How Do You Feel About "Ghost Twittering?"
In this morning's New York Times, there's an interesting article about the new trend of "ghost Twittering." If you don't know what that means, it's when someone, usually a celebrity, politician, or a "personal brand" of some sort, pays another person or other people to update their Twitter account on their behalf. This "ghost writer" of tweets thus becomes a "ghost Twitterer." While it may make sense for someone like U.S. President Barack Obama to farm out Twitter updates to staff (he has bigger tasks to focus on than tweets), when individual celebs and micro-celebs engage in this practice it seems a bit disingenuous. Is it really so hard to post 140 characters every now and then?
Celebs on Twitter
Because Twitter is apparently the hot new marketing tool for everyone from celebrities to businesses, the number of high-profile Twitterers has been climbing with every passing day. Today on Twitter, you can find Hollywood celebrities, musicians and bands, micro-celebs, politicians, and others who are tweeting their every passing thought.
But in many of those cases, the person actually doing the twittering is a staff member or other paid hire whose job it is to update the Twitter account. The NYT article mentions how 50 Cent on Twitter isn't really 50 Cent - it's Chris Romero, the director of the rapper's web empire. Another high-profile example of a famous Twitter user is Britney Spears, whose account, ironically dubbed "The Real Britney," is maintained by a team whose members sign their tweets by name so you know who actually wrote them. Of course, even the ones signed "Britney" are not typed in by the star herself, they're just her words.
But other celebs on Twitter are themselves. Basketball star Shaquille O'Neal, for example, seems to have a personal obsession with the medium that has even led to chance encounters with fellow Twitterers when he's out and about.
Yet as Twitter transforms itself from conversation platform to marketing vehicle, we have to wonder if it loses a bit of its luster. If you never really know who is on the other end of your tweet, can you ever really have a genuine conversation?
Companies on Twitter vs. Personal Brands
Some would argue that "brands" on Twitter (be they companies or celebs) don't need to be all that personal... but that feels wrong somehow. Wasn't the whole point of "social media" to enable companies to come out from behind the marketing and PR babble and engage in "real" conversations with their customers?
At least when the big automotive company Ford twitters, we know who the man is behind the curtain. Can you say the same about the individual celebs and micro-celebs you follow on Twitter?
By allowing teams and ghost writers to "fake tweet" for celebs, it seems as if we're going back to the old ways of marketing, albeit on a new platform. That's not social media, that's the PR department hijacking a new media tool.
In the case of a company, having a person (or people) Twitter on behalf of the business makes sense. But when the "company" is an individual (aka 50 Cent), having the "hard work" of tweeting subbed out to others seems disingenuous. It also reinforces our image of celebrities as people who are just too busy and important to do anything themselves... even type 140 characters.
So, how do you feel about "ghost Twittering"? You can comment here to let us know or join this previous discussion on FriendFeed.
Facebook
Sponsored by
-
French Government Chooses Mozilla To Replace IBM and Microsoft For 130,000 Desktop PC's
October 30, 2009 / 11 Comments -
Email + CRM + LinkedIn + Twitter = Hustler's Power Drill
October 28, 2009 / 21 Comments -
Is the Relational Database Doomed?
February 12, 2009 / 111 Comments -
Proton Media: The Most Advanced Collaboration Technology in the Market?
October 30, 2009 / 11 Comments -
Netvibes Goes From Web 2.0 To Enterprise 2.0 In Partnership With Sage Software
November 3, 2009 / 5 Comments
-
Can $890,000 Make MediaWiki Useful?
June 12, 2009 / 10 Comments -
Proton Media: The Most Advanced Collaboration Technology in the Market?
October 30, 2009 / 11 Comments -
Yammer Goes Deep: 50,000 Networks Up and Running
November 3, 2009 / 3 Comments -
Enterprise 2.0: Declaring War Does Not Work
November 3, 2009 / 4 Comments -
CubeTree: Drilling Comments Down to the Cell in a Spreadsheet
November 4, 2009 / 2 Comments
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteEnterprise posts
In all sincerity, I don't see the issue with ghost twittering for business or if one is a public icon. There just aren't enough hours in the day and many times it takes a staff of handlers just to manage.
The problem I would have is if someone "impersonated" themselves as another person or organization without their consent or without representing them in a truthful light.
That is identity theft and an issue based on the tenants of digital security.
Check out this website: http://www.justaskgemalto.com. It's a great educational tool for this topic.
I think these "celebrities" are missing the point. If I want to subscribe to a corporate communication channel, there's a blog for that. If I subscribe to a Twitter account, I expect personal thoughts and something different than just information ramming. Don't have time to post 15 tweets per day? I don't care. Just give me one personal one per day. I would much rather have that.
Sarah,
You make a good point about the difference between a company appointing one person to tweet for them and a celebrity hiring a ghost twitterer. Not everyone in a company can be engaged on behalf of that company, but one person hiring out their own tweets (and not being transparent about it) shows a disinterest in the conversation and a disrespect for other people who are genuinely trying to engage them in conversation. If you're not interested in Twitter, it would be better to avoid it for now than to try to capitalize on your own popularity while avoiding rather than interacting with fans.
@Jorge @Laura - I agree. For this reason, Twitter is turning into more of a mainstream social network - making it a big turnoff for me. I'm starting to constantly get spam followers who are just trying to promote their brands/services. I don't want to be "talked at." Having other people write your tweets takes away from the personal aspect that makes Twitter so appealing. I understand having someone else responsible for Barack Obama's Twitter account, but I think Jimmy Fallon sets a great example for other celebrities.
Meh. Ceasar Millan for me. I follow him on twitter and just get a bunch of "Stay calm and assertive". It's clearly not him and they're just using it as poor man's email like the dude from Google said. They could do so much more...*sigh*
Fake twitter accounts are the scourge of twitter. @ev and @biz need to kill them (the fake accounts). I say - if you don't have time to twitter, don't.
"if you don't have time to twitter, don't" - love that!
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
March 27, 2009 8:34 AM
Actually, they're everywhere.. you'll know them through their words and styles..
All the time I'm thinking that a personal blog should be for personal thoughts. Hard to believe that other persons can impersonate you.
oups, correction: it's about twitter not blog :) But can be extended anyway on every personal space, like a blog, right?
When it comes to ghost writing, I can see how companies would want to use us (we have ghost writers) But, as a celebrity I don't get it. A few people posted some great thoughts don't bother period.. I am not interested in what your "writer" has to say even if you only post once every two days... has more value than 15 per day
The whole point of "celebrity" is that it's not real. It's fantasy, entertainment, escapism, whatever you want to call it. The job of a celebrity is to create illusions, and hiring a PR hack to write your tweets is actually a sensible way to perpetuate that illusion.
Let's face it, if they wrote their own tweets we'd soon discover that they're as ordinary as the rest of us. Then they wouldn't be celebrities anymore.
Personally, I wouldn't have followed someone in the first place if I knew they were not the one really twittering. It takes so little time to do it. If you can send a text from your phone, you have time to send a tweet.
let's just call it what it is - ghost tweeting/blogging is paid advertising.
To quote Shaq, “It’s 140 characters. It’s so few characters. If you need a ghostwriter for that, I feel sorry for you.”
I agree with Thomas. It's one thing to update a blog or Twitter or any other medium for a celebrity - as long as everyone knows it is the not the celebrities themselves doing it. It's quite another thing to pretend to speak as the celebrity, interacting with others on a personal level and establishing a voice. I know when I go to some celebs' MySpace pages that I am getting updates by their manager, but if they keep a blog and sign it as XYZ ... I fully expect them to be writing it.
I blogged on this very topic a couple of weeks ago. I laid out three reasons why Ghost Blogging or Twittering doesn’t work.
I think it's unlikely that any media, social or otherwise, can become this popular and attain this level of reach without some exploitation. Generally, I think most of us assume that the majority of A-list celebrities/personalities are using ghost writers at one time or another and that only those with a genuine interest in social media (Shaq, for example) will the take time to create their own content. Not that it wouldn't be better if everyone did their own writing, of course. But the fact is that if you want to keep your name/brand in front of people, regardless of the reason, you can't afford not to have a presence in these types of social outlets. You surely can't beat the price of the exposure.
The way I see it, most of us will continue to use Twitter as it was probably originally intended, and most of our followers will continue to do the same. With apps like TweetDeck providing the ability to segment those you follow into groups, you can still establish and follow your own little community while providing space for the super-names to appear in their own column. This way you can get your celebrity fix separate from your community need fulfillment. It can all work and, given the seemingly inevitable nature of the Twitter march toward ubiquity, there's little to be done about the onslaught of celebrities who are "discovering" the wonders of micro-blogging. I suppose we could all jump ship to something like Rejaw or Plurk, but let's face it, Twitter is where the action is...at least for now.
Great article, Sarah. Always enjoy reading your information. Cheers.
Ghost Twittering is more common than you think. As a provider of virtual employees, I have had an increase in the number of requests for Twitter account support. With a trusted VA who is familiar with your brand, ghost writers offer a nice time-saving option for promoting blog postings and relevant news. That said, I have found that the majority of sole proprietors and small business owners will still block off time to engage in conversation themselves. This dual approach (using a VA and tweeting yourself) seems to offer a nice balance and appears to be rendering positive results.
For me, the appeal and excitement of twitter is the direct connection between myself and thousands of other people. With functions like re-tweet, direct message, and reply, you get the sense that you are communicating one-on-one at the click of a mouse or press of a button.
So, ghost-twittering, as useful as it may be for busy people, seems like a bit of a cop-out: maybe you can just ghost-blog and leave twitter to individuals. Twittering only takes 140 characters or less and even when you sign-up, the "instructions" encourage you to put your own photo so that it personalizes the service. And that's what it's about- that's what social media is about: personalizing the communications between people who would never have been able to connect because of distance, social class, schedules, etc.
My two cents :)
"While it may make sense for someone like U.S. President Barack Obama to farm out Twitter updates to staff (he has bigger tasks to focus on than tweets"
Yeah, like his NCAA bracket.
I posted the following thought earlier today on our blog. The issue relates to authenticity, transparency and being human.
"The New York Times carried a story today on "When Stars Twitter, a Ghost May Be Lurking." Many social media commentators and advocates of transparency in social media think the approach is bogus. The same critics have pilloried corporate CEOs who have their PR team blog or tweet on their behalf. Is the voice real? Or cleverly crafted concepts strategically designed and rolled out to build image and reputation? The latter fails the transparency test."
"Should entertainers, athletes and others in the public eye be held to a different standard? Publicists for several, including Britney Spears, argue that the person is really a brand, so can have support in communicating through social media just like a car, beer or enchilada. I'd suggest that brand personalities lack something core to the discussion: a human voice. Books like "The Cluetrain Manifesto," "Body of Truth" and "The New Rules of Marketing and PR," to name a few, talk about the importance of telling stories in human voices -- being real. This should apply to stories told in 140 characters or less."
Ghost writing is a valid way of getting more online presence, but it's certainly misses a lot of the twitter potential as it doesn't offer much more than an RSS Feed.
In Chile is election year, and both candidates have twitter, but use it in completely different ways. One of them has a writter for it (who sometimes speaks in third person) and updates regularly. The other once offered a debate through it with his followers but he also updates less frequently.
The twitter presence doesn't come just in regular updates, but more in interacting with followers. Ghost writing is missing the purpose of social media.
Oh cra*! You mean someone else helps Guy Kawasaki do his tweets! Now I really am devastated. Not that he's a god to me, but he seemed to be a genuine honest tweetaholic. Now to learn that he is using supplements. What has the twitterverse become, how perverse can we go?
http://twitterghost.com was created this morning in response to the initial article in the Times. I'm hoping that by shining the light of laughter on the absurd twitter gaming that we can quell some of the stupidity. Not all of it, just SOME.
The http://twitterjoker.com network was built for that purpose alone. Won't you come laugh and contribute.
Namasté
@jmacofearth (on twitter)
With the exception of those who are twittering on behalf of some of our politicians, I generally don't follow most of the ghost twitterers (they are easily identified).
Part of the attraction of Twitter for me, is the easy accessibility it offers. Twitter allows me to have conversations with individuals that might not be easily accessible through other communication mediums.
So I appreciate those individuals, whether representing themselves or their corporations, who make themselves accessible.
It's that transparency and accessibility that creates my loyalty to the celebrity, cause, product, or brand that is represented.
meh, if i don't want to see ghost twittering, i don't follow them... and if i can't tell the difference then what does it matter?
Having someone else do it defeats the purpose. We are about to suffer from "six degrees of twitter separation".
I see this as a whole new market for writers! See my post today at: http://simonfirth.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/a-growth-market-for-writers-celebrity-ghosttweeter/
Ghost writers? Maybe we need Ghostbusters then :)
I think in many ways you're missing the point. The 'Social'ness of these tools is about *how* and *what* is being said... less than *who* is saying it.
You say as much when you say it's OK for Obama to outsource, but not so for others. If they allow me to connect, relate, and get interesting and relevant stuff from the source, then they are valuable. If they don't then they're not.
Ideally the author would be the real source... but this is really of secondary importance. To demand otherwise will usually be hypocritical - as 'value' will always supercede 'authenticity' at some point.
If Britney Tweets 'I'll be at Starbucks tonight to hang out with you all,' and if she actually turns up but didn't write the Tweet herself, then what's important in the exchange?
The only sins with Social media are to be irrelevant, untimely and uninteresting. A lack of charisma can and will be fatal. This is the way the social world works....
I think in many ways you're missing the point. The 'Social'ness of these tools is about *how* and *what* is being said... less than *who* is saying it.
You say as much when you say it's OK for Obama to outsource, but not so for others. If they allow me to connect, relate, and get interesting and relevant stuff from the source, then they are valuable. If they don't then they're not.
Ideally the author would be the real source... but this is really of secondary importance. To demand otherwise will usually be hypocritical - as 'value' will always supercede 'authenticity' at some point.
If Britney Tweets 'I'll be at Starbucks tonight to hang out with you all,' and if she actually turns up but didn't write the Tweet herself, then what's important in the exchange?
The only sins with Social media are to be irrelevant, untimely and uninteresting. A lack of charisma can and will be fatal. This is the way the social world works....
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Joannah
http://myscones.com
Excellent post!! Twitter is like a breath of fresh air on the Social Media scene. I have been on it for just a few weeks now and I have met several interesting people. It is a platform to network with people you would like to meet in real life. Check me out!!
http://twitter.com/spryka
If it's disclosed that the tweets are not made by the owner of the profile by using initials or some form of identification I don't have a problem with it but if the tweets are written in the "voice" of the account holder in an attempt to fool people into thinking that they're the one doing the tweeting, then I think it sucks.
I don't have a problem with it. I may be less excited about following a celebrity who's not "really" tweeting, but there's nothing wrong with an "official" twitter account that isn't always updated by the celebrity themselves.
But that's what's so great about a free market. People can do what they want with their brands, and consumers, or fans in this case can follow who they like. I think people will be able to tell who is tweeting themselves, and the "better" twitter accounts will rise to the top.
I think Spears is doing it descent--signing her name to it, or her publicists. But seriously, shaq daddy takes the cake--you've gotta be transparent with people, we actually want to talk to shaq!
Why would we follow Spears or any other celeb if it's just gonna be spam from her team?
I think Spears is doing it descent--signing her name to it, or her publicists. But seriously, shaq daddy takes the cake--you've gotta be transparent with people, we actually want to talk to shaq!
Why would we follow Spears or any other celeb if it's just gonna be spam from her team?
Or what about the congressman who Twittered a sarcastic remark about Pelosi and then claimed a staffer did it:
http://twitterbacklash.squarespace.com/journal/2009/3/2/congess-twitters-while-obama-speaks.html
If you're honest, I relate Ghost Twittering to a stamped signature. When you notice one at the end of a printed memo you think, 'Okay this letter went to a million other people and I doubt the person signing this did more than breeze over it.' A celebrity is a business entity. Britney Spears is not just a person, she's a brand. Twitter is personal, but as long as you're honest that someone may be tweeting on your behalf, I don't think one should be offended. I mean, she can't return fan mail, be at signings, lip sync and micro blog at the same time!
It's interesting that people pick and choose their cynicism when it comes to PR and marketing. I doubt 50 Cent was 50 Cent before he was picked up by a record label. In other words, PR and marketing is inherent for celebrities - how else would you know about them if they didn't have an image? That image isn't 100% their own doing and, even if it were, then it's just that celeb marketing themselves and having a good mind for PR. Twitter is another extension of this - so whether it's the celeb himself or herself, if the feed is consistent with their image, then it's no less of a lie than anything else we digest via magazine interviews, talk shows, tabloids, fan club sites, etc.
I would have been more strongly opposed to this a few weeks ago, then I read a blog about how twitter is best used as whatever you need it to be. I use it for genuine conversation and a way to network or keep up with friends outside of my immediate geographic circle. For some, clearly, it's about social branding and self-promotion. If that's what you're using it for, then fine, ghost it up.
I guess the confusion has grown out of the ambiguity of twitter; if it can be used for anything, different uses emerge and we can pretty quickly assume that the way we use it is "right" and by default that other uses are "wrong."
If ghost twittering bothers you, don't follow celebrities. Remember, they aren't really your friends anyway. :) If they are really your friend and actually use twitter as a personal social media tool, they probably have a private twitter that's actually theirs for you to follow. Follow that.
Errrr, why is ghost twittering any different than "celebs" and bands having a myspace or facebook page of their own, which are commonly run by someone other than that particular celeb or band?!
I'm new to twitter. As a indie Hip Hop artist, I plain to do all my twittering.I think it's silly to allow some else to speak for you when it's suppose to be about you.
I want my fans (music family) to know the real Tye Banks not some a lair what a joke.
I'm new to twitter. As a indie Hip Hop artist, I plain to do all my twittering.I think it's silly to allow some else to speak for you when it's suppose to be about you.
I want my fans (music family) to know the real Tye Banks not some a lair what a joke.
I don't absolve Mr. Obama for not writing his own tweets. The point of the medium, be it from a celebrity, official, or everyday person, it its genuineness -- the ability to connect with the actual person you think is at the other end. I think if you look at a lot of what Mr. Obama puts out -- both speeches, supposedly informal video, etc., you will find it is carefully crafted.
We will see a continued rise in Twitter usage for the short term as more people hear about it and hop in, then a drop a bit as they realize they are not connecting with people but writers and media marketers, and get frustrated with managing twitspam. Activity will still be there, but settle down as people more cautiously find people to follow. But for the immediate future, it is a marketer's dream media, lots of new eyeballs and lots of open, trusting, curious minds (and I like Twitter btw).
Twitter is like a breath of fresh air on the Social Media scene. I have been on it for just a few weeks now and I have met several interesting people.
The job of a celebrity is to create illusions, and hiring a PR hack to write your tweets is actually a sensible way to perpetuate that illusion.
I definitely don't mind the idea of a business having people tweet for them, but I would think it should be someone that knows the business well, can dialogue, etc. I don't think I mind terribly if it's an assistant to a celebrity sending the Tweets, as long as that's stated clearly up front. It's then my choice on whether I want to follow them or not.
Now...a celebrity or business hiring someone that doesn't know them at all to help with image or even someone who knows that celebrity POSING as the celebrity seems disingenuous to me and not appreciated.
Actually, they're everywhere.... The job of a celebrity is to create illusions, and hiring a PR hack to write your tweets is actually a sensible way to perpetuate that illusion.