Twitter Chats – Experiences, Value Propositions, Tips and Tricks

Over the last few years, the premise of the Twitter chat has gone from being perceived as an obscure and useless project to one of the fastest-growing ways to rally around ideas, share experiences and form ambient commons for publics.

Since I’ve been running two of them (RNchat being one of the first chats – and the first chat for clinicians), I thought I’d share my experiences and offer tips and recommendations.


I started RNchat as a way to get nurses to A) get up-to-speed with social media (nursing an medicine is/was really behind here, and I thought Twitter was a good gateway drug) B) I wanted to give nurses an easy and open forum to network, express themselves, trade war stories, etc.

Then I started MDchat, which was the first chat for physicians, for pretty much the same reasons as RNchat but for docs. Each had their similar and different trajectories since the general cultures have their difference.

Co-branding. Then I wanted to get the two communities to cross-pollinate. That worked well, and I wanted it to work especially for docs and nurses since there’s often a disconnect between the two professions.

Running two chats can be tough due to limitations of time and resources, but I’ve learned how to be efficient. So here’s what I’ve done, offering the value propositions, insights and business uses and purposes:


Some of you may have specific business/enterprise goals in mind. With these chats, that wasn’t my intent. BUT, there have been surprising incidental benefits which I’ve since learned to fold into my businesses and personal life.

(Update: I’m adding this post by Dennis Howlett (@dahowlett) since he articulates a reasoned acknowledgment of Twitter nay-saying while expressing the important (but perhaps hidden) value-role Twitter can play for accountants. …As a side note: having started my career in accounting, I know a ton of ways the profession could value-extract – from education to promulgation interpretation to professional development. I shall profess those in a future post.)

^ Surprising Journeys: I’ve gotten a decent amount of business as a direct result of leading the chats. Attribution management has verified that.

^ Speaking/workshop opportunities – I’ve gotten some really cool (and paid) gigs at off-the-beaten path. Not the typical social media conferences, but universities, health systems, retreats with physician practices and other leaders. I really don’t think I’d ever get those without these chats.

^ It’s been a really cool experience. For example, I’ve had IBM Watson’s team participate in two chats to discuss Waton’s role in medicine – I don’t think I’d ever have that opportunity w/out the chats. What’s more: the community at large benefits from these exchanges – think of the enormous impact Watson could have on Healthcare, Finance, Manufacturing, etc. To have physicians, nurses, HIT specialists and others involved in this unique ecosystem is truly amazing.

^ Respect. These chats have allowed me to gain respect. They’ve also honed my insights into and responsibilities to my communities.

^ Personal/professional connections – I’d say my network has grown by a large factor as a result. I’ve developed a whole CRM from people I’ve met and who’ve approached me.

^ There are others – you can set your goals and/or take advantage of serendipity. It’s all good.


^ Early on, I set up landing pages/blogs for the chats. I also set up newsletters that I’ve used for “special” chats and other updates, giving readers easy sharing options to spread the butter. (I’ve slacked, but at this point it’s fine for me.)

^ Thanking participants via email. It’s easy to get lazy and to depend on Twitter, but I took the time early on to add participants into my CRM, ask for emails if I couldn’t find them and send over a brief thank you. I’d also include content I thought they’d be interested – e.g. sending doctors lists of other docs they might want to network or other stuffs. Immense value there.

^ Transcripts. These can be kinda “Meh”, but there are people who read them. More importantly – especially for docs and nurses who wanted to get their facilities/colleagues involved, having a document to share helped spread the *offline* awareness of the brands. (I know of at least 5 cases where those hand-outs lead to in-bound prospects.) For Healthcare chats, there’s the Healthcare Hashtag Project but it’s only for healthcare-related chats. There really does need to be a solid transcript service beyond healthcare (I have ideas, so if you know any developers I’d be happy to share them). I’ve slacked on doing them every time, but they’re worth it if you’ve got nothing better to do.

^ Slideshare/Scribd/Storify – Building on transcripts, these are where their value can be enhanced. Storify is a great concept, but it’s still difficult to work with. I used it a few times to build some privately for a few clients and they loved it. Offers more context – especially to “non-savvy” C-Suiters.

^ CRM – As I said I basically converted the community into a crm. I did so both manually and by using online tools. It’s been a while, but there are tools that allow you to download the search results for a hashtag and convert it to a .csv file. Then you can create a ghetto crm from there.

^ Promotion: I didn’t promote these chats so much – a few tweets from my own account, but I wanted organic growth and I got it. But as the Twitter accounts associated with the chats grew, promotion took on its own life. RT and # can be powerful in this context.

^ Topic Suggestions Form – I developed forms for the chats where the community can not only offer topics they’d like to see discussed but also provide feedback/suggestions. Again, this helped in widening my network and enhancing relationships.

^ Time – this can be a bit hard to figure out. A lot depends on your audience – in my case , docs and nurses come from all walks of life and have weird schedules. I run mine on Tue and Thur nights. But lately I’ve thought about moving to another day/time. It’s OK to play around with times – the community will follow if the changes work for them.

^ Outsourcing: Get other moderators to lead. People love to be hit up, and they offer different styles so they can mix things up. Again, they have other followers who may be interested. This has helped me immensely. Also, cultivate those relationships. Not to mention: they have so much experience to offer – why not let them shine and add value to what you’re building for them?

^ Personality and Leadership: These are crucial. Curiously, I’d be as bold to say that personality is even more important than leadership (they’re both key). I’ve go my own personality – actually I have several online personas – @HealthIsSocial@RNchat@MD_chat@PhilBaumann), and they all are on the edgy side in their own way. I can afford to be a bit…shall we say…risky. You’ll have to decide yourself how to act, but being humorous, kind and being able to manage trolls adroitly are all important ingredients in baking a great chat.


^ Purposes: I can’t say Twitter chats “work” for most for-profit or non-profit going concerns. But they can be a great way for brands to have a regular living presence in an intimately ambient setting. It builds their responsiveness, especially if they’re relatively new to this craziness. (More about the *process* than direct results necessarily.)

^ Branded Hashtags: I think hashtags are way abused – it’s a shame, because they *do* have a lot of value. Still, it’s probably not a bad idea for a brand to have its own hashtag. This can be a two-edge blade, since it could be hijacked during a PR crisis, and triage could be a disaster. Still: if the people behind the brands have built trust over time and have the skills, they’re better off than sweating it out last-minute and ultimately reducing shareholder value.

^ Participation in other chats. Again, I do think there’s value in brands participating in chats (you all know, not in a spammy way of course). A) It’s a good way to keep a pulse on things. B) It humanizes things much easier. Rather than all that “RT others, and be human in your regular tweets” advice from social media “gurus”, the chats make it inherently human and useful.

^ Cohesion – a hashtag and its related chats/tweets can be a functional way to “tie-together” the entire online stream – and *offline* efforts too. Attribution management might be tough, but I’ve found, geolocation, conferences, etc. to be revealing info.

^ Attribution Management – I’ve found this to be difficult. Obviously helps – not just clicks from Twitter, but from your blog/site (but in my experience hasn’t been very revealing without a good amount of elbow grease). Geolocation and other metadata are often overlooked, but they can be useful depending on the business. I take issue with QR codes and MS tags (whole other post), but if a client has a heavy paper presence with a decently savvy demographic, it can’t hurt to slap one linking to the landing page for the hashtag/chat. (Think customer service, etc.)


So there’s how I’ve been doing this stuff. It’s worked for me. Not sure if it’ll work for you. If you haven’t started a chat, give it a try if you think there’s value to your audience.

Remember: Twitter *isn’t* community – but it can spur community in the true homes of community. That alone is valuable.

On one hand, this all could be totally useless. But if you’re creative and gutsy, there’s definitely a lot of value to be extracted – and, more importantly, to be provided.




Happy 5th Birthday Twitter – You Changed My Life

Dear @Twitter,

I so totally know how this sounds to write to a service, but I must confess: your little wings have changed the trajectory of my life and – for the most part – I think it’s been for the best.

I’ve been around for over 40 years, have seen many things, met all sorts of people and have – mostly – enjoyed my life. But I think every several hundred years, a tiny and almost insignificant tool comes out of nowhere and changes the world – like the wheel and zero, both of which are truly “nothing” (both are each shaped the same way). And yet the each not only changed the course of civilizations but also created them.

My son was born just before Twitter and in the last several years, my whole world-view has changed. Twitter has helped me to connect with people I *never* would have met without it. Twitter has launched me into totally different career-directions (plural) and I still don’t know where I’ll be next month because there are so many opportunities before us in today’s world. Twitter has rewired my brain, I’m sure of it.

Years ago I tried – hopelessly – to explain to people what Twitter was. I tried to convince doctors and nurses that Twitter could help them professionally by delivering relevant content and by connecting them with colleagues. But it was in vain.

It was not too long ago that it was unimaginable that doctors and nurses would be chatting in 140 characters like they do on @RNchat and @MD_chat.

I feel a bit better now that Twitter has hundreds of millions of users and is growing. I don’t know if Twitter Inc. will last, but the premise of Twitter is here to stay: the tweet is now a fundamental unit of communication in the 21st Century. It’s how we’ll connect (or disconnect) and it’s going to be the way millions of machines will follow each other and communicate and create an almost unimaginable world.

Only five years ago, nobody thought that the world would communicate publicly within 140 characters. Yes, people were text messaging – but that was between two people privately. To do so openly, globally and instantly was not even a thought.

Twitter has revealed a social construct that has been within us for a hundred thousand years which we never even knew existed.

Twitter is now a propellent for technological evolution. It’s a technology-spurring technology shifting the course of the human journey and there’s nothing we can do now to stop its curving of cultural space-time.

Twitter – and her sister-media – are so historic that there will be no history books written about them. For they are displacing the kinds of books you and I grew to know. That’s not even a claim-to-fame Guttenberg’s moveable type can make.

Am I a nut? Yes. Am I a nut to believe that Twitter is as big a deal as I think it is? Yes, perhaps – but I don’t think I’m the only one. All I can say is: Twitter, you’ve changed my life – for good or ill.

I wish I could list all of the wonderful people I’ve met via Twitter. It pains me to not mention all. But I would like to go on the public record about the people I can say I’m eternally grateful to you Twitter because without you I’d never find them:

  • @EdBennett – Thank you, Ed – you’re always doing the right thing
  • @KentBottles – Kent, you’re definitely helping to bring physicians into the 21st Century
  • @EricaHolt – Erica, you’re definitely my kind of Belgian-beer drinking buddy – you’re one smart cookie and the world needs to hear more about your views on today’s sparkly technology πŸ˜‰
  • @JaeSelle – Jae, ‘cuz you’re digilicious.
  • @DaphneLeigh – Daphne, you’re wonderful and I hope you find the happiness you’re looking for – I love your humor, your endurance and you
  • @LizScherer – Liz, I love your straight-forward way of talking people back to reality
  • @BobFine – Bob, you’re just a flat-out, stand-up good guy; a real American
  • @Loren_Feldman Loren deleted his Twitter accounts (@1938media) but Loren is one of the most passionate people about social media – he deeply understands how important it is for us to be smart about these media. I knew about him before Twitter, but it was through the lens of Twitter that I came to appreciate him through his persona as 1938media. Loren – you have one of the most important voices on and about the Internet- and you’re funny as sh*t, which is really all that matters. I wish you the best in whatever you do. Truly.

A couple years ago, my 82-year old Hungarian mother, who survived WWII, asked me: “Phee-lip, vat eez dees Tveety, Tveetar thing I all-vays hear about on zee news?” I demonstrated it to her using TweetDeck. She “got it” within about 5 minutes.

She leaned back in her chair and said “If dees Tveetar vawz around during virld var two, the var vould have been completely different! So many lives could have been saved from thatΒ kurva Hitler’s madness before the var even started. But it could have gone dee other vay too.”

My mom’s no dummy – a woman who witnessed and survived the worst of humanity, who came to this country, started her own business and raised five kids. When someone like that says Twitter is world-changing, you listen.

Thank you, Twitter: you’ve changed my life in ways you’ll never know. You’re bigger than the Beatles! πŸ™‚

If you ever land, may it be in a safe and warm place.



Two Hashtags

As as follow-up to my post, The Carpet Bombing of Twitter with Hashtags, I’m announcing that I launched 2hashtags (Two Hashtags).

2hashtags is a website with a simple pledge to keep Twitter clean and simple by limiting the use of hashtags to two per tweet. These kinds of pledges have been used before, I just adapted them for Twitter hashtags.

You can read more over on HealthIsSocial.

So, go check it out and take the pledge if you agree. #YeahIamAtwitterNut



The ROI of the Tweet

Image by TW Collins via Flickr

Is Twitter a sales tool? Can it “drive” sales? If so, what’s the return on investment of a tweet? Most executive teams today still view the world through the lens of the assembly-line. They like metrics and clearly defined goals and well-thought decision trees. They prefer straight lines over curves with cloudy distances. They are largely justified in their lines of reasoning.

But the Web has opened up a decidedly non-linear fabric of novel media. Consequently, many organizations have been slow to adopt emerging media and technologies because they simply don’t see the return on investment. Often, they’re not even sure what the investment is. Or what the return might be. Or what the goals or purposes or opportunities of subsuming the Web into their going concerns could be for them.

So this post aims to provide a clearer, if alternate, view of what’s at stake. We’ll look at metrics. We’ll also examine how organizations can better understand the nature and essences of media – all media, old and new and media not even around yet.

If you work in an organization which has been struggling with keeping up-to-date, I offer this to you so you can go into C-Suite and answer the tough questions without looking like an unprepared stooge. You owe it to yourself to understand the media you sell to your executive team – and you owe it to yourself to ensure they understand how to properly enframe media in the 21st Century.

NOTE: This is a long post. My aim here is not to prove that Twitter is not valuable to business. Quite the contrary: I don’t believe enframing Twitter as a generator of financial ROI is the proper way to view the service. But I do believe that evangelists must be able to say to executive management something like this: We have crunched pro forma numbers and in our opinion Twitter is not really a direct (or even indirect) driver of ROI; we do believe, however, that Twitter can be a linchpin within a web of comprehensive web strategies. You can get this post as a document here.


In order to provide some insight into the difference between Twitter-as-sales-tool and Twitter-as-public-utility, I believe pro forma metrics may help to reveal some important properties of a medium like Twitter. Too often claims are made about Twitter’s business values – and usually the issue of metrics is explained away with vague optimism.

But why not take a crack at metrics, if only to reveal a basic truth of Twitter? After all, Twitter’s simplicity makes it a utility with varied uses. By seeing that Twitter’s effectiveness in driving revenues (even indirectly), allows conversations to focus on a more robust enframming of the service.

I’ll call the strict Financial ROI enframing of Twitter the brute force method. The brute force method makes several assumptions and follows an algorithmic, assembly-line logic. So here are the assumptions:

  • Number of followers are true fans – not just the count of followers according to Twitter – not bots,Β  or miscellaneous people who aren’t invested in a brand.
  • Followers are people who are likely to buy a product and who are actively paying attention to the Twitter stream of the business/product account.
  • The tweets include links to actionable web real-estate where conversion is possible.
  • Customers make at most one purchase per month.
  • Clickthrough and conversion rates are comparable with traditional web metrics.
  • The effect of retweets is actually minimal on tweets about products (at least in this case) and has been left out of the model.

So let’s look at a hypothetical. Let’s tackle a difficult industry: Pharmaceuticals. For this example, we will leave FDA regulations and other constraints on the industry out of the equation. We’ll say that the company runs a Twitter account for a particular drug and tweets links about an OTC medication (again, we’re assuming these are “FDA-compliant” tweets – yes: laugh – conversations around Twitter can be that ridiculous).

We’re going to assume that the labor time for running the Twitter account is based on $50 per hour. Furthermore, we’ll assume that only one hour a day of labor time is needed (for Twitter accounts with a very high volume of tweets, management will probably need many more hours of labor time in practice). But we’ll be conservative.

Here are a few scenarios (pulled the pro forma spreadsheet which you can view here):

1,000 Followers x 5% Clickthrough x 5% Conversion x $5 Margin x 12 Months – $12,500 Labor = ($12,350)

128,000 Followers x 5% x 5% x $5 Margin x 12 Months – $12,500 Labor = $6,700

1,024,000 Followers x 5% x5 % x $5 Margin x 12 Months – $12,500 Labor = $141,100

8,192,000 Followers X 5% x 5% x $5 Margin x 12 Months – $12,500 Labor = $1,216,300

In order to achieve over a million dollars in revenues, tweets would need to yield a ROI of 9,630%! Use your common sense: it’s utterly delusional to think that ten tweets per day over a year would provide that kind of return. Even to achieve over $1 Million, this pharmaceutical company would have to have over 8 Million followers! And each of those followers would have to be devoted true fans. Think of the investment required to generate a tribe of 8 Million followers – the time, the electrifying tweeting style, the power to be loved.

You can tweak any of the variables and crunch new figures. You can input a higher margin, for instance – but you may need to re-think clickthrough and conversion rates and follower counts. Go work up a brute force model for you business or client and see what you get. Just be realistic and understand the properties of Twitter (or whatever other medium you’re working with). That’s one of the problems I think (some) marketers have: they don’t really understand the media out of which they’re seeking to extract value.

I won’t say that you can’t generate these kinds of numbers – but there are weaknesses and paradoxes in this approach which I’ll reveal in a moment. And yes, I’m fully aware of the general effect of positive WOM but that’s not the point of this story. I’ll touch on brand awareness in a bit – wait for it. πŸ™‚

As you can see, given these assumptions, this brute-force approach to Twitter doesn’t release a lot of financial return (not for larger enterprises with capitalizations greater than $1 Billion). Sure if you run a relatively small enterprise and can cultivate a massive and committed fan-base in the long-run, there’s a chance Twitter may provide substantial gains in line with your revenue stream. Of course, your margins may be larger (but as margins grow, you may encounter diminishing actual conversions). Most importantly: building a tribe of true fans is hard work – very very hard work.

Yes, Dell has claimed it earned $3 Million from Twitter, but Twitter was simply an ancillary service to their wider web presence – and Dell indeed has over a million followers (and a larger margin than in my pro forma).

None of this means, of course, that Twitter has no business value. In fact, I would argue that Twitter can be an essential linchpin for overall web presences: Twitter enables a pliant means to connect various media and web real estate together. It’s also real-time which means you can literally stream your presence and respond swiftly to shifting currents.

But there are paradoxes hidden within the brute-force approach. Let’s take a look at them.


There’s a sort of Uncertainty Principle underlying Twitter: the more directly you mechanize a given strategy, the more dilute the attention of followers becomes.

For any Twitter strategy to “work”, the tweeting must be remarkable, attention-enlivening, creative. Tweets need to be interesting day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year. Annoyance and boredom are easily un-followed. Value and connection and humor are followed more sustainably. Thus, the only way a business can hope to achieve long-term attention via Twitter is to relentlessly be creative and captivating and social and valuable. Tweeting coupons and links to products alone doesn’t work all by itself.

There’s another paradox on Twitter: Promotion of Other is a greater promotional tool than promotion of Self. This is one of the hardest concepts most organizations have to understand.

Retweet your competition.

If you can’t retweet your competition, you probably don’t have the confidence and faith in your enterprise to stand out. If you’re not standing out, just what are you doing with your marketing dollars?

Marketing not only has to be effective but it also has to be respectable. For an industry like Pharmaceuticals, anything less than respectable is unprofessional.


I hope I’ve made it pretty clear that achieving a robust Financial ROI of Twitter directly is not a realistic proposition in most cases. If that’s your only enframing, I would suggest you forget Twitter.

I would suggest, however, that Twitter’s pliancy and immediacy and connectivity provide means to many other ends. It’s basically just a telephone for our century. The most valuable enframing of Twitter is in a Relational context.

Building and sustaining relationships are bricks and mortar for all successful businesses. Smart businesses understand the paradox of the un-sales approach to relationships: the more sincere and mature the relationships, the better the conditions for business development.

Sure, we can talk about buzz-concepts like brand awareness. (Of course, you could also stick a finger down your throat and achieve a similar effect.) But I actually think that’s a sub-set of the brute-force approach to Twitter. Once you make that your purpose on Twitter, you lose your followers’ attention. Brand awareness, at best, must be a pleasant side-effect of much more remarkable ways to employ Twitter.

Yes, it’s a cliche but social media is social. If you have poor social skills, you better develop them now. Since relationships operate in non-linear geometries, you’re going to have to learn to think beyond rigid lines. The Web can be an unforgiving creature and will eventually break you if you don’t have the pliancy to turn on a dime.


By hoping to achieve financial gain via an inhuman algorithmic enframing of Twitter, you forgo several important and valuable business opportunities. If I were a Public Relations guy, I’d look at Twitter and say: Wow! We finally have a way to re-humanize our communications and how we connect – We can finally go back and re-work those arcane methods we developed when we had only broadcasting media.

The fundamental truth of the Web is that organizations composed of cogs – people with little incentive to shine their talents – simply don’t have the supple musculature demanded of a public sphere laden with real-time technologies.

Organizations must cultivate cultures of creative, ambitious, informed and swift-thinking human beings. If you’re going to invest in Twitter, you better have remarkable people working for you – do it yourself if you have to.

A narrow focus on Financial ROI will enframe a human context within a technological one. In other words, it’s putting the right shoe in the wrong box.

The opportunity cost of enframming the business value of Twitter within fincancial ROI is the larger frame of possibilities which Twitter offers. The most important of these are the re-humanization of corporate communications and the connecting of disparate elements of an active online and offline presence.


The ROI of the tweet is elusive.

The ROI of the tweet is what you make it.

The ROI of the tweet is the expression of your daily artistic creativity.

The ROI of the tweet can be mechanized – but at enormous expense and opportunity cost and risk.

The ROI of the tweet is relational.

The ROI of the tweet is conditional.

The ROI of the tweet is contextual.

The ROI of the tweet is human.

How you enframe tools influences what you get out of them. Sales people enframe sales uses around media. Marketing people enframe marketing uses around media. Public relations people enframe public relations uses around media.

The fact, however, is that the Web is Mother of All Media. It not only spawns new media with differing properties, the media it spawns all inter-relate among each other in novel ways. We don’t have a Grand Unified Theory of the Web, but we can at least understand the fundamental properties of individual media. When I get asked how to “use such and such a tool”, what people are asking is: What’s the theory here. But there isn’t any tested theory: at best we have intuition and reason and experience and imagination. Of course, if your lack these then a theory probably won’t help you.

My recommendation to anyone interested in new media’s role in business is to go back to fundamentals. Language like “old media is being replace by new media” can lead you down misguided paths. Marketing is more than messaging, of course, but it’s important for marketers and communicators and public relators to understand Media. Here are some questions to ask yourself and your team about media:

  • What is this medium? What’s is its essence?
  • What are the properties of this particular medium?
  • What are the possibilities of this medium?
  • What category(ies) does this medium fill: social, impersonal, synchronous, asynchronous, unilateral, bilateral?
  • What does this medium enhance?
  • What does this medium obsolesce?
  • What does this medium retrieve?
  • What does this medium reverse? What happens when this medium is pushed to its limits?
  • What happens when a person encounters this medium?
  • How does this medium relate to other media?
  • How might this medium change the world?
  • How should this medium be enframed?

These are simple but difficult questions (I will expand on them in future posts). When was the last time you asked any of these questions? What have you done to acquire an orientation about new media? That’s the purpose of the above questions: to get you to pan back from your accustomed views and assumptions and experiences and re-frame things in clearer contexts.

It’s also important to understand the different kinds of connections between media and people and things. Social isn’t the only connection. People have connections with products and services – but those connections aren’t social. For example, the connection between a customer and a brand isn’t social. It’s something else – knowing what kind of connection binds medium to medium or people to products helps you determine what media you choose.

For instance, by understanding what a medium enhances, obsolesces, retrieves and reverses, you can better compare novel media with familiar media. You can develop insights into what features of traditional approaches can and can’t be ported into new media. If you’re unfamiliar with McLuhan’s Tetrads, you can learn more here.

If you work in an agency – PR or Marketing – you need to answer these questions so that you can equip yourself with the resources to properly view emerging media. It’s no longer enough to “get” Twitter or Facebook or Blogging: you must have a fresh philosophy about media in general because the Web is evolving. You need to hone an intuition about emerging media and these questions offer a good practice for you.


The lesson here is that there is return on the tweet. But before you get to return you must get to re-frame. This is going to be a turbulent century. It’s easy to get tossed about and disoriented. Assumptions and methods which were once effective may no longer give lift. Orienting is itself a skill to be treasured.

Focusing on one narrow objective like financial ROI before fully understanding an asset is not all too wise. Not when your competition has figured out things you haven’t even considered.

I have tried to address the legitimate concerns of “old-school” executives who rightly question the expected returns of social media. I believe they are entitled to an honest accounting about the limits of media. The smart ones will see the folly of attempts to port assembly-line thinking into territories in which it makes no sense to do. The smart ones will also then be able to see things aright and perhaps your organization or client will understand the proper context and enframming needed to be remarkable.

You can go the brute-force method and miss a much larger party. Or you can be something far more interesting and ultimately financially rewarding. My advice on Twitter is to be a Lovable Peacock: someone with the goods worth showing off but with a warm heart for the flock. Many executives won’t like that metaphor. But then, not many businesses here today will be around in 2020.

So, what’s your take? Is my brute-force analysis flawed? Does it help to demonstrate and to admit up-front that Financial ROI isn’t a wise enframing of Twitter? Does it advance the conversation?

Will you re-enframe everything you think you know? Will your Corporate Philosophy take to wing…or fold?

Tweet This Post

If you enjoyed this post, you can have future ones delivered to your door by subscribing here.

Oh, and you can follow a Lovable Peacock here.

NOTE: You can view this post as a document. Download it and otherwise share it with your team. View it here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Twitter – A Villanelle

Twitter – A Villanelle

Be my friend in real life, more so than on Twitter.
A palm on hand binds us together like no single passing tweet.
Follow me down to the setting sun – we’ll revel in its glitter.

Though the Web may be the Great Transmitter,
we’re born to join hand-in-hand, face-to-face, seat-to-seat.
Be my friend in real life, more so than on Twitter.

The Web of Life is rare with sweet and full with bitter.
The human heart works its healing power beat to beat to beat.
Follow me down to the setting sun – we’ll revel in its glitter.

How can we make the most out of the dying time we’re given? We fritter.
Remember: the collective laughter of our childhood turned bitter into sweet.
Be my friend in real life, more so than on Twitter.

The Web we weave needs the skill and care and hand of a knitter:
to conquer death and fear and hate is the greatest human feat.
Follow me down to the setting sun – we’ll revel in its glitter.

We’re not here long at all my friend; don’t let the Web be our Quitter.
Let’s love the world in its human form and live deep within its dying heat.
Be my friend in real life, more so than on Twitter.
Follow me down to the setting sun – we’ll revel in its glitter.

by @PhiBaumann

Do Normal People Follow Big Pharma On Twitter?

Do “normal” people – patients, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, life scientists, etc – follow Big Pharma on Twitter? I’ve long had a hunch that most of the followers (and by followers I mean people who are actually paying attention) of Pharma accounts are primarily consultants, marketers, PR pros, social media evangelists and others interested in Pharma’s use of the Web (including myself).

So I decided to gather the key words in the profiles of a select group of Pharma companies. I used the service TwitterSheep to generate tag clouds of these profiles. This isn’t a purely scientific approach, but it’s reasonable enough to provide some insight into whose following Pharma. My friends Silja Chouquet (@Whydotpharma) and Andrew Spong (@AndrewSpong) each provided great insight into Pharma and Twitter. You can read their posts here and here, respectively.

Based on the tag clouds, here are the top ten key words in the profiles of followers of selected Pharma companies:

  • Pharmaceutical
  • Medical
  • Healthcare
  • Time
  • Social
  • PR
  • Marketing
  • Research
  • Web
  • Health

“Normal” people don’t have words like Marketing or PR or Social or Pharmaceutical in their bios. Now, I don’t think this is a bad thing. Pharma’s adoption of Twitter is relatively recent. But I don’t think that Pharma’s providing the most value that it could with its primary audience being marketing professionals.

Here’s a slideshare of screenshots for each tag cloud of the eleven accounts I examined (if you can’t see the embed, check it out here):

Pharma’s core base – patients and physicians and pharmacists and health care organizations – are the most valuable followers. Pharma certainly can’t do things that non-regulated industries can do. Nonetheless, Twitter does have many diverse business values: dissemination of news, consumption of relevant content, engagement with followers who can spread positive sentiments within the community and many other practical uses.

Currently, it’s not clear what specific goals Pharma companies have with respect to Twitter. Each can have completely different goals – and most of these accounts are maintained by people whom I’ve met personally. But the concern here isn’t so much about how Pharma companies are using Twitter (that’s another discussion). For as much as Twitter is about the humanization of communications and the ability to converse, audience is still a critical thing to build.

I realize Twitter’s still a shiny new toy for some industries (it’s actually a staple of communications for many others), but Pharma needs focuses and purposes and goals as it matures from the unilateral broadcasting skills it honed in the last quarter of the 20th Century towards the pliant, two-way and multi-faceted characteristics of the kind of media which the Web is giving birth to every day. There’s no guarantee that all Pharma companies will learn these new skills and new ways of thinking. There will be winners. There will be losers. Hopefully, it’s the patients who win. (Which is a good thing for the industry.)

What audiences should Pharma focus its tweets on developing, cultivating and engaging? That’s an important question. I doubt the CEOs of Big Pharma companies are terribly interested in dazzling Social Medi Gurus and Marketers and PR Pros. πŸ™‚

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]