Tuesday, 18 June 2013

A guide for the newcomer, and some updates for my chums

What ho, chaps!

In the past two days I have made appearances on two other popular websites: a guest blog post for Anne Rydne's splendid Communicate [your] Skills yesterday, and a guest opinion column for globally renowned marketing and media magazine the Drum today. A rather shocking and uncharacteristic spurt of productivity, I will admit, but there's no accounting for these things sometimes.

As these various guest appearances are bound to lure an unsuspecting chap or two to this blog, it seems appropriate to offer a few bits of advice to the newcomer. So, without further ado, I present this checklist for the first-time visitor to MarketingChap.com:

1) Before beginning in earnest it would be prudent to have a pot of tea and a decent selection of biscuits brought in. This blog can be rather heavy going at times and such fortification will be useful.

2) Have a peruse through the most popular posts from this blog's past. They are: The Curious Case of Deborah Perry Piscione, Why blueprints for the 'perfect tweet' are perfectly absurd, My Friends with Benefits at SilverDoor, and Unlike Mr Bond, I won't be drinking Heineken.

3) Take a nap. You've earned it, I dare say.

4) Upon waking, if you have somehow recovered sufficiently to continue, set course for the very beginning of this blog: a series entitled A Chap's Guide to Establishing Oneself on Twitter. This should keep you busy for some time.

Sadly, the Geneva Convention prevents me from recommending any further posts to civilians, so from here I shall address my remarks to the grizzled veterans who make up the wider Marketing Chap community. Here is the news, chaps:

The delightful Solveig Whittle recently published an interview with me on her splendid blog Shades of Solveig. Her questions are insightful and probing and in marked contrast to my replies (which are the usual rubbish).

Our delightful LinkedIn group, Chapworking for Chaps who Network, has recently surpassed 500 members and continues to grow daily. As my workload occasionally distracts my attention from the group's upkeep, I have asked the true brick known as Paul Hutchinson to join me as a moderator. He has fulfilled his duties admirably without recognition for many weeks, but I wanted to take a moment to thank him publicly for his sterling efforts. Bravo, chap!

A feed of this blog has been added to Guy Kawasaki's splendid site Alltop.com. You will find the feed in the marketing section (towards the bottom). Proof, if any was needed, that there's no accounting for taste.

New additions to the Good Egg pages have been on hold for the past few months as you may have noticed. This is merely a matter of the limitations of this blog as currently configured. The Blogger platform, where it currently rests, allows a maximum of twenty pages. A 'workaround' has been identified, and I hope to have it in place soon. Work is also underway on a new MarketingChap.com which will not be shackled with these limitations. Like most software projects, this new website is expected to be completed some time before the second coming.

I've taken a recent shine to Instagram. If you would like to see what my aunties and I get up to, have a gander at my pipes, or peruse the books I fall asleep while reading on weekends, then do sign up as a follower. Anyone who is not a bounder or rogue will be followed back, of course.

As for the future, I'm pleased to announce that more exciting posts are in production. As well as an update to the Curious Case of Deborah Perry Piscione, the light of truth will also be shining on other chaps with even more curious social media profiles. Do stay tuned!

That's all for now, chaps. Pip pip!

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

An Old Fashioned Discussion of Social Media Fakery

When the modern world becomes rather too much to bear, if you get my meaning, there is no better refuge for a chap than his gentleman's club. Free from the wearying encumbrances of daily life (especially meddling aunties), the club offers a refuge, where a chap may soothe the troubled soul in an oasis of calm, quiet, and single malt whiskey.

Every proper English gentleman should have a club for his sanctus sanctum, and its traditions are rightly prized. Like most, mine has a strict embargo on discussing affairs of business within club walls, and this is a rule I have always carefully observed. Sadly, when it comes to social media, my fellow members routinely fail to offer me this same courtesy. I fear this is because very few of them consider social media to be a proper business.

Whatever the reason, whenever I'm trying to enjoy a post-luncheon pipe or two in the smoking room, I am constantly having my ear bitten for a bit of free advice about this or that. My only recourse has been to sit with a copy of the Daily Telegraph open at full sail, so to speak, obscuring my presence completely from the waist up. This is normally sufficient, but recently my pipe-smoking meditation was broken by the annoying tap-tap sound of a chap flicking his finger against my newsprint barrier.

"I say, chap," I heard, "I say, is that you? It must be. I'd recognise those brogues anywhere, old top."

Realising the jig was up, I lowered my Telegraph. There before me was a chap holding a whiskey and ginger, leaning forward eagerly from a nearby chair.

"What ho," I said rather wearily.

"Cracking blog post about that Perry Piscione chapette, old plum," continued the whiskey and ginger drinker. "Showed her what for, eh?"

Before I could answer, a chap with a gin and tonic popped up from a nearby alcove. "Rather!" he squeaked. "Top-notch stuff, old plum. Everyone will be thinking twice before threatening you with a legal action again."

I had no plans to give anyone cause to threaten legal action again, of course. I was just preparing to say as much when I was interrupted by another chap with a determined look on his face and an Old Fashioned in his left hand:

"Bally cheek threatening a cease and desist letter like that," the Old Fashioned drinker roared, "but I dare say, I can't understand what inserted the proverbial bee into that chapette's bonnet in the first place. There's nothing wrong with padding one's Twitter account with a few thousand extra followers, is there? Practically everyone is doing it these days. I've bought ten thousand myself, in fact, just last week."

To say the tension in the room could be cut by a knife following this last remark would be a serious understatement. One of those power-chain-saws lumberjacks heft about would  have been required at a minimum. The clinking of ice bumping against glass was the only audible sound as we each waited for someone else to respond first.

"Oh come on now, chaps!" continued the Old Fashioned, realising his comment had been met with silent disapproval. "Do you dare cast a jaundiced eye upon such a harmless procedure? Hypocrisy, I dare say! Bally hypocrisy!"

No one likes being called a hypocrite, of course, but no one felt much like engaging in a strenuous argument either. Fortunately, a rescue was at hand.

"Now see here, old stick," interjected another chap who had been observing proceedings from the other side of the room. He was nursing a drink known in our club as an 'Old Etonian,' which is dashed confusing for purposes of this story, as this particular chap attended Harrow. Still, there it is.

"See here, my good man" continued the Old Harrovian (who, as stated above, was drinking the Old Etonian). "Buying followers on any social media platform is a sordid deceit, and an act unworthy of an Englishman. Everyone knows this, of course, except you apparently. You should be ashamed. Do not try to pass it off as some harmless pursuit. It shakes the very foundation of honourable society."

Despite the general murmurs of agreement emanating from around the room, the Old Fashioned (who for the record was himself and Old Wykhamist) was not put off. He parried the remark with some vigour, in fact.

"Ashamed?! Act unworthy of an Englishman?! My good man, what poppycock!" he frothed. "Withdraw your remarks at once, or this affair shall end badly!"

At this point the Old Fashioned (Old Wykhamist) and the Old Etonian (Old Harrovian) fell into a somewhat messy dispute. As with all messy disputes, reporting them word-for-word would not be helpful for our understanding. I have therefore rendered their respective arguments into a more readable format, removing all interruptions and name-calling. Proceedings open with the case of the chap drinking the Old Fashioned, who as revealed above, was a proponent of the 'fakery is good' school of thought:

"Touching up our profiles, whether in daily life or on social media, is a normal, healthy activity, chaps," he began, addressing the growing throng of members who had rushed into the smoking room to see the cause of the commotion."

"Who among us," he continued, "complains when our tailor uses his magic to reduce the appearance of our waistlines by an inch or two? Is there any man here who admonishes his barber when he obscure areas where coverage is growing thinner? Show me the chap who rebukes his valet for trimming the errant hair protruding from his nostril?"

This last point especially seemed to hit the mark. The Old Fashioned was clearly resonating with his audience.

"Putting one's best foot forward, whether with our appearance or our social manner, is something we do as naturally, and nearly as often, as breathing. It is the same on social media as it is in so-called 'real life.' We augment a bit here, and leave out a bit there. Does this make us scoundrels?

"No one composes posts on Facebook to highlight their personal frailties or to accentuate their faults. No one tweets, "Crikey, I was unreasonably rude to the waiter at the chop house where I had my luncheon. I must be a grumpy old sod." No. We choose what we report on social media selectively, even if it means telling less than the whole truth. We show off our best qualities, enhance them when possible, and downplay any short-comings. Is boosting one's followers by a few score not exactly the same thing? It does not make us frauds.

"I put it to you, chaps, that parting with a few hard-earned to augment one's follower count is no more a crime than asking one's valet to splash a bit of aftershave cologne on the jowls. The manly smell it confers may not be our own genuine scent, but no one is harmed, or even fooled by its presence. I dare say, in moderation it may even bring a modicum of pleasure to a chapette or two."

Although several members turned a slightly red (more red than usual, I should say) at the notion of impressing chapettes, it was clear that the words of the Old Fashioned had struck their mark. One rotund chap holding a hot lemon scotch squirmed visibly in his seat as he contemplated overturning his previously held beliefs. The soliloquy which followed from the Old Etonian (Old Harrovian), however, quickly turned the tide of sentiment in the other direction:

"Your case is well put, old bean, and I withdraw my previous remarks questioning your suitability as an Englishman." At this the Old Fashioned bowed his head slightly, showing that the matter was now forgotten. "But I still must strenuously object to the notion that buying fake followers is on par with removing an overgrown follicle from the nasal passage. Both actions may be intended to render ourselves more appealing to the general populace, but there the similarity ends.

"Imagine, if you will, a world where this sort of practice is taken to its logical conclusion. How could one judge between a good egg and a scoundrel? How could one know if a chap's social media following, his popularity on YouTube, or even if his status as a bestselling author was on the level, or merely a product of judicious purchases? As it stands now, a large social media following and a fleeting presence on the New York Times bestseller list can be yours for less than the cost of a decent graduate degree. By your logic we should be encouraging the youth of today to simply buy their reputations wholesale, not earn them with sweat and toil. After all, even the best MBA does not qualify one to give speeches for £10,000 a pop.

"Shall we stand as bulwarks against these low practices, or shall we meekly cave in on the grounds that 'everyone else is doing it?' Where would that leave us, chaps? Utter chaos, I say. It would only be a matter of time before we would find trumped-up charlatans giving us lunch, getting engaged to our daughters, or applying for membership of this club. Could we bear to live in a society where esteem and influence are a mere matter of opening one's wallet?"

After the Old Etonian drinker had concluded it was generally agreed that both points had been well made. This left the assembled membership, which by this point had swelled to a group exceeding twenty, in a quandary. They were happy to throw in their lot with whichever side appeared to hold the stronger hand, but were currently unsure which way to jump. After a full minute of hesitation a breakthrough was made. "Let's put the matter to Ramsbottom," someone shouted. Everyone agreed immediately.

The attributes of my club's membership secretary, the Hon. W.J.E. Ramsbottom, are discussed at length elsewhere in this blog. In summery, let it suffice to say that he is a pernicious meddler of the top order. But his exasperating insistence on exactitude nevertheless has its place. Like King Solomon of old, Ramsbottom would weigh the matter dispassionately and render a verdict meticulously free of bias. Everyone agreed: only Ramsbottom would do.

A deputation was dispatched, and before long the beaky nose of Ramsbottom was seen poking through the smoking room doorway (followed by the rest of him soon afterwards, of course). Each party marshaled their arguments carefully for his benefit, and after briefly pausing to stroke his pointy chin, Ramsbottom cleared his throat and rendered his judgement:

"Gentleman, although one can clearly see some parallels between the removal of unkempt nostril foliage and the addition of non-standard Twitter followers, I find this in no way justifies the use of social media fakery. Unlike a gentleman's personal grooming, the purchase of fake followers is not meant to flatter, but rather to deceive. Deception, as we all must agree, should never be an accepted practice in polite society.

"Of course, what makes a follower fake and what makes a follower genuine is an important point that appears to have so far escaped discussion. If one leans upon friends and family to 'like' a Facebook page in which they have no genuine interest, are these likes not 'fake' in the truest sense of the word? One frequently sees appeals on various websites from chaps saying they will like or follow anyone as long as the favour is returned. Is this any less disreputable than acquiring followers through outright purchase?"

As usual, Ramsbottom had found several more critical points that had escaped wider attention. I feared he would merely muddy the water further rather than find a resolution. As it turned out, my fears were in vain.

"Although the practice of exchanging likes and follows in a sort of syndicate is not overly desirable, it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between good and bad practice in this instance. Therefore, the line must be drawn at the fashion for purchasing followers and likes for money. When banknotes changes hands, I would argue, a chap has crossed the line from massaging the facts to outright deception. Bona fides should never be something one can purchase online.

"Following this conversation," Ramsbottom continued, obviously warming to his subject,  "I shall also be tabling a motion for the next meeting of the rules committee to this effect. Any members with non-standard social media followings, who therefore risk the good name of this club, would be well advised to start unpicking them now."

Despite his hectoring tone and overly haughty manner, Ramsbottom's judgement was warmly received by all. Even the chap with the Old Fashioned manfully admitted that he had over-egged his position somewhat. Bonhomie and good humour appeared set to rein once more, which was good news as my much-neglected pipe had gone out and needed tending to. Before I could strike the first match, however, Ramsbottom's looming figure reappeared in the doorway.

"I should like to remind members," he began, his nose looking especially beaky as he did, "that discussion of affairs of business is strictly proscribed by club rules, and that any further attempts by Mr Etingchap to discuss his profession in future should be strongly resisted by all."

Then turning to me, he said, "These debates about Twitter and Facebook seem to spring up wherever you go, my good man. Best keep a lid on it or I shall be forced to table a motion of censure before the membership committee."

I was so stunned by this unjust accusation that I was unable to mount any riposte other than indignant sputtering. By the time I had regained my composure Ramsbottom had turned sharply and left the room.

Having witnessed my public rebuke (for which they were responsible, of course) my fellow club members scattered to the four winds. Although feeling distinctly shunned, like an ostracised member of some Amish sect, I was at least finally left alone. I took a deep breath, relit my pipe, and hoisted my Telegraph back into position. It had come at high cost, but I was determined to enjoy the resulting peace and quiet nonetheless.

I was interrupted moments later, however, by the smoking room attendant hovering at my elbow.

"Telephone message, sir. A woman calling herself 'Auntie Sophronia.' She says you are to report to her house immediately, sir. Something to do with 'taking my fat-headed nephew to task,' I fear."

I sighed. Even the club smoking room can only offer a chap so much protection.

Thursday, 23 May 2013

20,000 Followers! Crikey!

Early Monday morning, even before the first cup of Darjeeling of the working day was finished, a momentous milestone in the history of this venture was reached: the @Marketing_Chap Twitter account acquired its 20,000th follower.

A heady moment, I’m sure you’ll agree, and I must admit briefly withdrawing to the stationary cupboard for a lie down for fear of swooning (but only for a moment as we Etingchaps are made of rather stern stuff).

Drained as I was by the occasion, the task of congratulating the 20,00th follower still remained. A fairly straightforward maneuver in normal circumstances. I was soon to learn, however, that this time round things were far from normal.

From my desk where I sat watching the new followers arrive, inching ever closer to the important number, it appeared that a top-hole chap by the name of Paul Barker claimed the prize. The fact that Paul is a chartered accountant adds weight to his cause, I dare say, as they are the sort of chaps who are rather hot stuff when it comes to numbers.

There is another chap in the frame, however, by the name of Patrick Kalotis. Patrick is the group marketing director for PepsicoUK, and has been loitering around my twitter stream since about the 19,000 mark, eager to claim the title of ‘Mr 20K.’ To be helpful, I had tweeted him a warning earlier that morning saying that the hour had come, and that he should step lively. There was no sign of him, however, and when my count reached the 20,002 mark I sent him my commiserations and encouraged him to pile in regardless. One can’t put these things off forever.

Much to my shock I received the following tweet from Patrick moments later:




Blimey! It would not be an exaggeration to say that, upon reading this, I reeled. Fortunately my office chair is a stout number with a high back, so the reeling passed off unnoticed by colleagues. But I reeled nonetheless. Who knew Twitter’s statistical information varied so much from user to user? Rather shakes one’s faith a bit. Shall we next discover that the ‘fail whale’ is in fact a porpoise who’s put on a few pounds round the middle?

But, there we are. These things can’t always be helped. As we will likely never know who the true Mr 20K is, there’s nothing for it I suppose but to award the honour jointly. Bravo, chaps! Well played!

Before signing off we’d best have a quick review of the @Marketing_Chap Twitter account. It hasn't had a decent airing on this blog since the arrival of the 10,000th follower, Livia Thompson, on Friday 23 November of last year.

As you may have noticed, the time elapsed between 10K followers and 20K was just a shade under six months. This mirrors almost exactly the timeline of the first ten thousand followers (which may appear to have taken nine months, but one cannot really count the three month Twitter-free stint in the Cote D’Azur tending to Auntie Beatrice while we waited for her eyelashes to regrow). For all intents and purposes, therefore, the rate of growth appears to be twenty thousand followers per anum.

The methods followed in this project have all been clearly laid out in earlier posts in this blog, starting with the very first day of Twitter activity. A great deal of time has been invested, but no actual money. In short, any chap sufficiently motivated can do exactly as I have done, regardless of budget, and achieve more or less the same result.

As was pointed out in the first post of this blog, this has been no mad dash for numbers. No effort to attract followers of quality has been spared. The fact that a lively community has sprung up around the account (and hence spread to our LinkedIn group ‘Chapworking’) is testimony to this. Even more telling (and decidedly unexpected) is the score from Status People’s  fake follower detector, which estimates a staggering 100% of my followers are real chaps. Surely a fake or two must have slipped in somewhere? Even if taken with the proverbial pinch of salt, however, the verdict is nevertheless encouraging.

Providing one has something reasonably interesting to say, and is willing to put in the effort, acquiring online influence is a relatively straightforward task. Demonstrating this has been one of my main objectives for the past year. Why so many self-appointed ‘thought leaders’ feel compelled to purchase followers for dosh is beyond me. This does nothing for spreading one’s message, and provides only the barest of fig leafs to hide a lack of influence. As I have shown elsewhere, thanks to Kred and other online aides one can quickly see if a chap’s social media bona fides stack up. Buying fakes will only impress the credulous and naïve.

More on this subject will appear in coming posts. For now I must bid you adieu, as I have a three hour luncheon to prepare for.

Pip pip!

Thursday, 16 May 2013

The Curious Case of Deborah Perry Piscione

What ho!

Apologies in advance, chaps, for the unusual nature of the post that is to follow. Some very curious events have recently left me both perplexed and bemused. No doubt you shall find the story intriguing. Shall we start at the beginning?

As many of you know, I have been busy preparing a series for this blog on social media fakery. One subject I was determined to explore is the rising use of what are commonly termed 'fake followers.' One sees them advertised for sale on virtually every hill and dale these days, and especially on websites like Fiverr or Five Squids. Although I am generally unimpressed by their use, I would never condemn outright any chap caught with them among his following. Any large Twitter account will attract a certain percentage of fake followers no matter what. What's more, it is entirely possible to buy fake followers for someone else without their knowledge or permission. It can never be assumed, therefore, that anyone who appears to have a largely fake following has engaged in any deliberate deception themselves.

Always keen to get the highest quality information for my readership, I decided to approach the issue rather directly. The social media management firm Status People provide a service which  checks for fake followers. While I do have some reservations about this widget's accuracy, it seemed a reasonable enough starting point (as long as the results thrown up were treated with caution). After finding three accounts with  high fake follower scores I contacted each one and put the question to them: Was Status People correct? Would they object to being mentioned in my post? Would they be willing to provide quotes anonymously? I made it clear that if they chose not to reply I would assume they had no objections to being mentioned. For the sake of thoroughness, however, I contacted those who did not reply with a second email letting them know of the approaching post and mention.

On Tuesday, several hours after sending one of these second emails, I received a rather curious email myself. The sender, whose name I did not recognise, made no attempt to explain who they were or if they spoke on another's behalf. They did state rather boldly that I had committed slander [sic], and that their attorney, Dan Montgomery, would be sending me a cease and desist letter

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Do forgive the summary of correspondence rather than the genuine article, chaps, but I have been advised for legal reasons to not quote the exact text of these emails. Accurate summaries are, I'm assured, fair game. All done now.]

Later I was to learn that my correspondent was an employee of someone I had been attempting to contact regarding the issue of fake followers: Deborah Perry Piscione of California. Ms Perry Piscione is the recently published author of the Secrets of Silicon Valley, and a self-described entrepreneur, media commentator, and thought leader.

I must admit to being rather shocked upon reading this email, chaps. Not the sort of everyday correspondence one receives in my circles. Nearly dropped my pipe, actually. Nearly.

Rather flustered by suddenly being thrust into the legal realm by a complete stranger, I replied rather hastily. And then, rather hastily, I followed up on my reply. And then followed up again. And again. And again. Five times in total. Not stiff-upper-lip material, I will admit, but then it's not every day one receives a legal threat from persons unknown. I summarise the five emails I sent as follows:

  1. Eh? What's this? And who are you?
  2. What I mean is, I can hardly cease and desist without knowing whom to cease and desist from.
  3. After a quick Google search I see who you are [this is the point I discovered I was dealing with an employee of Ms Perry Piscione]. Slander, really? I've not said anything in public, and what's more, I only intend to discuss demonstrable facts. Are you sure you wish to square off against each other like this? I do not. Take twenty-four hours to reconsider and get back to me.
  4. I say, do you realise I have doubts about the accuracy of the Status People fake follower reports? I was planning a rather balanced piece. Will you be serving Status People with a similar letter to cease and desist? Did you know I've promised not to mention others who have asked me not to? Wouldn't that have been the wiser course?
  5. Err.... there's no Dan Montgomery currently licensed by the California state bar. There was once, but he is now deceased. Please explain.
My correspondent did reply just before midnight UK time. She said the firm that would be sending the cease and desist letter was Montgomery & Hansen (run by two chaps named Dan Hansen and John Montgomery - hence the confusion). The email went on to explain what a cease and desist letter was. In short, I would be advised not to use Ms Perry Piscione as an example (of what specifically was not mentioned) upon threat of future legal action. It was hoped I would understand their reasoning (even though the short missive appeared bereft of any reasoning as such, but there we are) and instead write about someone else.

It seemed rather rum to declare that mentioning Ms Perry Piscione was somehow illegal, but then encourage me to mention someone else in her place. Perhaps things are done differently in California.

Since then there has been no further correspondence from the Perry Piscione camp, nor has any cease and desist letter arrived from anyone named 'Dan' or 'Montgomery' (or anyone else for that matter). As two full business days have now passed since the original legal threat, I must admit feeling rather perplexed. Is the letter still coming? Has it been reconsidered? Perhaps the ink is simply taking an inordinately long time to dry. I know not, chaps. 

What I do know, however, is that I am rather shaken up by the whole experience. Discombobulated, even. Whether justified or not, I can't help but feel that I am being bullied. It is not a pleasant feeling, I assure you. What do do, eh?

The accusation of 'slander' is, of course, rather preposterous. Slander is the oral form of defamation.  In other words, to be justly accused of slandering Ms Perry Piscione someone would have needed to hear me say something out loud in a setting where I had no expectation of privacy. Impressive as the various claims Ms Perry Piscione makes for herself in her lengthy bio, the ability to hear a chap speak from across the Atlantic Ocean is not one of them (and I have not said anything slanderous anyway, so there).

What Ms Perry Piscione's assistant no doubt meant instead is 'libel,' the written form of defamation. To be libelous in most jurisdictions a statement must be false, and it must be made to a third party [according to Wikipedia, anyway]. My emails addressed to Ms Perry Piscione were written via a contact form on her website and I have no copies to refer to. I am reasonably sure, however, that I said nothing false. And besides, they were addressed to her and no one else.

Having never previously received an email threatening a cease and desist order, I must say it is most disappointing to open my account with one so strewn with errors. Rather takes the shine off the occasion.  But it can't be helped now. Let's move on.

Time for some facts, chaps. Facts are one's friends in these situations. Facts offer one sure footing when the way forward is obscured. Although previously only significant enough to rate a quick mention in this blog, Ms Perry Piscione's twitter account now merits some serious attention. Anything subjective, not backed up by fact, or not previously in the public domain will be avoided. Just solid facts. And here they are:

At the time of writing this post, Ms Perry Piscione has 18,370 followers on her @DPerryPiscione twitter account. To be helpful I have pasted in a screenshot of her current twitter page (click to enlarge):


According to whendidyoujointwitter.com, this account was created on 2 November 2012. 

On 2 April 2013 Ms Perry Piscione published her most recent book: the Secrets of Silicon Valley. Roughly a week after publication Ms Perry Piscione's twitter account began to enjoy some startling (and very sudden) success attracting followers.

According to the influence measurement service Kred, Ms Perry Piscione racked up an enormous amount of 'influence points' (a unit which Kred use, as you might expect, to measure social media influence) in the second week of April. As evidence of this, I submit the following graph from Ms Perry Piscione's Kred Story page.

Kred use the colour green to illustrate influence (as opposed to blue for outreach) so the spike in question is the green one situated between 1 April and 16 April. It shows a massive 16,000 or so influence points were accrued by Ms Perry Piscione on a single day. Influence points are awarded for mentions, retweets or follows, so we cannot source the cause of this spike from this graph alone. Fortunately the ever-transparent Kred give more detail elsewhere.

Kred famously track every single tweet, follow and unfollow on Twitter, and helpfully make this data available to the public (which they are able to do because Ms Perry Piscione has her account set to 'public') . Here is a portion of the publicly available Kred report of Ms Perry Piscione's twitter activities for the day the above-mentioned spike in influence points occurred:


Smack in the centre of this report one can see that 14,998 twitter accounts suddenly followed Ms Perry Piscione's twitter account more or less all at once. Although some would leap to the conclusion that this is evidence of fake accounts, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, a week after its launch, fifteen thousand people from around the world suddenly finished the Secrets of Silicon Valley all at once, and were suddenly overcome with the desire to follow the author's twitter account. It could happen, especially if the book is as good as the thirty-seven glowing five star reviews it has received on Amazon.com are to be trusted. 

Whatever their origin, Ms Perry Piscione has demonstrated adeptness at gaining twitter followers en masse. She also loses them rather suddenly as well, and in impressively large numbers. As can be seen in the screenshot of her 30 day follower count from her Kred Story page (below, top left), Ms Perry Piscione lost 1,312 followers on 25 April, 1,677 followers on 30 April, 1,701 on 1 May, and a further 808 on 9 May. 


These dramatic drops in followers have been offset by equally dramatic influxes of new followers on other days (as seen above), so no harm done, really.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: I should say that despite my well-known and previously documented relationship with the chaps at Kred they have taken no direct part in this post in any way whatsoever. The information discussed above is publicly available on Kred.com about every Twitter user with a public account that has not previously opted out of Kred]

Who are these thousands of followers coming and going? There are far, far too many to list in detail here, of course. Instead let's have a look at a sample screenshot of Ms Perry Piscione's followers taken yesterday:


An attractive looking lot, I'm sure you'll agree. In case the resolution on your screen is insufficient, let me name some of them for you. There's Christin Riff (twitter name @Kristine14798), Zenaida Colver (twitter name @Gabriella95392), Lia Cotrell (twitter name @Sherril_pqsb), and down at the bottom Marry Mongan (twitter name @Tabathadytuy). My eye is drawn especially to Christin Riff (or is it Kristine?). Her bio reads: "might be addicted to eBay considering he just spent 6 hours trying to burn the face of Jesus into his toast." Christin/Kristine is following 377 other accounts, but she has yet to tweet her first tweet. This is a sad loss to us all considering the charming wit displayed in her bio. She hails from the wilds of "USA, Montana." Surely she has much of interest to say coming from such a place. Probably best not speculate on the matter too much, however, or I might receive a cease and desist letter from Christin/Kristine Riff's attorney.

As mentioned previously, it was the nifty web application made available by Status People that first gave me cause to initially approach Ms Perry Piscione. My previously expressed reservations about this system are based on it's stated use of sampling for analyzing large accounts. This means that the Status People's results would at most check just over five percent of Ms Perry Piscione's following. And, what's more, the definition of a 'fake account' is surely a subjective one. I have therefore decided, in the interest of sticking to facts, not to include the high fake score Ms Perry Piscione received from the Status People fake follower checker. You may check yourself if interested. You may also check mine, which is (as of writing) a suspicious-sounding 0%. I say 'suspicious' because although I do tend to avoid them, I find it hard to believe I have no fake followers at all.

[EDITOR'S UPDATE: What ho, chaps! I write this on Monday 20 May to inform you that Ms Perry Piscione has taken the unexpected step of setting her Twitter account to 'Private.' In addition to the manifold restrictions this places on the spreading of her ideas, it also prevents the Status People fake follower checker from gathering any details about her account. Not cricket, I know, but there we are. These things can't always be helped.]

Here are some more facts about Ms Perry Piscione which I regretfully lack the time to investigate more thoroughly at present:

  • Although the Secrets of Silicon Valley has had overwhelmingly positive reviews on Amazon.com, two  reviews only award one star each, and both assert that the five star reviews are possibly less than genuine. One of these, the review ranked as most helpful by readers, is entitled Trite. It is penned by 'Hall of Fame Reviewer' Lloyd E. Eskildson, who has nearly 4,000 Amazon reviews to his name. Perhaps he too still awaits the arrival of a cease and desist letter.
  • The Secrets of Silicon Valley proudly boasts being a New York Times National Bestseller. This is true. After failing to make the list in the initial weeks following publication it burst suddenly onto the scene on the 21 April list, debuting at an impressive number five on the hardback non-fiction list. After such a late-breaking groundswell of interest it is surprising that the book failed to make the top thirty-five the following week. It is also surprising that it failed to make the ebook non-fiction list on any week (that I could find), including the week it jumped to number five in the hardback list. What does this mean? There is not enough information to draw any reliable conclusions. Some readers might enjoy reading this recent article from the Wall Street Journal on book sales spikes, however.
  • The Secrets of Silicon Valley Facebook page, founded only in late November 2012, has already racked up an impressive 3,760 fans. Very few of the 3,760 engage with the content on the page, but I suppose this can't be helped. After all, the engagement rate on my Facebook page is rather awful, I must admit (although I only have 400-odd fans). Since 1 May there have been ten posts by the page, but none of these have garnered any comments or shares. There have been a total of seven 'likes' across these ten posts. Three of these were kindly supplied by the mother of Ms Perry Piscione's assistant.
Sadly, I have run out of time and space to provide any more facts on this matter, chaps. Perhaps, if the need requires, a follow-up post can be arranged.

On the off-chance that Ms Perry Piscione reads this blog post, I will close with a few words addressed to her:

I pride myself on being a fair-minded sort of chap, so if any of the previously mentioned facts are in any way inaccurate please get in touch. Not only will I make corrections but I will also print a handsome apology in a future post. I have no desire to be unfair, only to speak the truth and to exercise my God-given right to free speech (a tradition that both of our nations proudly share).

Also I would strongly recommend taking advice from a competent PR agency to guide your future endeavours (preferably one which understands the dangers of the Streisand Effect). You will find their help most invaluable.

That's all for now, chaps, but stay tuned in case of any future developments.

Off to the pub for a pint or two now. I dare say I've earned it.

Pip pip!

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

A splendid example of LinkedIn success

A few months ago the Marketing Chap mailbag was graced by a missive from a top-hole chap named Paul Hutchinson. A fellow-traveler in the glamour-filled industry of PR, Paul was after a bit of advice on beefing up his LinkedIn profile. His hope was that, sufficiently primed, his LinkedIn offering would make prospective employers say, 'Crikey! Let's get this chap in for an interview sharpish!'

Paul's was not the first email of this sort to come down the pipe, so to speak. Similar requests for advice on several subjects appear from time to time. Normally some chap wants advice on finding a new job, selecting the right sort of career path, or help sprucing up a blog. Once, much to my shock, an Australian schoolgirl wrote in asking for help with a school assignment.

Advice giving is a rather daunting task, one will no doubt agree. Saying the wrong thing could send a chap down a disastrous career path, or, heaven forbid, incur the wrath of some antipodean schoolmaster. This simply wouldn't do, chaps. Fortunately, the burden is not so heavy as it might at first appear. It is often the case that the chaps who seek make the effort to seek advice are often least in need of any actual help. Barring the odd exception, some gentle encouragement will normally suffice.

This was certainly the case for our friend Paul Hutchinson.  I remember reading Paul's email, examining his LinkedIn profile, and feeling a distinct lack of anything constructive to offer. His LinkedIn profile was in thoroughly good nick: extensive job history with descriptions, a strongly worded summary, and a healthy dose of recommendations. There were no blank spaces left untended. There were no obvious oversights that could be identified and passed on as evidence of my greater understanding. In short, when it came to offering advice, I was a bit stumped.

The social media world is rife with bounders claiming to be 'LinkedIn gurus,' 'LinkedIn doctors,' 'LinkedIn professors,' and even the predictable 'LinkedIn ninja.' Like most self-appointed experts, they peddle a mixture of common sense and unproven claims in exchange for some poor sap's hard earned. Hardly cricket, and not a practice I wish to have any association with. Coming up with some old oil just to save face with this chap Paul was simply not on. There was nothing for it but to come clean.

After admitting there was nothing leaping out requiring immediate attention, I attempted a face-saving maneuver and tacked on the following to my reply:
"I would say that although the LinkedIn profile does demand a lot of thought and attention, the most important benefits accrue not from the profile but from being active in groups and commenting on the updates of other chaps."
In short, I was advising young Paul to put himself about a bit, hobnob with the great and the good, and give his LinkedIn profile (so carefully maintained) a chance to be seen a bit more. Nothing earth-shaking, but poignant enough to do the trick I hoped. Being a good sort, Paul accepted my advice with an appreciative spirit and we became chums.

Happily, Paul decided to follow said advice with gusto. I say 'happily' because Paul quickly became an established member of my own LinkedIn group, Chapworking (discussed extensively in the previous post), making a valued comment here, starting an interesting discussion there. Nevertheless it was still a mild shock  a few weeks later when I received yet another epistle from this chap, this time entitled, 'Networking Success...' For the benefit of you the reader I have included the following excerpts:

"You might remember I asked if you'd be kind enough to have a look over my LinkedIn profile and see if there was anything I could do to improve it? You did, lovely chap that you are, and said that while nothing jumped out at you, you would recommend taking part in discussions in Groups on LinkedIn, as that's the best way to show people what you know and what your skills are, as well as making good contacts at the same time.  
"I had already joined Chapworking by this point but started to say hello and in with general discussions as well as start some on my own.  
"A few days later I received a message from fellow Chapworker Alys Barber, who works or Media Contacts. She said that she was recruiting for a role that she thought I'd be perfect for. It's no secret that I was dubious at first, I've had bad experiences of recruitment agencies before, however Alys reassured me all was above board and we chatted further about the role.
Alys was superb in supporting me through the recruitment process and after two interviews with presentations, tests and lots of questions from both sides of the table I was offered the job as PR and Marketing Executive.  
"This whole experience has shown me that 1) never be afraid to ask your peers for advice. I asked you for some pointers and you pointed me in the right direction. 2) never be afraid to join in. Taking part in these discussions meant Alys noticed me. 3) Practice what you preach. Talking about communications is one thing but you have to back it up, if Alys had spotted me on Chapworking but I wasn't doing much more than saying hello or 'liking' discussions, she may have passed me by. Writing my blog, playing an active role in discussion on LinkedIn and Twitter really helped me get noticed and in my interview my own blog was used as an example by the interviewers of things they were impressed with." 
Shocking as it is to find one's advice has actually been of genuine help, I must admit I am was not shocked that our mutual chum Alys decided to look Paul up, or that he is now happily ensconced in a new role at Black Letter PR. Paul has demonstrated himself repeatedly to be a top hole sort of chap. A true brick and all that. Eminently hireable and all that.
 in a new role at

It must be noted, however, neither Paul's activities nor his results on LinkedIn are typical. The standard modus operandi on LinkedIn is to create a profile when looking for a new position, and then largely forget about the thing until the need arises to tap up some old chum for a favour, or the time has come to look for yet another new position. For most users, LinkedIn is the least social of their social media platforms.

This is a mistake, and if you ever experience doubts, remember my chums Paul and Alys. Along with myself and others they can still regularly be found on Chapworking, busily making friends and influencing people.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Hello chaps, just me again as I serve as blog editor as well as principle author. I wanted to point out that Alys Barber posts a new mouth-watering position she is recruiting for virtually every day on Chapworking, so worth keeping a close eye on her activities as well. That's all.

Before we part, don't forget to request a LinkedIn connection with yours truly (click here), or send through any questions or requests for advice to chap@marketingchap.com.

Must run. Pip pip!

Thursday, 4 April 2013

How my chums and I fixed LinkedIn

LinkedIn is a bit of a queer duck, isn't it chaps?

What I mean is, it stands apart from other major social media platforms on several counts. Most chaps I know have LinkedIn profiles, but are rarely active unless they are looking for someone to put the touch on, or are actively looking for a new position.

In most cases, no effort is spared to make one's profile look absolutely first-class, but once the profile is complete it lays perfectly dormant until the hour of need arises. Those who do indulge in posting updates favour worthy and self-serving subjects. No one comments on the latest Harlem Shake video. Photos of lunch-time sushi enhanced with a #Low-Fi filter, or pouting 'selfies' taken in front of a bathroom mirror rarely make an appearance. What did I have for breakfast this morning? Don't come looking on LinkedIn for answers.

Some may cheer this lack of frivolous content, but the result is LinkedIn can be a rather dull and (dare I say it) tiresome social space. Few complain, as being dull and tiresome is easily confused with being professional, and everyone wants to appear professional when the need arises. This encourages us to suppress the more entertaining aspects of our personality in favour of something altogether more sober. Appearing whimsical is just not the done thing on LinkedIn, is it?

Whimsy does have real value in the business world, however, as most right-thinking chaps are fully aware. LinkedIn has missed a trick by assuming the best networking is conducted in professional, restrained settings. One is much more likely to make a meaningful connection over a latte and slice of chocolate cake in the local coffee house than over a spreadsheet or a PowerPoint presentation in the company board room. [EDITOR'S NOTE: We all know this instinctively, of course, but our real-world instincts so easily slip through the fingers once we step into the world of social media. Much of what passes for sound social media advice is rarely more than reminders to stop behaving in an inhuman and unnatural manner - but that is a subject for another post, I dare say!]

It is an unpleasant task, but one must be prepared to face facts about LinkedIn manfully. The truth is that for most users this platform is broken. Or never worked very well in the first place, rather. Perhaps 'broken' is over-egging things a bit. Shall we settle on 'moribund' instead?

Whatever the mot juste, last September I decided to take action. Someone needed to take matters in hand and lead LinkedIn to some much-needed improvements. The obvious starting place was with the much-maligned institution known as the 'LinkedIn group' (a facility that has always promised much, but rarely delivered anything meaningful). After a cracking suggestion for a name from top-chapette Gillian Andrew, Chapworking -for Chaps who Network was born!

Although Chapworking has always had a serious mission (to encourage connections between chaps and chapettes of the better element, and be a source of sound, insightful advice), the emphasis has always been on amusement. Relationships are built on trust, and its no good trying to endear oneself to a new acquaintance while remaining buttoned-up and reserved. Much better to take the relaxed approach. Crack a few jokes. Find a few common interests. Find out which clubs your new chum belongs to. Letting the guard down and showing one's true personality is the best way to convince a chap that you are a good egg, and worth talking to about more serious matters. Without this crucial stage of relationship building it is frightfully hard to know who are the genuine good eggs, and who are the merely cads posing as such. Any bounder can pretend to be a good egg when he knows he is under the microscope. Put a tumbler of single malt in his hand, sit him down in a comfy leather chair and start talking cricket, however, and his true colours will shine through in fairly short order.

Even the best LinkedIn group will lack tumblers of single malt or squashy furniture, but keeping the conversation light and informal is a straightforward task. Some of the best topics on Chapworking have been of this sort. For example, we've held a poll on our favourite workday treats (latte's came tops after chocolate and biscuits), discussed the merits of onesies being included in corporate dress-codes, and shared our favourite excuses for bunking off work for a day. As you might expect (especially considering the splendid types that most Chapworking members are), the conversation has sparkled, dazzled, and rarely failed to entertain.

Do not be fooled into thinking the convivial atmosphere of Chapworking has prevented any serious discussions from flourishing, however. There have been many robust but cheerful debates on social media and marketing topics. The best of these are normally started by other Chapworking members, including Are Facebook's new policies annoying marketers and users alike? What is the appropriate role of emoticons in the workplace? What are the lessons learned from filling out 60 online surveys in a month? Is it possible to revive a damaged reputation? and Is it uncouth to follow someone on Facebook and then subject them to unsolicited criticism of social media practices?

As impressive an array of topics as one will find anywhere on LinkedIn, I'll wager. But it's no good simply taking my word for it. Let's hear from the Chapworking community themselves:

I find the group really interesting and the conversation always relevant. I really like the unique writing style - it makes business writing far less business-like. - Judy Collins

I enjoy the mix of professional and fun discussions. Also, the community feel among members in this group. I don't get that in other groups. - Susan Ward

Chapworking is my favorite LinkedIn group period... [It] is full of bright, lively, engaging, talented people that span a variety of industries and regions. The conversations are entertaining and informative at the same time. I'm also pleased to say I've made quite a few wonderful connections. - Lauren Hug


I've really enjoyed seeing the mix of light hearted and professional chat and I've also had the chance to ask other members their thoughts on my ideas too... There is certainly a much more relaxed and friendly feeling here, compared with other groups, which seem to be more about what buzz words you know rather than your experience or knowledge. -Paul Hutchinson

[EDITOR'S NOTE: There's much more of this sort of thing on Chapworking itself, of course. Have a peruse of the full thread here]

Clearly the chaps at LinkedIn could learn a lot by having a gander at Chapworking, don't you think?

The light-hearted banter and budding camaraderie are not ends in themselves, of course. One of the primary functions of LinkedIn is to help a chap advance his career. Is the witty repartee on Chapworking actually accomplishing anything meaningful, or is it merely the proverbial spinning of wheels?

A fair question, but one that is easily answered. What's more, we have an actual live case study of career advancement happening through Chapworking. Prepare to read the full story in the next post, chaps!

Now then, before you go, do take a moment to join Chapworking if you have not done so already. This blog only attracts the better sort of reader, so I have no doubts you'll fit right in. Introduce yourself to the others, share a few anecdotes, and you'll soon be among friends.

Oh, and don't forget to connect with me personally on LinkedIn. That would be splendid!

Pip pip!

Thursday, 14 March 2013

Why blueprints for the 'perfect tweet' are perfectly absurd

What ho, chaps!

As many of you know, I am blessed with a rather sunny outlook on life. What would irk another chap is, for me, only so much water on the proverbial duck's back. I put my calm disposition down to getting plenty of sleep at the weekends, and a preference for smoking mild tobacco in my pipe.

However placid my countenance, though, I cannot actually claim that the brow never furrows. The road of life always includes the occasional bump, and even the most patient and understanding of chaps can get all hot and bothered when sufficiently provoked .

As it turns out, such a provocation did occur just a few days ago. 'Hot and bothered' would perhaps be an understatement, in fact. What exercised the glands so sufficiently was a blog post entitled 'A blueprint for the perfect tweet' on PR Daily. To say that its contents jarred would be putting it rather mildly. The jaw, which as you know is normally set in a manly and resolute manner, dropped rather suddenly (I must admit, this jaw dropping caused a spot of bother. My nicely lit pipe was dislodged, which caused ashes and cinders to tumble into the gaps of my keyboard - a messy business and one that my manservant Perkins thankfully sorted without fuss).

With keyboard lovingly cleaned and pipe relit, I reapplied myself to the aforementioned blueprint. For your reading convenience I have distilled its prescription for 'The Perfect Tweet' down to the following essential points:

  • Include a 'call to action' in every tweet which tells chaps what to do
  • 90% of all tweets should contain links to other content related to one's message
  • Always include 1-2 hashtags to increase reach among non-followers
  • Finish off the tweet in 120 characters or less (100 really because of the twenty needed for the link) to allow space for 'retweeters to add content.'

Is this really a recipe for a perfect tweet, chaps? Hardly. I would say 'perfectly ordinary' would be more like it.

Corporate and professional twitter streams are awash with this sort of digital chatter, as most chaps reading this blog will be well aware. While this style of tweeting doesn't offend the eye, so to speak, it certainly falls far short of 'perfection,' and is hardly designed to make a chap stand out in a crowd. This is a style of tweet for pushing a message, pure and simple, and I am firmly in the camp that says that social media is not at its best when it is merely foisting content on followers.

Being a fair-minded sort of chap, I am not one to nurse a grudge in private. I left a courteous but vigourously dissenting comment on said post. The blueprint's designer, Gerry Moran (who appears to be a thoroughly good egg and to whom I bear no grudge), replied in kind with some illuminating thoughts of his own. Although I left further comments, the depth of my feelings made a full blog post on the matter seem in order. 

Who is this chap Gerry Moran, you might ask? A chap worth knowing, it turns out. Mr Moran is the head of social media in North America for SAP. SAP, if you were not aware, is a German software multinational and one of the very biggest companies in the world (with assets valued at an eye-watering €26.87 billion). Crikey!

Despite my misgivings about his conclusions, there can be no doubting Mr Moran's bona fides. This is a chap with the real stuff, so to speak, not some bounder hoping to make a quick splash with a controversial blog post. Before proceeding further, therefore, it seems prudent to have a gander at Mr Moran's tweeting strategy in action.

An enormous multinational like SAP has, not surprisingly, an equally enormous presence on Twitter. SAP's main website suggests ten different accounts one can follow (@SAPCloud@SAPMobile, @SAPTechnology, etc), and a quick search on Twitter turned up more than sixty SAP-related accounts (I rather lost count after sixty, to be honest)! As Mr Moran's responsibilities are for North America, however, the account deserving scrutiny is the @SAPNorthAmerica account. Let's delve in, shall we?

It is very easy to see, as one would hope, that Mr Moran practices what he preaches. Each and every tweet in the @SAPNorthAmerica stream does appear to contain a 'call to action' (most tweets begin with a plucky  imperative verb such as 'join,' 'attend,' 'see,' or 'transform'). A liberal use of hashtags are also on display, normally in multiples of two or more.  And a quick peruse of the account's statistics on Twtrland shows that 87.9% of @SAPNorthAmerica's tweets are indeed links. Full marks then to Mr Moran for following through with his own advice.

But are the resulting tweets any good? This is the nub of the issue, chaps. Consistency need not always translate into success. After all, it is entirely possible to be consistently mediocre, or consistently awful (just ask any chap who spends a day with me at the racecourse!).

Again, it appears that, at least by their own internal standards, Mr Moran's strategy delivers the goods. In a response to my comments on the blog post he states that the format he advocates 'drives the success metrics.' I have no doubt that he is correct. A chap doesn't become head of social media in North America if he doesn't, on a fairly profound level, know his onions.

Despite all this, however, I remain unconvinced of his strategy on general principle. Mr Moran's advocacy for formatted tweeting, with calls to action, multiple hashtags and the constant pushing of links, still jars. To my mind, the key word in the term 'social media' is 'social,' and the sort of tweets Mr Moran advocates are decidedly asocial. What I mean to say is, there is no social interaction whatsoever. The @SAPNorthAmerica account is really just a cleverly packaged RSS feed hosted on a social media platform.

This is meant not so much as a criticism but as a plain statement of fact. The metrics on Twitrland also show that only 3% of @SAPNorthAmerica's 12,528 tweets on record have been replies. Their 13,055 followers do value the content (78 retweets for every 100 tweets), but see little need to interact (4 replies for every 100 tweets). This is a twitter account successfully spreading its message among passive customers, not engaging with a vibrant community of users.

But I say, chaps, does the absence of community building really matter? For SAP at least, I'm not convinced it does.

As mentioned above, SAP is one of the world's largest companies (and according to one of Mr Moran's comments, one of the top 25 brands in the world!). The appetite for SAP-related information is vast, and was well-established long before the advent of social media. There is no requirement for SAP to dabble about in this messy business of community building. Their social media footprint is guaranteed to be rather massive - the audience is primed and waiting.

Of course, not every chap gets to run the social media operations for one of the world's largest companies. The vast majority of corporate Twitter accounts are run for the benefit of small companies with big dreams and tiny budgets. Social media presents these minnows with an opportunity to pull their brand up by its proverbial bootstraps, but without the benefit of a forty-year trading history and the legions of loyal customers SAP enjoys. Is the SAP-style tweet perfect for these chaps too?

With all respect to Mr Moran and his team, I would say no. Pushing content via Twitter, even if the tweets are perfectly formed, is a lost cause if no one is actively listening. Any chap tweeting links 90% of the time without the benefit of a well-known, established brand behind him will struggle to make even the slightest impact.

For those of us earning our daily crust without SAP's advantages, the route to social media success is much too nuanced to fit neatly into any formula. Without an enormous brand and reputation to cash in on we must use our Twitter accounts to introduce ourselves, establish credibility, and slowly gather a community. This is much better than pushing an endless series of links and hashtags into the void.

What is the perfect tweet for community building? In truth I would argue that there is none. Community building is a matter of providing interesting content and taking an interest in others. Tweeting only about oneself, or only pushing self-serving content, is a surefire way to alienate rather than cultivate new pals.

Although lacking a tidy formula, I offer the following guidelines for community building tweets:

  • Be generous. Besides being a splendid way to learn, being generous with other chaps' content is an unbeatable way to cement a connection.
  • Be unpredictable. If one tweets about the same thing again and again then why should a chap bother to stay tuned?
  • Be interesting. Tweets that are humorous, clever or memorable will get chaps to pay attention to the next tweet and the tweet after that.

This rather general prescription may sound rather unsatisfying compared to Mr Moran's blueprint. Composing successful tweets is challenging, and a clear structure to follow is a compelling prospect. But I ask, would you enjoy chatting to a chap at a party who was following a formula for each comment he made? Would you hang on the every word of someone who only spoke about themselves, phrasing each remark according to a pre-determined format? I dare say not.

Twitter is the ultimate online cocktail party. As with its offline counterpart, one must mingle, network, dazzle and enchant to make headway. A celebrity guest will be surrounded by a clutch of clingers-on no matter how self-serving his prattle, but if one's goal is to locate and connect with like-minded chaps the only way forward is to put oneself about and engage meaningfully.

And this is not a strategy only pursued by smaller brands and start-ups. Coca-Cola is perhaps the most well-known brand of all, and a whopping 98.4% of their tweets are replies! There is a vast difference between peddling complicated software and hawking bottles of fizzy pop, of course, but the case for a universal perfect tweet is, I dare say, far from convincing.

Returning to the original premise, briefly, while the template for a perfect tweet may not be possible, there are important tips one can follow with regards to content composition. Squeezing one's message into the tight confines of 140 characters (with or without a pre-determined formula) is no small task. But how this is best done must be left for another post, I fear. After making it this far you are no doubt in much need of a cup of tea. 

I'll join you, if you don't mind. Mine's Darjeeling with a splash of milk.