static view, because you only see updates when you refresh the page. And you probably won’t refresh it very much.
If you use a Twitter app like TweetDeck, you get constant real time updates automatically. It’s hard to explain why this is better, but it’s kind of like actually being there vs. reading about it in the paper the next day.
You can make an argument for any ratio of following to followers. I’d could make a compelling case in any direction related to your post about limiting the number of people you follow. Instead let this be a fun exploration, whether to follow or limit is captured in theplot of this movie Sliding Doors – enjoy – yes a chick flick you can watch with your partner and like!
Hunter, this should be fun. I’ve got a submission in at Media Bullseye that should post Friday as well!
I limit my Twitter conversations to subjects near my interest area as a business marketer. You have an incredible ability to target communities of interest with keyword tracking via something like Tweetbeep. If you stay on your plan and only follow those who share your interests, it works.
That being said, I seldom follow pundits. They are not potential customers or partners and are usually more focused on building their own reputation by constant chatter about the next new thing. Fun, but does nothing for my business and seldom truly aligns with my interests.
I am slowly building both followers and followees because I want those who are people I’d talk shop with (and the occasional joke or off topic thread!).
[...] Why I’m Qwitting You On Twitter (I’m not the only one purging after a binge). [...]