Marketing

Twitter Lists and Influence: Shut up, Relax, and Measure Quality

November 9th, 2009 by Andrew Swenson in Marketing
photo credit: Flaviu Lupoian

photo credit: Flaviu Lupoian

Besides the buzz about whether Twitter’s list function will make people feel left out (Chris Brogan; see also Robert Scoble’s rebuttal), there’s a lot of talk about how lists will be used to measure influence. Like so many things in the social sphere, most of these commentaries are shallow and don’t really consider all of the variables. But I can’t say I’m shocked.

The short-sighted claims

Skeptic Geek recently posted the following links as in intro to it’s analysis of present Twitter influence metrics (from Analyzing Twitter Lists-Follower Ratio As An Indicator of Influence):

A common sentiment among these posts is that more lists = more influence. As Jaremy Rich (@jaremy) argues on virology.com:

“Only if a user genuinely cares about and engages with another Twitter account are they likely to add them to their List.”

And Personal Branding 101 and Ryan Rancatore (@RyanRancatore) claim:

“If you have 100 followers and are on 60 lists, it shows that your select group of followers really values what you have to say.”

Why numbers don’t equate engagement or influence

Eh…maybe. The posts featured above focus mainly on the quantitative nature of lists. Anyone involved in social media metrics knows that quantitative analysis on it’s own doesn’t tell the whole story.

Here’s the problem: what if all of your lists are named, “friends,” or “[insert-your-city],” or “[insert-your-profession].” Just because you’re listed doesn’t mean that a user is engaged with you, it just means they’ve categorized you.

And what happens if you’re on a bunch of lists like this: “people-to-block,” “douchebags,” and “morons”? If lists are measured by quantity only, then all of these would help your influence rating.

Does it not it make  sense that a list named, “pr-comm-rockstars” should have more weight than “coworkers”. It’s the same principle that a follow from someone like iLuvBritney1015 shouldn’t count as much as a follow from someone brilliant and selective like Brian Clark (@copyblogger – 39K followers and less than 600 friends).

But names only go so far too. If a you’re on a list that’s called “amazing marketers” with a bunch of scammers, you’ve got a problem. Any sort of influence analysis in the future will have to measure not only the number of lists you’re on, but also the influence of people you’re listed with.

Shut up, Relax, and Measure Quality

So when it comes to measuring influence with Twitter lists, I’d suggest we all just shut up and relax. For now, stop calculating lists-to-follower ratios and start looking at the names of the lists you’re on and the people you’re on them with. If you’re not on many quality lists, ask yourself why.

Take a look at what sorts of lists your followers are creating. Maybe they just haven’t gotten around to it yet (I know I have good intentions, but I’ve only made two so far). Maybe they’ve made some quality lists. Maybe they’ve randomly selected friends.

In any case, once you know how your followers are categorizing their friends, then take a look the people featured on lists you think you should also be included on. See how those people are interacting and gauge their influence using pre-list metrics (like Klout). See how they’re using Twitter and try to determine if their maybe more engaged, post more interesting content, or have a killer blog that’s helping them.

In the end, I’d say the key to increasing the quality of lists you’re on is same key to increasing the quality of your influence—and that comes about by adding value to peoples lives. Plain and simple.

Do you have any thoughts on Twitter lists, influence, and its measurement? Please share.

-Andrew

Photo Credit: Flaviu Lupoian (lupoianfla on Stock Exchange); original image here


Related Posts

  1. I hate “quality” “products” (and so should you)

keywords: , , , , ,

  • Dan Levine @schoolmarketer

    Andrew, great post. Quality over quantity. Inflated numbers mean nothing. It's what you produce and the value you add that matters most. You can work hard and get yourself onto a gazillion lists. But a part of that is just smoke and mirrors. Eventually we're all judged on what we produce and the value we bring to the conversation.

    • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

      The key is “what we produce.” Measuring influence is a worthy task, but first priority should be producing content that's worthy of influencing others.

      Thanks Dan.

  • http://theboldlife.com/ Tess The Bold Life

    Well said. I like your blog and input. Hype is only good if it's valuable hype.

    • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

      Thanks Tess.

      Hype can do a lot of things…get attention, boost sales, and bump your priority. But hype is short-lived. IMO, what's more important is the long-term strategy that's able to ride the waves of hype.

      What do you think?

  • http://personalbranding101.com/ Ryan Rancatore

    Insightful post, Andrew! You make a great point. Often times marketers (like myself) get a bit caught up in quantifying everything. There will always be that “quality” factor that just can't be measured by a ratio or percentage.

    • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

      I have a background in qualitative research, which I lean on every day. What's great is that as the real-time web emerges, we're seeing that numbers are becoming secondary to people.

      And it's tough to measure relationships with numbers.

      Thanks for commenting Ryan.

      • http://personalbranding101.com/ Ryan Rancatore

        Andrew – interesting thought about the real-time web making numbers
        secondary. I think I would have said that the real-time web provides more
        numbers to evaluate than ever before. For example…from a brand-tracking
        perspective, you can now measure “word of mouth” in a way that was
        previously impossible (how many tweets/blog posts/status update mentions
        does Pepsi get compared to Coca-Cola).

        It might be that these numbers on their own are fairly worthless, but
        I'm certain both companies are calculating them as we speak. I think our
        reliance on numbers stems from the perceived need for definable,
        measurable metrics. What do you think?

        • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

          I like to jump to conclusions like that because I have an ax to grind with my more quantitative counterparts. :)

          I don't mean that numbers aren't important, but what I do mean to suggest is *how* people are talking about you/your brand may be more important than *that* they're talking about you.

          And yes, companies are quantifying them as we speak, and probably drawing very important conclusions from them. It's not that you can't get value from numbers.

          “Definable, measurable metrics” have been our mantra for a very long time, and I don't think we need to abandon them, we just have to rethink “definable and measurable.”

          For example quantitative measurements aren't the best when it comes to the content of communication. If you're analyzing a speech, you're probably going to use a qualitative communication theory to get the job done. I think we have to approach Tweets in the same way. In fact, I think there's a lot of room for a theory of communication that could rise up from a well-known process like Grounded Theory Development. Once we have a standard of comparison, then qualitative research becomes “definable and measurable,” albeit in a far different way than the raw numbers data you get from quantitative research.

          Am I making any sense or addressing your question? It has been a long day…

        • http://personalbranding101.com/ Ryan Rancatore

          Well said, Andrew. You are discussing measurement methods that I will admit
          are completely foreign to me. I'm intrigued! The next time I go 0-4 in
          softball I might call on you to qualify all the other things I did well so
          my teammates will get off my back! OK, maybe it doesn't work quite like
          that…great points, look forward to reading more from you in the future.

        • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

          Haha! Thanks for letting me rant about communication research. I don't get to do that every day.

          I'm looking forward to talking with you more in the future too.

  • http://twitter.com/maia_melissa Melissa Murphy

    Agreed. Big numbers aren't the end all here. So far I've liked the list feature, in that I can view a bunch of people at a time to see who I actually want to connect with. That way I'm not just blindly following and then trying to recall why. Its great to be able to group people by industry as well. Search wasn't always cutting it to find people that way.

    • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

      Melissa,

      I agree—Twitter search is fantastic, but there are some serious limitations that are involved. At #140conf the future of Twitter panel talked about the possibility of having a Bio search integrated into Twitter, along with a way to search an individual user and the people they are following.

      I think lists also throw another variable into the search mix, but until the infrastructure is built to allow us to “power search” Twitter, lists are a fantastic way for us to categorize.

      Thanks for commenting.

  • http://personalbranding101.com/ Ryan Rancatore

    Andrew – interesting thought about the real-time web making numbers
    secondary. I think I would have said that the real-time web provides more
    numbers to evaluate than ever before. For example…from a brand-tracking
    perspective, you can now measure “word of mouth” in a way that was
    previously impossible (how many tweets/blog posts/status update mentions
    does Pepsi get compared to Coca-Cola).

    It might be that these numbers on their own are fairly worthless, but
    I'm certain both companies are calculating them as we speak. I think our
    reliance on numbers stems from the perceived need for definable,
    measurable metrics. What do you think?

  • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

    I like to jump to conclusions like that because I have an ax to grind with my more quantitative counterparts. :)

    I don't mean that numbers aren't important, but what I do mean to suggest is *how* people are talking about you/your brand may be more important than *that* they're talking about you.

    And yes, companies are quantifying them as we speak, and probably drawing very important conclusions from them. It's not that you can't get value from numbers.

    “Definable, measurable metrics” have been our mantra for a very long time, and I don't think we need to abandon them, we just have to rethink “definable and measurable.”

    For example quantitative measurements aren't the best when it comes to the content of communication. If you're analyzing a speech, you're probably going to use a qualitative communication theory to get the job done. I think we have to approach Tweets in the same way. In fact, I think there's a lot of room for a theory of communication that could rise up from a well-known process like Grounded Theory Development. Once we have a standard of comparison, then qualitative research becomes “definable and measurable,” albeit in a far different way than the raw numbers data you get from quantitative research.

    Am I making any sense or addressing your question? It has been a long day…

  • Pingback: Twitter Lists: What is Your Respect Ratio? — Personal Branding 101

  • http://personalbranding101.com/ Ryan Rancatore

    Well said, Andrew. You are discussing measurement methods that I will admit
    are completely foreign to me. I'm intrigued! The next time I go 0-4 in
    softball I might call on you to qualify all the other things I did well so
    my teammates will get off my back! OK, maybe it doesn't work quite like
    that…great points, look forward to reading more from you in the future.

  • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

    Haha! Thanks for letting me rant about communication research. I don't get to do that every day.

    I'm looking forward to talking with you more in the future too.

  • http://twitter.com/maia_melissa Melissa Murphy

    Agreed. Big numbers aren't the end all here. So far I've liked the list feature, in that I can view a bunch of people at a time to see who I actually want to connect with. That way I'm not just blindly following and then trying to recall why. Its great to be able to group people by industry as well. Search wasn't always cutting it to find people that way.

  • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

    Melissa,

    I agree—Twitter search is fantastic, but there are some serious limitations that are involved. At #140conf the future of Twitter panel talked about the possibility of having a Bio search integrated into Twitter, along with a way to search an individual user and the people they are following.

    I think lists also throw another variable into the search mix, but until the infrastructure is built to allow us to “power search” Twitter, lists are a fantastic way for us to categorize.

    Thanks for commenting.

  • http://www.air-jordan-10.com/ air jordan 10

    Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum! http://you-rselfas.com/

  • http://www.nikemaxsale.com air max shoes

    Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!
    aesthetic-appeal

  • http://www.discount-nike-dunk-shoes.com nike dunk sb shoes

    Hhe article's content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion.
    http://www.thegy.net

  • http://www.air-jordan-9.com/ air jordan 9

    Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the
    write's unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go those
    sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally!
    http://www.you-rselfas.com