Hello, we are social. We are a conversation agency. We help brands to listen, understand and engage in conversations in social media.

We’re a new kind of agency, but conversations between people are nothing new. Neither is the idea that ‘markets are conversations’.

We’re already helping Ford, Skype, Eurostar, The Economist, Absolut, Dunlop, Barclaycard and the WWF.
If you’d like to chat about us helping you too, then give us a call on +44 20 7576 5137 or drop us an email.

First they ignore you…

by Chris Applegate in News on 9 January 2009 at 16:18

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

The Daily Mail’s reportage on Twitter has attracted the ire of the UK’s social media community – after a dismissive report on celebrity Twitter usage at the weekend, followed by reporting with relish about the Twitter backend hack a few days later. The result has been a mini online backlash against the Mail, including a spoof @Notdailymail_uk Twitter feed (contrary to rumour, I am not behind it), which has nearly five times as many followers as the real thing, and a spike in traffic to my own spoof Daily Mail headline generator as well.

Simon Perry points out at least one of the reasons the mainstream media can be hostile to services like Twitter – it allows celebrities to communicate directly to the public. With our help, Stephen Fry was one of the first celebrities to use Twitter and his phenomenal popularity has led a slew of British celebrities to follow suit, including Jonathan Ross, who’s making the most of his time off work by becoming Twitter’s self-proclaimed “Number One Twitter Detective”, tracking down fake profiles on his fans’ behalf.

Celebrities no longer need the intermediary of celeb magazines and gossip columns, and the Mail is among those newspapers who rely heavily on such content. Hence the hostility to Twitter. Twitter either has reached or is about to reach (a matter of recent debate between Vikki Chowney and myself) its tipping point in the UK. Just like other forms of social media in the past – such as blogs, Facebook or Wikipedia – the mainstream media are now moving on from treating it as a distraction to treating it as a threat. With outright hostility now the flavour of the day, are we beginning to see the endgame being played out? People are more likely to use online rather than newspapers in the UK and now even in the US for their news, and with the double whammy of newspaper sales declining and a recession reducing ad revenues, expect them to put up a fight to the bitter end.

Update: More in a similar vein from Matt Rhodes.

Update 2: From our very own Stephen Fry:

I’m not someone with press offices and all that kind of thing, but those like me in the public eye who have, have discovered it’s a magnificent way of cutting out the press.

If people want to announce their new this or their new that, they’re going “I’m not going to do an interview, I’m not going to sit in the Dorchester for seven days having one interviewer after another come to me, I’m just going to Tweet it, and point them to my website and forget the press”.

And the press are already struggling enough – God knows they’ve already lost their grip on news to some extent. If they lose their grip on comment and gossip and being a free PR machine as well, they’re really in trouble.

So naturally they’re simultaneously obsessed because they use it (as it fills up their column inches) but they’re also very against it.

So you’ll get an increasing number of commentators going “Aren’t you just fed up with Twitter? Oh, if Stephen Fry tells me what he’s having for breakfast one more time, I think I’ll vomit.”

They really will have a big go at it because it attacks them, it cuts them out.

tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • Great post Chris.

    The Mail may mock Twitter, but it does not stop them from jumping on the bandwagon with @mailonline. They've also never been shy of using Digg to get their stories out.

    However, you can't help but smile when @dailymail_uk have 600 more followers than the real thing.
  • As ever, those under threat take the tactic of flight or fight rather than sensible engagement. More fool them. Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. errr, fool me — you can't get fooled again....

    Oh wont we miss the Bushisms.
  • Perkin Warbeck
    haha. I loathe the mail with an unrivalled passion, but top marks to them for using the word 'soporific' in connection with Twitter.
  • Nice post. Always interesting to find out about conversations I wasn't following at all...

    But I still think Twitter is pretty far from reaching any Tipping Point anywhere. Sure it's great and growing faster than ever, but when spending your days following Twitter feeds and reading blog posts one tends to forget that the wide majority of 'normal' people have never heard of Twitter, or don't know what it is exactly and have certainly never used it.

    Depends how you define the Twitter tipping point (bored of this expression), if you're talking about complete mainstream, it's not there yet. But getting closer.

    Cheers
  • Facebook User
    Why would somebody follow someone and then look for their most insignificant posts, and write an article about them? Why would a newspaper publish such an article? I truly, genuinely do not understand the point of the Daily Mail. What is it for?
  • I think putting down a platform, such as Twitter, will only make it more popular. Twitter is fast becoming an important resource. I was able to write up an entire boxing fight without having to watch it but by just reviewing the reactions and updates posted by Twitter users. I think a lot of publications are missing on its potential.
  • Chris,

    Great post and thanks for the link back to my own post this weekend on a similar theme.

    I think you're right about the reasons print media and other traditional media are nervous about Twitter. I'm not especially interested in the gossip columns of newspapers, but if I were then I can imagine I'd be significantly more interested in hearing from Britney herself about what she did at the weekend, than I would be to read about it second hand in a newspaper.

    Twitter is revolutionary, or at least has the capacity to be so when it gets a more mass audience and reaches its tipping point in the UK. It offers a relatively easy way for people to talk directly to each other, be they celebrities, brands or just like some of the people I follow on Twitter - people I've never met but seem to always find interesting things to point out.

    It's going to be interesting to watch what happens in 2009 - both for Twitter and for traditional media...

    Matt
    FreshNetworks
  • Interesting post, thanks Chris.

    Newspapers (if the Mail can ever aspire to such a lofty description) are terrified of becoming reduntant, and being more and more disintermediated by the web - but the fact of the matter is, that's what is exactly happening.

    To quote @TomRaftery "Why would I want to pay for deforested, dead tree, out-of date, news when I have it all online coming to me?" Newspapers have to evolve or die, and I for one would not miss it if the Mail fails to evolve.

    However, I think the 'tipping point' for Twitter will come when there's a Twitter software shipping on every mobile phone, and that's a feature the network operators advertise.

    Of course, it'll help if Twitter get their act together to do a deal with mobile carriers or a broker (or even a sponsor) in the UK to allow twitter messages to be once again sent and received via SMS, but they don't seem to be treating the issue with any sort of urgency, despite the fact there could be huge recurring and growing revenue for all concerned if they make the right deal.

    I saw a stat this weekend that stated that about 95% of mobile phone owners are always within 1 metre of their phone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now THAT is where you want your tweetspot!

    Regards, David
  • Thanks for all your comments. For the record I don't think newspapers will die out completely - there will always be demand for high-quality investigative journalism - although more of that may move to online-only and be "crowdsourced" in future; and tabloid fodder such as sports reporting might have a future too. But celebrity news, horoscopes, diet tips, comment - these can all be found online, and so this middle ground might be cut out.

    As for "tipping point" - my understanding is that it's the trigger for mass adoption, not mass adoption itself. With Twitter getting coverage in all the papers and with Jonathan Ross hinting he might feature Twitter on his TV show when it returns, I feel we're about there now. And Twitter will never be as popular as Facebook - it does one thing, short communication, very well - while Facebook does events, photos, applications and more to varying degrees of success.

    Finally - David, your points on mobile are good ones. One of the reasons I suspect telcos in the UK have made it prohibitively expensive for Twitter to send texts to people is become the text alerts service for news, sports results, financial information etc. is quite lucrative and a Twitter alternative would decimate the market overnight. Until that is resolved that may be the one thing that hamstrings Twitter and stops it from going mass-market in the UK.
  • I would never have even thought about the media not liking twitter because of the celeb's being able to tell "their side of the story" on Twitter... How Intriguing! I saw today that Brittany Spears is on twitter, but somehow I think it would ruin my rep eternally to follow her. :o I do however follow Shaq & The Terminator!
blog comments powered by Disqus