Why I’m (partially) automating on Twitter — and why you should, too
A year ago this month, I attended a social media conference in San Francisco with my friend/mentor Brian Fanzo @iSocialFanz to speak about my experience with nonprofits and social good.
At that conference — Summit.Live — I spoke about live-streaming in all 50 states. While I mostly used Meerkat, a big topic for me at the conference was Facebook Live. After the conference, I moved to Louisville to do contract work with Humana (#StartWithHealthy).
Social good. Nonprofits. 50 States. Louisville. Facebook Live. #StartWithHealthy. And iSocialFanz.
These are seven major topics that I talk about on Twitter — and in person! — all the time. All. The Time.
I’ve written at length about Facebook Live. Nonprofits and social good. Brian Fanzo. Louisville. And visiting all 50 states. (Heck, I’ve done Periscopes and written a whole book about that one.) And through Humana, I’ve talked about #StartWithHealthy in dozens of live interviews over the last seven months.
If I hoped to create content that I didn’t want people to see, I’d scribble it in a journal and keep it under my pillow. The reason we use social media for business (and at all!) is because we want people to see it.
And I don’t just want “people” to consume that content — I want the right people to consume it. Nonprofit advocates and employees. People with questions/passion about Facebook Live. Anyone considering visiting 50 states. Etcetera.
If I hoped to create content that I didn’t want people to see, I’d scribble it in a journal and keep it under my pillow.
I joined Twitter in the fall of 2008, and I’ve always been vociferously against automation. If I followed you, I read your Tweets, and did the best I could to engage with you. Similarly, if you followed me, I hoped you’d do the same. That’s how you succeed, right?
And for eight years, this strategy worked great. I’ve gotten a lot out of Twitter. On Dec. 1, 2016, I’d crossed 5,400 followers. I’ve personally engaged with thousands. In Aug. 2016, I got verified on Twitter, the type of distinction that probably means more to you than it did to me, but certainly a nice bit of recognition.
In Oct. 2016, I had an in-person meeting with a decision-maker about a possible influencer marketing campaign. It was a fantastic discussion, but the single biggest take-away for me, which this person offered passively, was “we’re looking for users more in the 10,000-follower range.”
I thought about my 5,000-or-so followers, with a sinking feeling of digital inadequacy. “Oh, sure,” I agreed, masking my disappointment. At my current growth rate, I’d hit 10,000 followers by the 2024 Presidential election.
A couple months later, a friend and colleague of mine brought to my attention the concept of Social Quant, a Twitter automation tool that identifies and follows users who are Tweeting about the key topics that you identify.
At my current growth rate, I’d hit 10,000 followers by the 2024 Presidential election.
No way, I said. No. I don’t automate anything on Twitter — when @ChrisStrub takes action on Twitter, it’s me. It’s all me, period end of story.
But then I remembered the conversation I had with this decision maker. That day, having 5,000 instead of 10,000 followers meant the difference between getting the job or not.
I remembered all the topical blog posts I’ve written — again, with the hope that a whole lot of valuable people will read them.
And I remembered the most important part of why I’m on social media in the first place — to be social.
Yes, automating the following process, in a controlled and interest-based fashion, was only going to (dramatically) accelerate the steady growth pattern I’d adopted for eight years.
Yes, automating the following process would increase my chances of possibly finding even more potential influencer gigs. Or speaking engagement opportunities. Or a prospective next full-time job.
Yes, automating the following process would increase the number of people who could potentially see the content I’m producing — not just blogs, but Periscopes, Twitter thoughts, etc.
But most importantly, automating the following process would increase the number of conversations I could take part in on Twitter.
Don’t believe me? Look at the engagement on my pinned Tweet. In fact, don’t just look — reply to it, and see how quickly and enthusiastically I reply:
Automating the following process has not impacted my ability or determination to engage on Twitter. If you Tweet to me, I will reply.
And a quick word to the critics who say that automation is a deceitful or unethical way to grow on Twitter: I hear you. The bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, total audience plays a critical role for decision-makers in the influencer space.
Your loudest criticism, it seems, isn’t the automation of following, but the rather impersonal automation of engagement — something I never intend to consider. (In fact, last weekend, when I received Tweets critical of social automation the other night, I stopped what I was doing to reply with a personalized 2:20 video, seen here.)
Social media automation is one of the most controversial topics among social media professionals — but I’m not creating content for social media professionals. I’m creating content for people interested in the topics I’ve identified — social good, nonprofits, 50 states, etc. — and if automating the following process helps get me in touch with more people interested in those topics; well then, Mike Kawula, take my money.
(Note: This story is not sponsored in any way by Social Quant.)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Chris Strub is the first man to live-stream and Snapchat in all 50 U.S. states. He volunteered with a different youth organization in every state, and has visited more than 100 nonprofits between his journey and his recent work with Humana. His book, ’50 States, 100 Days: The Book’ is available now on Amazon, and he’s hoping that as many people as possible hear about it.
