Strategy Director at branded podcast agency Wavelength Creative
This is a test post. It is testing the following:
It’s really not necessary to buy Twitter followers. I recently bought over 60,000 (fake) Twitter followers and it didn’t achieve anything.
But just in case you cannot help yourself, here are a few tips:
Ten days ago I began conducting an experiment to test whether I could buy Twitter followers (you can find the base stats for the experiment here).
Well, it worked, and I now have over 60,000 Twitter followers!
The final results.
Here’s a quick update on my experiment to buy Twitter followers. These are the base numbers:
Twitter followers: 284
Klout score: 57.62
StatusPeople fake follower score: 87% good; 11% inactive; and 2% fake
I’m currently running an experiment in which I’m attempting to buy Twitter followers. I’m doing this for two reasons:
I received some interesting feedback in the comments of my previous blog post pertaining to this issue. I’d like to elaborate on some of the issues which were highlighted.
Is buying followers a violation of Twitter’s Terms of Service?
Continue reading “Buying Twitter followers, the legal and ethical implications”
If money can’t buy happiness, what can it buy?
Studies have shown that money can’t buy happiness. But can it buy popularity? Can it buy influence? These are questions I’m attempting to answer in an experiment I’m running.
So … it turns out you can buy Twitter followers. It’s actually pretty easy. Now, there are a lot of “professional” Twitter follower buying services out there, but I’m opting to lash out on the $5 online marketplace, Fiverr. I chose to use Fiverr for a few reasons:
Continue reading “How $15 will make me the most popular marketing student ever”
Last week it was reported in the Herald Sun that cricket players from a regional league have been banned from playing for weeks for mouthing off about the league on Facebook.
Let me get this out foremost: I’m not talking about libel, defamation or misrepresentation. I’m not talking about disclosing confidential information. I’m talking about opinions.
Read the article. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Social Media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are simply extensions and digitisations of existing social norms. They are a digitisations of our everyday conversations and social interactions.
All this means is, in addition to complaining to your friends in person about the shitty local cricket league, people will complain on Facebook and Twitter. I fail to see how the comments of players in a local league owe any sort of duty to represent that league positively (especially based on the facts outlined in the article). The league wouldn’t have barred them had they complained to their mates over a few beers, so why on Facebook?
Whatever happened to free speech?
This is alarming, as many companies are developing Social Media policies which confine employees to what they can and can’t say. What gives businesses the right to control what their employees talk about in person? Nothing. So what gives them the right to control what they tweet about?
This is a form of communism run by employers, local cricket leagues and the like. We can’t continue to allow the man to control what we say, off-line or online.
A recent study has shown that online social networking sites (Facebook, in particular) reflect users’ actual personalities, not self-idealisation. The paper (published in the journal Psychological Science) suggests that people do not use their online social networking profiles to promote an idealised virtual identity; but instead use them as a platform in which to express and communicate their real personality authentically (Back et al., 2010).
When it comes to online social networking sites, it really does hold that:
