Twitter: a profound waste of time for marketing

[Zebra Wizard]

Sunday Time best selling author, David Gemmell, never even had a website. I remain astonished that his publisher never did one, so I've been tempted to do one.

I think it was alot different back then. He was popular and had many books out before internet was at everyone's fingertips. I remember reading most of his books when I was on a dial-up connection. Edit: Twitter was only created a few months before his passing.

I read/heard somewhere that word of mouth is what spreads books success. So I agree with building up a good fanbase. Make them passionate about you and your book and they will spread your gospel like the spanish inquisition.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I found myself unfollowing a lot of people because they were too prolific in their tweets and retweets -- since I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter, the sheer volume of their tweets -- entertaining and/or enlightening though some of those were -- made it difficult for me to keep up with what anyone else was saying. So I trimmed down the number of people I was following.

Now that I've started an account for Venus Ascending, I might find that adopting a different strategy works better. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I found myself unfollowing a lot of people because they were too prolific in their tweets and retweets -- since I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter, the sheer volume of their tweets -- entertaining and/or enlightening though some of those were -- made it difficult for me to keep up with what anyone else was saying. So I trimmed down the number of people I was following.

Now that I've started an account for Venus Ascending, I might find that adopting a different strategy works better. I'll have to wait and see.

I've just unfollowed two prolific retweeters of books. I couldn't see anything other than their retweets, often for books I would never be interested in.

I'm also a disliker of bloggers who retweet their link every hour or so. I tweet once and use hashtags that those who might be interested pick up on. Sometimes, if one is popular I'll tweet it again a month or more on. I rely on retweets, or links I can them retweet but it's never more than a few.

 

[Dave]

I found myself unfollowing a lot of people because they were too prolific in their tweets and retweets... the sheer volume of their tweets... made it difficult for me to keep up with what anyone else was saying.

I know a lot of people who complain of this so I do factor it into how often I Tweet every day. However, different people use Twitter in different ways (and there is NO correct way to use it, nor am I suggesting there is) but if you think of Twitter as being like a Newspaper - would you read all of a Newspaper from beginning to end? I'm sure many people only read the sport, or the front page, or the cartoons, but they still buy the whole Newspaper. The more people you follow, the more chance you have of seeing something interesting (also more people will follow you back, so unfortunately you won't grow if you unfollow them.)

One way to get around the "sheer volume" to read is to use groups. Make groups of the most interesting people you follow (or even those you don't follow) and then read those rather than your chronological feed. Twitter is talking about getting rid of the chronological feed in any case and replacing it with a feed based upon the number of likes. This may not happen since it has got a lot of people worked up, but since I mostly use my groups anyway it wouldn't make much difference to me. It would favour those with more followers though, it would practically drown out anyone with only a few followers. When Yahoo Answers made changes that favoured the people with the highest points it marked the beginning of the end for it. There only seem to be Trolls left there now. I really think Twitter and Facebook are making similar big mistakes in there quest for profit, which probably gives even less incentive for anyone to invest much of their time in them as a marketing tool.

 

[Dave]

I've just unfollowed two prolific retweeters of books. I couldn't see anything other than their retweets, often for books I would never be interested in.

I'm also a disliker of bloggers who retweet their link every hour or so. I tweet once and use hashtags that those who might be interested pick up on. Sometimes, if one is popular I'll tweet it again a month or more on. I rely on retweets, or links I can them retweet but it's never more than a few.

One advantage of replacing the chronological feed with a feed based on likes would be that those spammers would disappear. So, maybe it is a good idea. I think the jury might be out!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Such is my ignorance of how Twitter works that I have no idea how to make groups (I'm not even sure that I knew they existed). Would organizing people into groups be a way of essentially unfollowing some people without doing it overtly?

 

[Dave]

Unless you use some App no one knows you have unfollowed them, Twitter doesn't inform them. (That is what Boneman was what complaining about - people following you, then when you follow them back, they wait a few days and unfollow you - there is kudos for having more followers than follow you but the whole thing is just some pointless gamesmanship.)

And my apologies but they are called "Lists" not groups (it's too late for me and I've had some wine.) You can make your own Lists or subscribe to other people's Lists. I think there are several of Chronicles members already (though they may include some of the people who have been endlessly promoting the same thing, that Jo complained about.) When you add someone to a List, they get a notification. There used to be stats of how many Lists you were in when I joined but they have removed them.

Also, for my personal account I realise that I do also unfollow those people endlessly promoting. If I didn't they would dominate my feed too. If you have a low number of followers and someone is doing that (and it is particularly bad with self-published authors) then I think it is quite understandable.

 

[HareBrain]

Twitter is talking about getting rid of the chronological feed in any case and replacing it with a feed based upon the number of likes.

I think they've already done this but made it optional? It was presented to me as an option a couple of days ago. (I said "No", of course.) But it seems it wasn't to you, which is weird. Unless I'm some kind of test market.

 

[DrMclony]

Ahh twitter, bots tweeting to bots, to retweet to bots, to be seen by bots, and be retweeted by bots. A great big cycle of computers with no money to spend on your books.

I find I get hundreds of mentions on paper.le things tweeting their adds for their compilations of tweets and blogs at each other, which nobody reads and they all retweet each other. Can't keep up with them all.

 

[pambaddeley]

I joined a 'book group' on FB (I'm very new to FB and finding my feet) and found it was wall to wall linkdropping about books people had published. I had joined because someone I've known a few years elsewhere online was in it, but I've now clicked an option to see fewer posts from it and I think that's working, otherwise it was swamping anything else in the feed.

 

[pambaddeley]

Came across these posts by a writer who has quit Twitter in disgust ... Goodbye to Twitter Village, Part II: Lessons Learned | Benjamin Anastas

 

[Juliana]

I have no idea how to make groups

Teresa, on my laptop I have both Twitter and Tweetdeck; Tweetdeck allows me to have multiple columns for groups (such as Chrons) or hashtags I like to keep up with. I prefer the Twitter layout, however when I first get on the Internet I always spend a moment in Tweetdeck first so I can check if anyone I really like (on my lists) has said anything I want to retweet or comment on. It's a good way of not losing track of people, and it's a free app (I think it belongs to Twitter?).

 

[Juliana]

(sorry, double post) For @Teresa Edgerton. This is what my TweetDeck looks like (I have 8 columns total, which include two hashtags):

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Wow. Didn't know you could do that.

 

[Juliana]

Someone on Chrons (I forget who) gave me the tip back when we were doing the Chronsversations things on Twitter.

 

[E.Maree]

Groups are actually called 'Lists', you can make them on the web interface. Tweetdeck gives fancy columns, but even on the web interface just checking your lists can save a lot of drowning in tweets.

Users are never notified when you add them to a private list (eg 'People who promo their book too much' )
Users are always notified when you add them to a public list (eg 'Awesome People', 'British Writers')

I love Twitter to pieces, and I get a lot out of it. But I use it for fun, not for promo.

 

[cyprus7]

Removing the twitter app from my phone was a very liberating experience. Except for a few other authors and friends I can tweet back and forward to, it's a 'dead loss' haha. So, I check in via the desktop browser now and again.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Except for a few other authors and friends I can tweet back and forward to

I've had email on my phone off and on since 2002. Set up for manual check only to save battery and avoid interruptions. I've used email even recently with a few people as text chat, handy when both parties busy, there is BCC and CC too, more flexible and really as fast as Twitter unless you a Media so called "Celeb" with 100s to 1000s of so called "followers" (for which a blog is better anyway).
There is zero value to Twitter, that's why they are changing it to be like Facebook to try and avoid the slide in in users getting worse. Facebook a parasitic walled garden and copying it won't help Twitter.

 

[nightdreamer]

I don't know. I specifically don't understand Twitter dynamics, but I'm there anyway. Personal issues left me away from Twitter for a few months, leaving only my automated tweets, which are pretty much all promotional. I expected to lose a significant number of followers, but instead, over that interval, they increased by about 25%. Of course, I don't know how that translated into sales. But sales aside, I would stay with Twitter just for the interaction with other writers.

 

[Dave]

I specifically don't understand Twitter dynamics, but I'm there anyway. Personal issues left me away from Twitter for a few months, leaving only my automated tweets, which are pretty much all promotional. I expected to lose a significant number of followers, but instead, over that interval, they increased by about 25%.

You can't force anything on Twitter. If you Tweet more than usual, some followers will see that as too much and unfollow. If you follow more people than usual in the hope that they follow you back, no more will follow back than did before. And then, seemingly by sheer chance a Tweet will get retweeted numerous times, getting you noticed by people you didn't know existed before. I used to like that, almost organic, nature of Twitter. It was like a living thing, growing like a plant, or a weed. Now, there are too many adverts, too many promoted tweets, too many people selling fake followers.