AllFacebook InsideFacebook InsideMobileApps InsideSocialGames SocialTimes LostRemote TVNewser TVSpy AgencySpy PRNewser MediaJobsDaily UnBeige

Posts Tagged ‘@realdmitchell’

You’re Doing It Wrong, @FrankieBoyle

Frankie Boyle is one of the funniest stand-up comedians in the world. He’s always the highlight of Mock The Week and each and every time he’s on television I make the effort to tune in. Why? Because he’s guaranteed to say something both hilarious and outrageous.

Frankie Boyle is also on Twitter. Sort of.

  1. His Twitter account is a simple feed, and one that is clearly updated by somebody else
  2. Whoever updates the account writes in the Facebook ‘is’ style, i.e., “is in Basingstoke on Tuesday.” Great.

Yes, the account is real. Boyle has been on Twitter since November, 2008, and has a total of 18 tweets, and just seven in 2009. He hasn’t submitted anything since May, 20.

@frankieboyleEvery way you look at this, it’s a disaster.

Here’s what has happened. Frankie – or more likely his management – has decided that because Twitter is so trendy and cool and all the other celebrities are doing it, Frankie should be doing it too. Except he’s not. He’s not even making half an effort.

He’s doing it wrong.

To be fair, he may not even know he’s on Twitter. But that’s a problem too. Boyle is so funny off the cuff that a medium like Twitter would be perfect for him to try out new quips and one-liners. The interplay between himself and the audience is already there. There are many other comedians who do this fantastically well on the network – Dara O’Briain, Russell Brand, Bill Bailey and Jimmy Carr.

Actually, Carr is a great example of somebody who used to do it wrong, too. Carr’s Twitter feed was once managed by his team, and it pumped out Frankie Boyle-esque messages 24/7. Jimmy Carr is in London. Jimmy Carr is at The Apollo. Jimmy Carr is also on Facebook.

Nobody cared. Carr wisened up – likely thanks to an intervention from Jonathan Ross – and now when you subscribe to his timeline you’re getting the real deal. It’s funny. You want it to be funny. Comedians are meant to be funny. That’s the point, surely?

David Mitchell uses Twitter, too. Mitchell also uses his Twitter feed to tell us where he is and where he’s going to be. But he does himself. And he does it in a way that’s self-deprecating and humble, but it makes you laugh. He engages with his followers. He’s almost apologetic about it all, and freely admits that he doesn’t get it. The irony is: he does. Better than most.

Frankie, here’s a tip for the next time your management team decides to update, whenever that may be. Stop them. Tell them you’ll take care of it yourself. And then dip a toe into the water. It’s fine to tell us what you’re doing and where you’re going to be performing next on your tour. You’re running a business. We expect that. What doesn’t work is using Twitter in a really casual way just to give the impression that you’re in the loop. You’d be far better off not being on Twitter, and being all aloof and mysterious, even dismissive, than doing this.

Because when we subscribe to your tweets, it isn’t you we’re getting. It’s somebody else. And nobody wants that.

Mediabistro Course


BloggingWork with a content strategist to discuss your brand, creative content, or business through blogging! Starting January 15, McLean Robins will teach you how to design, promote, and maintain a blog, develop an audience, integrate social media platforms, and build connections with your community with link sharing. Register now!

Celebrities Who 'Get' Twitter, Celebrities Who Don't

Earlier this week on his BBC radio show Chris Moyles (@chrisdjmoyles) waxed lyrically about Twitter, which he does fairly regularly, going on about how he totally gets it while other celebrity users of the service do not. He singled out Eddie Izzard (@eddieizzard) as an example. Izzard, he says, doesn’t get Twitter.

I found this interesting. Because Moyles doesn’t get Twitter, either. But Twitter gets him.

Read more

Celebrities Who Are Failing @ Twitter

In an article in today’s Observer,  David Mitchell waxes fairly eloquently about the reasons he was drawn to Twitter in the first place (essentially, to usurp an imposter pretending to be him, which seems to have been the case for several celebrity appearances of late and, of course, as time passes, will increasingly become of import), and why, a heady 34 days later, he still isn’t really getting it.

Mitchell isn’t alone. I like the guy – at least, on his endless television appearances he comes across as being essentially okay -  but the reason he isn’t getting Twitter is the same reason numerous other Twitterslebs aren’t getting it either: they’re not making the required effort.

Wikipedia, of which Mr Mitchell is a fan, describes Twitter as “…a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users’ updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.” Seems fair enough. But what Twitter really is, essentially, is a giant chat room. One that affords the user the luxury of defining both whom they wish to listen to, and whom they wish to hear them speak.

Of course, for your common or garden celebrity, the latter is all that really matters. It’s certainly true that all it takes to build an almost instant following in the tens of thousands is to be remotely famous. The more famous you are, the more you can quickly expedite that number to the glory of the top 100 most followed Twitter users. Not that you would imagine many celebrities really care about, and are even aware, of that. (Nor should anyone else, really. There’s a certain faux-credibility that comes with being in the top 100 list on Twitter – or at least there was – even if, in many instances, the actual value of following that user is of some debate.)

But, what many of them are simply not getting is this: Twitter is meant to be a two-way medium. It always was. I mentioned previously my idea that one way for the platform to move forward was to impose a ratio of followers to followed on all new accounts, so, if that ratio was imposed at 1:4, then you could only have 40,000 followers if you followed 10,000 people yourself. That might seem a little radical, but it would certainly mean that your more uneducated public figure would be somewhat forced to ‘get it’ pretty sharpish.

Read more