Happy Groundhog Day, gentle reader. It is now official: Punxsutawny Phil has seen his shadow, which means six more weeks of winter. So stay warm, pour yourself a cup of coffee or hot chocolate, and cozy up to a short list of list-like posts, all relevant to your higher ed interests. Continue reading “Friday Five: #GroundhogDay edition”
Anyone interested in marketing metrics ought to check out this article from the MIT Sloan Management Review‘s Spring 2016 issue. Continue reading “Friday Five: Muddled marketing metrics”
If you’re into digital analytics, here’s your chance to help build a roadmap for yourself and other analytics aficionados. Continue reading “Help @karinejoly make a digital analytics roadmap”
The December 2015 issue of the American Marketing Association‘s magazine, Marketing News, included the results of AMA’s survey of what marketers see as the chief challenges and “pain points” heading into the new year. (The article is behind the AMA paywall, but here’s the link for subscribers to access.) Continue reading “Marketing’s pain points for 2016”
Some worthwhile posts from the past week or two for your Fourth of July weekend reading pleasure. Continue reading “Friday Five: #ICYMI edition”
But how much is too much?
This is something I’ve thought about since Guy Kawasaki brought it to my attention back in 2009. (See my post, To drive traffic, tweet and repeat, about Kawasaki’s test of tweet frequency.)
I’ve also worried about this idea of frequent and repeat tweeting. Like every other blogger with a PR or marketing background, I want to drive traffic to this blog. One way I do this is by sharing links to my blog posts on Twitter. I usually repeat the post a couple or three times, and generally I tweak the wording a bit in an effort to appear somewhat less lazy than a guy who automates tweets to churn them out at regular intervals. I don’t think I tweet too much. But I can’t help but wonder whether others see my approach to repeat tweets as obnoxious or spammy. I wonder whether followers ever notice those repeat tweets, and whether they think I’m posting too much about my own content.
When Kawasaki ran his experiment in 2009, he put eight hours of time between each repeat tweet. (He scheduled four identical tweets over 24 hours, then reported his results.) But a new experiment by Jade Furubayashi of SimplyMeasured makes Kawasaki’s test appear to be a model of restraint.
Furubayashi tweeted for one week in 15-minute increments, and another week in 30-minute increments. Her results showed that the more frequent the tweets, the greater the traffic from Twitter to her website.
So, frequent tweeting seems to drive web traffic.
But one item not addressed in Furubayashi’s experiment (and an issue raised in the comments to her post) has to do with the content of the tweet. Which also has to do with the headline or description used. (More about that in a previous post.)
What do you think? What’s the sweet spot for tweet frequency?
Readers of my previous post (The elements of a great #highered Twitter account) could come away thinking I don’t care about numbers. That would be wrong. I do care about numbers.
Numbers matter in social media.
Dan Zarrella makes this clear in his popular Science of Social Media presentation. In the simplest of terms, if you want to get your message out to as many people as possible, then the bigger your potential audience, the greater the chance you’ll reach a bigger group of people. (This assumes your audience is paying attention to you, and that assumes they find your content worth paying attention to, sharing and acting upon. And that ties back to your credibility among the audience and their level of trust in you and your message.)
But that’s just potential reach, and as C.K. Syme points out in a recent post, reach is only a starting point. But it can be “the beginning of great things.”
“Raw numbers don’t give us a good mirror of effectiveness,” she writes, “but they are one of the indicators.” She suggests social media managers consider other measures, such as potential reach and share of conversation, and she points readers to some tools and resources that can help them do that.