Why isn’t everyone on Twitter?

You sometimes see this described as the honeycomb model; but it is apposite to describe a situation where everyone is permitted to have a unique Twitter profile.

It does not apply to the majority of professional practice firms: they have opted for command and control. It feels like the early days of email.

Look at where we are now? Do you see many firms that don’t allow their people to work without email?

Oh I know what you thinking:

“Twitter is entirely different. For one thing it is a public time-line.”

That misses the point.

It is about enabling everyone to have a voice: no one person, department or locus has sole responsibility for marketing (if that is what you are using Twitter for: “Look at us!”).

At the moment most of the content that is being spewed forth is a repackaged version of what is already on a firm’s website. How long do you think this will last before people begin to turn off? This tail off could be checked if the content was remarkable and wasn’t just syndicated across Twitter as another marketing pipe. Start trying to earn attention. Keep a regular check on those following you. Are they growing?

Even if everyone was on Twitter they couldn’t all send the same stuff. A niche would have to be found. But more than that it would force everyone to find a voice and interact meaningfully.

Rather than looking for ways it can’t be done, go rewrite the policy.

Even if this seems too radical, give some thought to setting up exclusive Twitter feeds for discreet people and teams.

For those new to Twitter one thing to bear in mind is that the space is filling up, and by the time you get round to doing something, it may well be that there are no names left and what you end up with is a compromise. XYZ_Firm_18 may not be that enchanting.

~ JS ~

4 responses to “Why isn’t everyone on Twitter?”

  1. Jon Busby says:

    Hi Julian

    My adds,

    Not sure the name matters in the way that our individual human names don’t actually make a difference. They make us unique sure even memorable but what makes us more unique is what we say, what we do, how we can help etc. That is what connects people up, not just simply ‘being there.’

    “How long do you think this will last before people begin to turn off?” – this of course assumes that the audience is ‘turned on’ in the first place which is questionable if they perceive no value.

    Best

    Jon

  2. Jon Busby says:

    Hi Julian

    My adds,

    Not sure the name matters in the way that our individual human names don’t actually make a difference. They make us unique sure even memorable but what makes us more unique is what we say, what we do, how we can help etc. That is what connects people up, not just simply ‘being there.’

    “How long do you think this will last before people begin to turn off?” – this of course assumes that the audience is ‘turned on’ in the first place which is questionable if they perceive no value.

    Best

    Jon

  3. Miriam Said says:

    For a law firm on Twitter the name tag is ultimatley important, this is so any parody or like named accounts do not get confused with the “real” law firm that is trying to connect on Twitter. It is also valuable to the reputation and brand of the law firm that tweets.

    It is the tweets of that account that are valuable and provide uniqueness, memorability, colaboration and connectivity to all.

    On the subject of broadcasting the same things over and over again….This is actually painfully annoying…Remeber vinyl records playing on a record player…(old school), remeber when the needle stuck on a partucular part of the song and it repeated, over, and over again…that is what broadcasting the same message on Twitter is like to anyone who tweets. I personally find this to be a kind of torture.

    I, like many consumers of services and products, like to try out a brand to see what it has to offer. If that brand does not deliver or stays stagnant, then I will certainly go elsewhere for those services and products, regardless if they cost more or less.

    You cannot resonate with every one, which is what a broadcast tries to do. Instead, try to communicate with that sector of the market that will resonate with you or your law firm or brand. This is where you will see the greatest return and the best advertising ever, word of mouth.

    It’s time to step out of the boring, squareness of the cube that is a box and whirl around a dodecahedron instead.

    M.

  4. Miriam Said says:

    For a law firm on Twitter the name tag is ultimatley important, this is so any parody or like named accounts do not get confused with the “real” law firm that is trying to connect on Twitter. It is also valuable to the reputation and brand of the law firm that tweets.

    It is the tweets of that account that are valuable and provide uniqueness, memorability, colaboration and connectivity to all.

    On the subject of broadcasting the same things over and over again….This is actually painfully annoying…Remeber vinyl records playing on a record player…(old school), remeber when the needle stuck on a partucular part of the song and it repeated, over, and over again…that is what broadcasting the same message on Twitter is like to anyone who tweets. I personally find this to be a kind of torture.

    I, like many consumers of services and products, like to try out a brand to see what it has to offer. If that brand does not deliver or stays stagnant, then I will certainly go elsewhere for those services and products, regardless if they cost more or less.

    You cannot resonate with every one, which is what a broadcast tries to do. Instead, try to communicate with that sector of the market that will resonate with you or your law firm or brand. This is where you will see the greatest return and the best advertising ever, word of mouth.

    It’s time to step out of the boring, squareness of the cube that is a box and whirl around a dodecahedron instead.

    M.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *