You are here: Home » Business & Marketing Strategy » Social Media » Vanity Fair doesn’t understand twitter.
Jan
07

Vanity Fair doesn’t understand twitter.

A recent article from Vanity Fair: America’s Tweethearts proves how little they actually understand twitter!

Thanks to @markdavidson, I discovered and read the story. Pretty soon, many of us were in conversation about the missteps and failings of the article.

Mark believes that it capitalizes on female stereotypes and paints these intelligent women as objects.

Joe mentioned that the people they chose were not a representation of real twitter elite.

Jason commented the entire article comes off as patronizing and is bothered that people find it interesting.

EricaJoy added a few others that should have been considered – and the fact that as it stood, it was crap.

While I agree with the points they made, I have a few of my own:

  1. I believe that the article paints a poor picture of twitter and really fails to capture the point of the tool. Twitter isn’t about followers, it isn’t about popularity, and apart from @juliaroy, the key women in this article are very poor examples of twitter users. They all have 40k+ followers but follow, on average, less than 10% of them back! That means they are not conversing, not sharing and definitely not participating with their followers. Pathetic, and not the way twitter should be used.
  2. The other “twilebrities” it mentions – Obama, Britney, Ashton – are just as bad as examples! None of these people will ever be asked how to use twitter to improve your business, they will never speak at a conference about combining twitter into a social media strategy. The people that do get asked those questions? And do speak at the conferences? THOSE are the “twilebrities”
  3. This line from the article “Twitter doesn’t even require real sentences, only a continual patter of excessively declarative and abbreviated palaver” really twisted me…Twitter does require real sentences, real thought and real participation. If what you are doing is declarative and abbreviated palaver (which is really just big words for a short statement of unimportance) then you really are failing at twitter. And, the fact that Vanity Fair thinks that’s what twitter is – proves they have absolutely no idea how it really works.
  4. And the last reason I know that Vanity Fair fails at twitter? Their account is run the same way…48k+ followers, only following about 300. How is that participation?

What do you think of the article?

Related posts:

  1. Combining Twitter and Real Life
  2. What has twitter taught you?
  3. Twitter users seriously rock.

Category: Business & Marketing Strategy, Social Media
Topics: , ,
  • http://twitter.com/swoodruff Steve Woodruff

    Unfortunately, the article does fall into the stereotype trap (about women AND Twitter). I do know that Sarah Evans follows, engages, and provides a lot of valuable information. But since Vanity Fair isn't a business magazine, maybe they don't really care about the substantive elements of social networking…

  • http://www.abel-communications.com Shira Abel

    Vanity Fair doesn't understand “new media”. They are too used to speaking at people (it is a magazine after all) and there was always that barrier between them and the masses. They aren't happy now that their ivory tower has gone.

    • kirstenwright

      Absolutely – which is why their magazine is losing subscribers left and right…They just have zero relevance left.

  • Joe Slaughter

    Liked the post Kirsten. I'm usually looking for info or interaction on Twitter – perferably a combo of the 2 in each Twitterer. Also, reciprocation since it indicates some sort of mutual interest. It seems like there are 2 types of Twitter out there. One where people converse & learn from each other & another that is more like reading a magazine of celebrities' flow of life. I like the first type better.
    And, in line with this very subject — I've subscribed to your blog & Mark Davidson's. Looks like both of you have some great info.
    Thanks – @joeslaughter

    • kirstenwright

      Joe – I am so glad that you liked my thoughts (and that you have subscribed to read more of my thoughts!). I agree absolutely with your thoughts on 2 types of people on twitter, and I too prefer those who reciprocate :)

  • http://g.bonsaibeats.com Giannii

    This article was definitely made for people not savvy with twitter.

  • raymondlo1

    HATE to burst you haters “dynamic” conversation regarding the article. @kirstenwright Kristen are you trying to get attention and followers by bashing these amazing woman? THEY ALL speak at conferences on social media and tech, as well as tech experts for traditional media. It's an antiquated idea to follow everyone who follows you, right @markdavidson but you all ready know that. If any of you took a moment to check out the women of this article's feeds- you would see their caring and engagement both online and in communities. Most have started charities through social media- have you? In my opinion they represent what's best on Twitter. You are focused on the wrong subjects. Maybe Vanity Fair doesn't get it- but look there- not at these amazing women who have worked hard to deserve good things.

    • kirstenwright

      Thanks for your thoughts. In response,
      1. No, I am not trying to gather followers by “bashing” these women. In fact, I think all of these women are incredible examples of entrepreneurs, business women and should be treated as such. I never said they were bad people, nor did I criticize anything other than the way that they use twitter. That is wonderful that they speak at conferences, have started charities and have done some wonderful things with social media. However, I think that they are giving a poor examples of using twitter.This is my opinion, and the only reason I made a comment in regards to them (the rest of the article is directed at vanity fair's failures).
      2. The comment I made about speaking at conferences was in relationship to the “twilebrities” (obama, ashton, etc) not the women that were featured, because I do know that the women do speak at events.
      3. I never said that you should follow everyone – however to only follow 10% back? That seems a little silly. I think that you should follow back anyone worth following, and my guess is they have way more than 10% of their followers that are worth following. If you understood it as I believed you should follow everyone, then I am sorry for the confusion.

      If you notice with the title, and the majority of my points, I directed 90% of my frustration with the article at Vanity Fair. They were the failure, not the women. The only reason I included the women was that I believe (again, my OPINION) is that if you are going to write an article about twitter, these were not the women you should choose and I wanted to explain why I felt that way.

  • apparentlyageezer

    It's embarrassing our culture puts so much value on being any and all type of celebrity. Just look at all those “reality” shows!

  • http://twitter.com/wilgarcia1 wil Garcia

    I don't disagree with this article but you guys are making me feel bad for Vanity fair. You should have seen how happy certain people where to be featured in their article. tweeting, Retweeting, posting it on facebook passing it around their friends. I'm sure Vanity Fair will do more research next time.

    @wilgarcia1

  • BarbaraCampbell

    The recent article from Vanity Fair: America’s Tweethearts was will written, it showed one group of women and its world on twitter that many people have not seen or known about. Twitter is a new social land; we must all discover its people, groups & the language! I am glad I read the article. -Barbara Campbell

    • kristicolvin

      Barbara, nobody – and I mean NOBODY actually talks like that on Twitter. The “language” is best left to waste away in the digital archives and pages of that soon-to-be-yesterday's news issue of the magazine. It reads like a joke piece.

      Great post Kirsten!

  • http://www.bradmarley.com/ Brad

    I tweeted a few days ago that Twitter jumped the shark when this article ran, and I still believe that.

    If somebody who is not active on Twitter read that article — and I'm assuming most of Vanity Fair's readers fall into that category — they are certainly not going to run and sign up. The article makes a big deal out of a handful of users who just happen to be young, hip and attractive.

    The main problem I have, just like so many others here, is that they picked a sampling of users who don't necessarily represent users, at large.

    • kirstenwright

      Brad – Very well put. I think that you are absolutely right in that it doesn't give a good example for anyone wondering about twitter. I look forward to reading your article on it! :)

  • http://ariwriter.com Ari Herzog

    Whoa, Kirsten.

    “They all have 40k+ followers but follow, on average, less than 10% of them back! That means they are not conversing, not sharing and definitely not participating with their followers. Pathetic, and not the way twitter should be used.”

    I can't disagree stronger with these words. Who are you to define how Twitter should be used? More to the point, if you look at my Twitter account at http://twitter.com/ariherzog, I currently follow about 4% of those who follow me. Would you stereotype me in the same frame as Felicia Day that I don't converse, share, or participate? You're also not including lists, looking only at the follower number.

    • kirstenwright

      Ari,

      I stand by every word I wrote, including the fact that in my opinion, they are doing it wrong. While it may work for them, I think that if an article is going to feature people using twitter, the should think about how they use it first. The general consensus is that following only 10% is not really participatory (this is from others I have discussed this w/and in the comments.) Again, this analysis is in my opinion.

      As for your question, would I stereotype you in the same group? Yes. Were they to have chosen men to write about, and had included you in the list, I would have made the same comment re: followers. While you do participate with me, there are over 90% of your followers that you don't (if 4% is what you follow back). While I would never suggest you follow back everyone (spammers, people you are not interested in) I do think that the ratio should be more even. If you don't follow someone, how can you respond to them? Share a conversation? You can't.

      I do appreciate your thoughts!

      • http://ariwriter.com Ari Herzog

        Uh huh. How many people subscribe to your blog and what percentage of those people do you have a relationship with beyond a number?

        • kirstenwright

          Subscribers to a blog and followers on twitter are 2 very different things. With Twitter, I know every person when they follow me. I can click on their site, and see more about them as soon as they click follow. With a blog – all they are is numbers until they comment (because I don't have any more details than just a number). As far as the ones who have commented? If someone has commented on my blog, I make an effort to thank them via email for the first comment, follow them on twitter and build a relationship through other channels. I check out their blog, and if I like it, subscribe to them as well.

          I would say about 90% of those who comment on my site do I have a relationship with beyond a number.

  • http://sprout-creative.com teresa_schmidt

    I'm chuckling over the use of “antiquated” to describe anything to do with twitter. Does that mean as of last month or five minutes ago? I am also of the opinion (and we're entitled to them) that not following people makes for poor relationships. I agree with you that VF doesn't get it and I was certainly put off by the article. Starting with the naked-beneath-our-trench coats and high heels presentation of the women. Nothing against them, because I don't know or follow any of them.

  • Alice

    While I agree w/ the fact that VF got it utterly wrong, I think you're being overly reductive in how you look @ twitter. There's value in the more one-sided relationships that you're discounting. I'm not an extrovert and don't want to post, but I enjoy following people to get insights, info, relevant links, etc. For people wanting to build their reach & audience, that's not a bad arrangement.

    I definitely get that for many people, the interactions are a more valuable relationship than soliloquizing to an audience, but soliloquizing isn't without its merits.

    • kirstenwright

      Alice,

      Thank you for adding your thoughts – and yes, I do agree that twitter can be used successfully in a one sided manners, but if you were to write about the top people using twitter would those be the people you featured?

      The point of my article was not to focus on these women or how they use twitter but how little Vanity Fair understands about twitter. All the article talked about was numbers, celebrities and popularity – none of which are the keys to using twitter well. This isn't digital highschool – it's a tool for conversation and business growth.

  • Pingback: Celebrity Twitter Overkill: SuperNews! | twittersRus.info

«
»