It’s not about viewer numbers
Twitter has been awash with buzz about at article on the front page of Friday’s Guardian about how Downing Street is using Twitter as a communication channel.
The writer slightly misses the point though about viewer numbers, comparing Downing Street’s 1300 followers on Twitter with a GMTV audience of 13M which plays down the significance of Twitter as a channel. A follower on Twitter is not the same as a TV viewer:
- A TV viewer might watch an interview with the Prime Minister just because it happens to be on. However each Twitter user has specifically opted in to receive messages, and so are likely to be paying closer attention;
- A TV slot is over in a matter of minutes, whereas a Downing Street follower on Twitter is receiving a stream of updates which makes for a much more intimate relationship;
- A Twitter update from DowningStreet has a much more personal context because it appears in a follower’s feed right alongside updates from friends and colleagues whereas the Prime Minister appearing on TV is a much more remote experience;
- Twitter is two-way: The press office behind the Twitter feed listen and respond (as time permits) to replies set through the system, so it’s an engaging experience.
- Twitter users are well connected. People are talking to each other about the fact that DowningStreet is engaging with the public in this way.
Tom wrote this on 20.04.08 –
It's filed in the Social media, Strategy, twitter box
On April 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm, Dom responded:
It’s true that it’s a more personal experience but I don’t think that Downing Street’s Twitter profile is anywhere near as significant as that on GMTV.
For starters, with Twitter - unless you spend your time hardwired to the updates of people you happen to be following 24 hours a day - then you only see parts of a puzzle, not the whole conversation. This has to be a major obstacle to public engagement. At least GMTV is on at a set time meaning that people can tune in and catch the full conversation.
Secondly, people aren’t always bought into the figures that they follow. I’m currently following Brian Paddick on Twitter but I’d rather chew my right arm off than vote for him. That said I have warmed to him since he answered one of my questions to him via Twitter.
On April 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm, Tom responded:
I didn’t mean the Twitter profile was more significant, just that a TV viewer is not equivalent to a Twitter follower because it’s a different type of relationship and interaction. You’re absolutely right though - just because you follow someone it doesn’t mean you agree with or like them. But I guess that’s also true for watching someone on TV.
On April 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm, Nathan McDonald responded:
@Tom - Good points about the TV land audience vs the Twittosphere.
I would add that Twitter also provides a (searchable) timeline of items, represting a record of the stream of activities at Number 10. So we can all see what the PM is up to when not swanning around on TV…
On April 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm, Tom responded:
Good point Nathan. Whatever you might might think of the PM, the Twitter feed just subtly reminds you that there’s someone out there working their arse off day in day out, running the country.