Mannequin Networking – Why Twitter Automation Is Bad
Posted In: Engagement, Relationships, Saran Wrap Series, Transparency, Twitter
Comments: View Comments
The best way I can explain Twitter to new folks is to say it’s like going to a networking event, but it runs 24/7 and you don’t have to leave home. It’s a great way to get to know new colleagues, clients and friends. Recently I’ve been having a lot of “debates” with other Twitter folk about automation. There are a bunch of different automation options using 3rd party sites, this post will focus on one strategy: sending absent tweets (tweeting something when you’re not actually around.) I’ve heard many reasons why people say you should do this:
1. It allows you to reach people in other time zones
2. It allows you to make Twitter scalable
3. You get to build relationships when you’re not around!
*Sorry, give me a minute*
Ok, I’m back, I had to go throw-up in a garbage can. Automating tweets means you want people to listen to you, but you’re not listening to them.
There is no such thing as automated engagement.
There is no such thing as programmed authenticity.
Absent tweeting is dictation, not engagement. Lecturing, not listening.
Automating tweets is like sending a mannequin to a networking event. Stick a post-it note on it, and roll it in, to multiple events around the world! Think of all the Chamber of Commerce mixers you could cover! Different time zones! Let the relationships winfall begin!!! Boooyaa!!!
Obviously you realize why that’s not a good idea. The initial tweet doesn’t create the relationship, it’s the conversation after. That’s the best part! I’m not saying don’t send out “marketing” tweets, or pitch a product. I do it. But when I do, why in the name of Sly and the Family Stone would I not want to be around for questions or comments immediately after? Tweets have such a short shelf-life, it’s the conversation immediately following the tweet that’s so crucial, and if it’s a marketing tweet, may help close the sale.
It’s a different story if your account is a feed of events/news and that’s what people follow for. The problem is when people “think” it’s you tweeting to them, but you’re not even there. Once they find that out, it could hurt your relationship and your brand. That tweet tells people “I want the benefit of a relationship, but don’t want to put the time in to nurture it.”
I heard Guy Kawasaki talking about this at a recent event. He said to ignore the “Twitter Nazi’s” that tell you what to do, and you should automate a bunch of tweets. Besides the fact I have a huge issue with people using the term “Nazi”, the biggest problem is this: people at that event looked up to Guy for guidance and thought “this is how you become successful at Twitter!” and I actually read some tweets after saying they were looking forward to automating Twitter! Guy can say and do whatever he wants. What I find wrong is for people just starting out, this won’t work. You can’t replicate someone who has hundreds of thousands of followers and a celebrity name to your Twitter account for your home biz. You actually have the advantage of authenticity and one-to-one on Twitter. Why try to be a WalMart when you’re a small biz? You have the competitive advantage of being you. Automation hurts authenticty.
Relationships take time. If you try to shortcut social media, you’re shortcutting relationship building.
Agree? Disagree? Comment below!
PS – Finalizing the UnBook Tour in the fall. Ideas for places to stop, organizations/conference I should speak at? Lemme know in the comments or contact me! Speaker Demo video is here
I agree! What Guy can do isn't what we all can or should do. THANKS for this great post!
It is fascinating to hear how and why Guy uses Twitter as he does. But I think we all need to use our own wisdom to decide what works for us and our brand.
Like you said in your interview with me, there is only one “You.” The fact that you don't automate and you engage so effectively is why you are so appealing to followers. But, for others, when it isn't as integral to their brand, they can pull it off I guess. (But for sure they are missing out!!!)
I must say I enjoy following those who engage more than those who just broadcast. But I won't unfollow those who broadcast IF I want to hear what they have to say either. It would just be so much better if they engaged back a bit more!!!!
But I can't get my feathers in a ruffle either way. To each his own. I am all about different shades of gray vs black and white.
Having said that, I really appreciate reading your valuable insights and the discussions in the comments too! Fascinating.
And I will ALWAYS appreciate more those who are in Twitter for relationship building vs those who are in for broadcasting.
As for the occasional use of automation to help out with time differences etc., I am not too concerned about that. But of course, real time is FAR better!
(BTW – I don't automate.)
[...] few days ago I came across a new post by Scott Stratten, on his Un-Marketing Blog. In his post, Scott discusses why he believes automated tweeting is not a good thing and refers to the practice [...]
I couldn't agree with you more!
I struggle with the question of “automating” / scheduling tweets for one main reason — I am a nocturnal person in a diurnal society. I do most of my reading of tweets / RTs / replies between 9 pm and 2 am Pacific. That's also when I blog and could “live” post those blogs.
Replies are usually seen in the morning by people that I send them to, but other messages are lost in the shuffle. Add in that I've been trying to reduce distractions during work hours and not being as “social” as I would like during the day.
[...] [...]
I think you summed it up nicely with “Automation hurts authenticty.” Agreed! For small businesses, often our competitve advantage is our agility, responsiveness, and ability to genuinely communicate with clients, particularly when a client has a problem and is seeking a prompt resolution. I am constantly reminding new clients with little social media/web acumen to use the tools but remain genuine in their approach. Thanks for the great psot.
It makes complete sense to not automate tweets when you're trying to drum up a conversation…which is first and foremost the objective of using Twitter. However, there are times where automated tweets are okay (in my opinion) but there is a limit. No one wants the insane amount of Twitter clutter from a auto-tweeter selling something every 30 seconds. It is just crap and really turns people off. I am going to say I do auto-tweet every now and then for events, etc. but I'm open and honest about my doing so. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I try to share information efficiently. At the same time I designate time where I'm there, ready for the conversation…again that is the point of Twitter.
As for stops for your UnBook Tour, I recommend Philadelphia or Atlantic City. Hope the City of Brotherly Love gets to be a stop on your book tour.
Today I posted on Twitter: “U realize that if every1 automates their twitter account NO ONE will be watching? Why would you do that! Need to get those peeps off Twitter” I believe that, like Scott AND I think there is a way to BOTH successfully once you GET engagement. Honestly when I get my “marketing” up, then I do not need to worry about it – i can just engage. The problem is most people do not understand how to blend it, therefore, I do not allow my clients to automate anything until they understand engagement!
While I see what you're saying, Scott, this just limits your business appeal, no? If you're a solo-preneur then there are only so many hours in the day (like anything). If you're only tweeting when present, you're essentially shutting your business doors down to international business, since you're only going to be present in your given timezone.
Flip it another way – you call a business and get a voicemail, and that message says your call will be returned during normal business hours. So the difference in a pre-scheduled tweet (or message) would be..?
Missed his reply – Scott you took the words right out of my mouth…
Nuff said.
I think I may be one of the people you”debated” with, Scott. Can't remember if we were on the same side or not at the time but we are now.
Auto tweeting is rude in my book. It's like answering the phone and listening to the telemarketing computer give me a spiel. It uses the same words as a real live person but there is no engagement. And I can't enjoy hanging up on a computer.
Hey there fella!
I originally thought this was a reply to my post today, which hurt my brain, but then figured it out. I'll be ok
I relate an automated tweet to an auto-dialer phone call. The original message is recorded, but sent out en masse and the receiver can't reply to a live person, they can only potentially try to call back later.
And we all know how much automated dialers are loved by the receiver
And you're not shutting your doors to international business, you're choosing when to show up to the conversation.
Ha! I just said almost this exactly to Danny's comment above! Well said
Hi Danny,
With due respect, I find the 24/7 argument unpersuasive for two reasons.
1) I note that most active twitterers are online at various times throughout their waking hours.Within those waking hours we can be live and interactive with most anyone most anywhere.
2) I've done business globally. I had to be live in my customers' time zones to interact with them. While the latest technology reduces the need to be live, it is as important to personally engage an overseas client as a local one. Auto tweeting is not engaging. Some may say it is a form of spam. Spam-lite?
Doug (CompassCoaching)
It depends how you define auto-tweeting, Doug. If it's simply pointing to a resource that needs no answering, then I don't see the issue.
I also know what you mean re. international zones; many of my clients (in my consultancy days) were based all over the place (from UK to Australia to Canada to Hong Kong). While there will always be crossovers, the active times are relevant to their peak business times; and no matter how good you are, you can't be in every place at every time, no matter how great a multi-tasker you are
Ya, I like to throw things around time-wise, mate
I hear you, Scott – but sometimes (as I mention to Doug below) you can't always choose to show up, no matter the intent to. If you can send out a resource that can lead to a specific helping place, then I think there's a definite place for “automation”. Heck, I like to engage as much as the next person (often more) but there are always limits to what someone can realistically do. And that's when pre-set communications can help.
I go around and round on this one. I use to auto-tweet, but my goal was not engagement with the auto-tweets. It was just easier to be seen in a sea of tweets. I had the idea of broadcasting and responding to those who liked what I tweeted. Apparently, this wasn't a good strategy since twitter killed auto-tweets. You have a strong argument here for not auto-tweeting. I haven't auto-tweet for months anymore. I'm still not as strongly against auto-tweets since tweets that aren't @ replies aren't targeted to any particular person or group anyway.
Think of this scenario…
you write down a bunch of thoughts, organize them in a tweet list and turn them on while you are available to @ reply. At any rate, I digress.
With what you have accomplished, you are doing something right. Robert Scoble is criticizing Chris Brogan about doing twitter wrong. I think we are all trying to figure this out. Right now, I think even Twitter is trying to figure out what is right.
What I want to know is how on God's green earth do you humanly tweet 42,000 times in one year? that is about 115 tweets every single day!
Scott, Thank you so much for writing this.
What you call Mannequin Networking, I call “drive-by” or shotgun Tweeting. It's interrupting other people's conversations when you're not even listening, much less around to engage or respond.
Auto-RT of @BigName drives me nuts, though I do chuckle when the so-called experts do it..and they RT dead links so you know they are not even reading.
From reading the comments, it's a relief to see I'm not the only Automation hold out. I've seen some people make it work, but they mix in a handful of scheduled tweets with the a lot more of the real thing. I'm with @kimberleyclancy, others.. it's about moderation (but it's not for me). FWIW.
[...] thing that I’ve seen a LOT of lately is people have been attacking the practice of Twitter Automation. In case you aren’t aware, I use Twitter automation on my Twitter feed. I use a service [...]
Thanks for writing this. Because of this post I've revisited the way I use twitter (had an account for quite a while and only recently decided to use it) in the last month. I knew there was something wrong with the way I was using twitter and you've spelt it out for me. “Use twitter to build relationships and not simply to have a large number of followers for the sake of having a large number of followers.”. BTW, I like your writing style especially getting away with the 'fark' thingy.
)
I agree 100% with Laura. I think it's all about balance and being intimately involved with your strategy. Most small business owners are busy. They would like to engage, but are looking for tools that allow them to use social media and remain productive running their businesses. If they are monitoring their social media “outcomes” they will realize over time what's working and what's not working. People schedule blog posting. I'm not sure if the readers care if the author just hit the publish button and is patiently waiting for engagement. However, the author should have a process in place for responding in a timely manner when someone does engage. But who really cares if you're sitting at the PC typing in links that you gathered the night before or if you scheduled them when you found them? If it's useful, it's useful. Finding a balance between engagement and broadcasting information is something that businesses have to determine for themselves.
I rarely automate, but I will schedule tweets if I find informative articles in the wee hours of the morning. Particularly if I'm away from Twitter during the time when most of my followers are online. If/when I do schedule a tweet, I always check Twitter shortly after for comments. Most of my tweets are not automated and I don't take offense when people do automate because I understand the difference between broadcasting information and engagement. I believe that “automating engagement” sucks. Don't automate questions to followers or tweets that suggest you're online. And don't automate 3,000 tweets to post within 15 seconds either. Balance.
Also, some of the people that shout from the rooftops that Twitter is about engagement & conversations are the main culprits for not responding to @replies. There seems to be a hard-n-fast rule for everything, which seems to be determined by the person making the rule.
Okay Scott, I read your post the day it came out but have been wary of posting my comments; however I have decided to brave it out and go for it.
I disagree. I do believe in some automation (some) of twitter updates but I also believe there is no point in using Twitter at all if you are not going to participate. In your list above of the 3 reasons why people automate I don't believe in those reasons, mine would be another – To allow you to use your time on Twitter to make the connections that can turn into relationships, because you have a support system in place to help you.
Yes, I use social media daily and yes, I help my clients manage their social media profiles – and yes, using automation is a part of this. However, the automated updates are my clients words and I will not work with them if they cannot do their part (which is using the networks themselves)
Why do I believe in and use automation – because it gets results for my clients – and myself. The automated posts help market their business and yourself (with limitations) and what happens from these updates is that they tend to kickstart conversations on the other end – people start conversations with my clients, conversations that my clients join in.
For instance a client will have an upcoming class or new product launching. We will create a list of automated updates to go out. The client still goes in their own twitter account and when they do they take their time talking to people and in some cases responding to comments made about the automated update – whether it was a tip or a sales pitch or a blog link. People do respond. This automation means that you don't have to worry about telling people about the launch or new product because that has been taken care of. Your twitter time is now all about connecting and talking to others. Starting conversations and responding to questions.
Just because the timing of these responses does not happen the minute you posted it – doesn't make the connection any less valuable.
I too use the networking meeting scenario as a way to help clients learn what twitter and facebook are about – and that you have to be real here and speak as if you would to people in person. Some of my automated updates are what I include in my elevator speech when introducing myself. And if at a networking meeting someone heard me and then called me a few days later to talk about my presentation and ask about my services or just to say thanks and it was nice to meet you – it doesn't make that connection unworthy just because it was not done at the meeting.
People get busy and things/llife get in the way – we all use tactics to help use get through our day with less stress and more efficiently. If automating some of your twitter messages can help you bring your marketing message or your tip of the day or your inspirational quote to others so that when you sit down to tweet with others that time is all about engaging and connecting, then I say go for it.
Again, I have to stress none of this works or does anything for anybody if you cannot get online and get real yourself.
Just like you have said in a few different ways…engagement is the key word for social media. Even if you use automation, you still have to build a relationship and then, get this…maintain it!
[...] . Hearing Scott (and the twittesphere in agreement) against the idea opened my eyes. Read his post on automation [...]
Hey Daniel:
You're Totally right about Twitter trying to figure things out. Trouble is Brewing!
Also your last Paragraph about 115 Tweets every single day? That's based on 365 Days per year. Scott is a Proffessor at Sheridan College. He also probably has other Commitments. Family, New Book, Speaking Engagements, etc. I think that would easily eat up 3 days per week. Basic Math brings the Available days to Tweet down to about 208 Days, assuming He doesn't take any days off. That makes for Apprx. 202 Tweets Per Day!! Is that possibble without Automation? Not Very Likely!!
Kathy:
I Totally agree with what you have stated! One Reason? See my Reply Below To Daniel. Given the right circumstances there is nothing wrong with Auto Tweeting. It makes a Connection. If you try and sit at your Keyboard every day to Personally answer ALL Tweets …..well? How many could you do in one day? When do you do all the Basic Activities you HAVE to do during your Business Day just to keep things going?
You said it best bro, I don't even use automation. I see some people that use automation heavily and sometimes I may look at their “twitter list” and I find that, people are labeling them as “spam bots” “robots” and all kind of other thngs and they never interact, just pound tweet after tweet, and that's just not my style, I ENJOY using Twitter, it's my favorite social media site and using automation is another quick way to get unfollowed quickly on Twitter.
Mostly agree.
I am actually ambivalent about automation. Right now I have two types of auto posts on my feed. The first is my blog posts with a link. The second is an auto welcome message when people follow. The big problem is that I can't find time to sit down and talk with people on Twitter, although I'd really like to. So, obviously, it's clear I'm never there… and that sucks. But when I can figure out how to spend routine time on Twitter, even just a few moments here and there, there's the potential for interaction, and it's interaction I love. Right now, my Twitter feed sucks, and you're right – it's probably hurting more than helping. But when I can do it the way I intend, I think it may be just fine to have those limited auto posts – if, as you say elsewhere, people can be assured that even the autoposts (blog posts) are worth a look.
Great blog, made me smile wryly, a lot – what about those who hire people to run their accounts for them? I think its so dangerous and frankly silly/lazy – really want to rant about it on my own twitter account but I know 5 accounts run by others who I know (and I'm not entirely sure why I haven't unfollowed them yet – curiousity I guess) – we all gotta make money but I think its SUCH a reputational risk when you hire someone external to effectively represent you and your views – you wouldn't send someone in your place to a networking event right?! Unless they'd worked with you for a long time and you trusted them implicitly to represent you/your brand.
I can;t think of anything worse then interacting with someone on twitter then finding out its not actually them, just too foregin for my wee brain cell to get around..
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don’t mind a conversation that’s spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they’ll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone. n
Great post Scott, and I see your point here. I think the difference is still engagement. Whether his tweets are automated or not, Guy Kawasaki is almost always around, and he does engage with people. Spontaneous, immediate, massive discussions are best, but second to that, I don't mind a conversation that's spread out over several hours, or even a day or two, because someone happens to be in a different time zone, or rushed off to a meeting while I was replying… or because some of their tweets are automated and I know they'll be online later to chat. What I find more incomprehensible than automated tweets are the human mannequins: people who take the time to manually write each post, and log in several times each day to do so, investing that time and energy into the process, but never interact with anyone.
[...] 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081091999 – 1988 @ Highlander Used Money Joe Dawson, Auto Transmission Toyota Highlander – 110.an74.com1997 – 2000 @ Highlander Used Money Joe Dawson, Auto Transmission Toyota Highlanderhighlander part motor oxygen sensor 2009 toyota highlander hybrid forum 2008 parts toyota highlander suv 1999 toyota camry solara gas mileage highlander hybrid toyota matrix for sale in sacramento highlander hybrid highlander trucks lease cressida discount highlander hybrid toyota tercel highlander central heating wood burning oven toyota fj cruiser 2nd hand highlander hybrid highlander part human car 2006 highlander aftermarket toyota highlander vsc light highlander aftermarket explorer sport trac part toyota highlander auto brake rotors toyota highlander accessories car comparable toyota highlander highlander baja 4×4 toyota highlander oem parts toyota highlander sport specs replacement mirror toyota highlander bug shield parts highlander seat covers highlander hid xenon halogen bulb solara discount car parts 4runner toyota highlander highlander methos youtube 2nd hand 2005 toyota highlander hybrid radiators toyota highlander headlights highlander yuan 2008 mazda cx 9 dimensions toyota highlander 2006 video toyota highlander hybrid highlander fender fj cruiser 2001 toyota highlander ltd toyota highlander awd system 2006 toyota highlander headlight bulb radiator 2003 highlander ac condenser toyota land cruiser highlander money no object highlander part fan motor highlander series adrian paul highlander hid wiring harness high intensity discharge headlights mdx toyota highlander highlander illmensee ergebnisliste 2007 used toyota highlander austin highlander blob used toyota highlander hybrid limited toyota carina highlander hybrid parts new highlander movie floor mats mr2 spyder 2005 toyota highlander edmunds lexus rx 400h ipod highlander hybrid prius review highlander hybrid miles per gallon highlander one film duncan macleod lexus rx 400h prijs toyota highlander hybrid equipment 2008 toyota highlander highlander 2 renegade used toyota highlander reviews third row seat 2001 toyota highlander console toyota highlander fred haas adams highlander football used parts 2001 toyota highlander used toyota sienna denver highlander hybrid highlander duncan macleod united cutlery gil hibben parts stock highlander floor mats husky liner highlander aftermarket selection projector headlight bulbs highlander series duncan macleod toyota highlander accessories trailer hitch highlander sailboat specs toyota highlander sale utah highlander nasa toyota highlander hybrid specs toyota highlander road test vsc warning light toyota highlander highlander girls 09 toyota highlander accessories toyota highlander oem parts brake pads toyota highlander replacement cold air intake highlander 2 beatie edney highlander part wholesale toyota radiator compare acura mdx honda pilot toyota highlander 2010 mercedes benz sale highlander sport front wheel drive 2010 toyota toyota truck highlander hybrid brake rotor highlander lowest toyota highlander headlight fog lights part your 2003 toyota highlander highlander endgame full movie souer money highlander 08 highlander hybrid sale buy 2008 toyota highlander cons auto body parts for toyota highlander highlander car dealer fj cruiser 2006 toyota highlander performance body kits toyota highlander carbon 2007 toyota highlander hybrid sale classified listings highlander closeout highlander rear bumper auto replacement 2002 toyota highlander heater control unit highlander christopher lambert sophie marceau fortress highlander parts alternative rav4 aftermarket selection toyota highlander toyota yaris corolla rav4 highlander hybrid new highlander movie sale christopher lambert 2007 toyota highlander hybrid limited sale toyota highlander towing packages 1991 Ford Aerostar | 05 Toyota Sienna | Zephyr Engines For | Nitro Bmw Audio | Sc430 Part Buy | [...]
[...] Stratten wrote a fantastic post last week about why Twitter automation is bad and in that post he absolutely nails my issue with it. He does so, in part, because of lines like [...]