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

Posts Tagged ‘@stephenfry’

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

The Darker Side Of Twitter

In my blurb about the purpose behind Twittercism I wrote the following:

For perhaps the first time in our history, Twitter has provided the masses with a convenient and simple way to hook up with their icons. This is good for the fan and great for the ego of the celebrity. Right now, things are mostly going okay. People are civil to each other and Twitter’s simple interface means it’s easy to block anybody who is quite blatantly a mental.

Yet: the cracks are already beginning to show. We’re already seeing cat-fights between A-listers. Public cat-fights, on Twitter, for the world to see. A few celebrities are already beginning to feel the scorn of the hyper-cynical public. Fingers are being pointed. Words are being exchanged.

It is only going to get worse.

The thing between Perez Hilton and Lily Allen got fairly ugly but was mostly amusing. The reality here is that both of them are well-known provocateurs and when you get two of these kinds of people together it always gets a bit messy when they bump virtual uglies. We’ll definitely see more celeb-on-celeb action in the future, but I don’t think that will ever get too insane. (Although it will certainly amuse.)

No. I think the biggest problem you’re going to see on Twitter over the next year or so is famous types coming under wave-after-wave of pretty vicious attacks from Joe Public. And not just your common or garden Joe Public, either.

Read more

Can Anyone Catch Stephen Fry On Twitter? Here Are Five Celebrities Who Could.

Let’s face it: Stephen Fry‘s numbers on Twitter are insane.

Sure, Twittercounter will tell you he’s the #3 most followed user on the network, but the reality is that the two accounts above him – Barack Obama and CNN Breaking News – are not run by a single person. Obama’s account is in the hands of his PR team, and CNN have God knows how many people working on their Internet output.

The reality is that of all the people that do their own updates on Twitter, Fry is #1. This also, by default, makes him the #1 celebrity, as he’s, you know, famous.

Twitter has gone through enormous growth in the last 2-3 months, thanks predominately to the endorsement provided to the masses by the likes of Fry et al, but even then Stephen’s stats are pretty unbelievable. Check it out:

Stephen Fry @ Twittercounter.com

This is just in the last month. On January 20, Fry had 51,881 followers. As of the time of writing this post, he has 208,750. That’s a four-fold increase. In a month.

Twitter itself has around 177,756 followers. Britney Spears, who is clearly far more famous globally than Fry, and who appears to occasionally contribute to her account, is the #2 celebrity with 156,596. Lance Armstrong, at #7 overall on Twitter, has 140,332. Al Gore has 123,989, despite only getting his team to update about once per month.

(I’m gonna throw a bone to Wil Wheaton here, who, as one of the first truly famous people to use Twitter – way back on June 14, 2008 – has 109,406 followers, and ranks #13 overall.)

But why? What is it about Fry that has made him of such appeal to the Twittersphere? And what manner of celebrity would it take to catch, and dare we say, pass him?

Read more

<< PREVIOUS PAGE