ie8 fix
madison

Twitter Lists will change the social dynamic

By | November 6, 2009, 10:30am PST

Summary: Lists will either be the great equalizer, or create a pseudo ‘class’ system within Twitter.

* Jennifer Leggio is on vacation

Guest editorial by Mitch Lieberman

Twitter lists are absolutely going to change the way people use Twitter – exactly how is not really clear yet, it may take a little while before the dust settles on this one. Lists have added a new social element to Twitter, which did not exist up until now.  Lists will either be the great equalizer, or create a pseudo ‘class’ system within Twitter.

A ‘Class’ System, how so?
Those included on the cool Lists and those that are not, the influencers and the influenced. There are some lists that are purely factual, for example, people who work at XYZ company. Twitter, by its nature, does have a self policing mechanism, but I am not sure if it will work here. Needing differing perspectives, I decided to ask some friends and collaborators; Josh Weinberger (@kitson), of DestinationCRM has this to say:

“Sure, but that’s no different than the situation with a personal Twitter account. But if there’s status or “class” to be derived from whether others value your curatorial efforts, that’s something new, something Twitter itself doesn’t really provide. I may not want to follow @scobleizer in my main Twitter feed, but I might value his knowledge of the startup scene and want to follow his #List of entrepreneurs — and leave it to him to maintain it going forward.”

I framed my question a bit differently, when I asked Nicole Ravlin (@pmgnicole) a partner with PMG, a PR firm in Burlington, Vermont. I was seeking input in regards to how she might guide her clients, as they create lists.

“I think before you can address any of this you have to consider your [Company] overall strategy for using Twitter. Building Lists thoughtfully so that they are useful to you and your followers is key here.”

With respect our conversation in general, Nicole had this to add “From a stand point of organization of data and people, it [a List] is great, but what is more intriguing is what it will/might do on Google Ranking. I also think that it would be helpful for new users [to Twitter].”

Not yet convinced I was seeing a common theme, I spoke with Martin Schneider (@CRMoutsiders, also of SugarCRM) we tried to think of Lists in the context of a company [or vendor]. “Here Lists represent something a little different.” Beyond creating a List of people who are ‘on’ Twitter from your company, or who represent your brand, companies risk alienating people by way of exclusion. This brings out the emotional side of Lists. Companies will need to remain objective regarding Lists. Companies will likely have lots of private lists, just sayin’.

A Social Experiment
So, I am going to try a little social experiment, which I would encourage others to try as well. The end result could be very interesting. I use Twitter as an innovation and interaction platform, your use may alter how you go about this experiment. Personally, I try to actively engage with people I am connected to, through @ replies, and then move from Twitter to other channels blogs and now even Google Wave). Those that I frequently collaborate with, will not be affected by the experiment – I hope.

Up until now, there needed to be a natural asymmetry, some people follow News, Influencers and people who they respect. We take some of those tidbits and pass them along to our ‘Twitter Community’. These actions are still going to happen, but now it can be done without “following”. I do realize you could do this before either by using search, groups in Hootsuite or Tweetdeck. These tools will, very soon add List features, but the social dynamic will be new for a while yet. Here is the core change; a List can be private we can use that to our advantage.

We will soon see if follower counts, matter to people, who say it does not
I can just imagine the conversations: “I have 10,000 followers, but I am on 1500 lists, which are followed by 100 more people”. Yes, you can do the simple math, but the number of conditions and permutations gets interesting (for example, am I following @jowyang once, twice, or four times based on the lists I follow?)

How does it work?
I went through an exercise of adding about 30 people to my private “DoNotFollowBack” list, I then ‘Unfollowed’ all of these people from Twitter directly. I am obviously still ‘Following’ them, just privately - and if I made the list public, it would be rude, and miss the point. Now, the number of people who did not reciprocate was closer to 60, so I did not do this for everyone. There are lots and lots of good reasons not reciprocate (not going to debate that here). If I do this alone, it would have personal impact, but not make much of a difference to anyone’s ‘follow numbers’. I will certainly take a hit myself, as I do not follow everyone back - for the most part because many (not all, please do not be offended anyone) are broadcasting, not interacting.

As an aside, I do not have many public lists. Others were quicker to create lists, which I now follow, and some actually speak to my core point. For example, @palafo/Breakingnews List is great, I do not need to follow lots of people who like rebroadcasting breaking news – just the list. But, since Lists are not yet supported in tools, which many of us use, we need to go to the Web URL to actually use Lists. Adoption will certainly pick-up as the tools all include support for Lists.

Mitch Lieberman, is vice president of strategic solutions for SugarCRM. He is passionate about solving problems at the intersection of people, process and technology. In the context of customer relationships, he focuses on helping businesses design systems which are optimized for ease of use, foster information sharing and customer acquisition and retention. He’s a husband and dad living in Williston, Vermont.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jennifer Leggio, aka "Mediaphyter," writes about the "social business" side of social media - including enterprise, security and reputation issues.

Disclosure

Jennifer Leggio

Jennifer is employed full-time with Fortinet, a leading network security appliance vendor. She is also actively involved in the network security community and works with the Security Bloggers Network. She co-manages the annual Security Bloggers Meet-UP at RSA Conference.

Jennifer is also involved with Silicon Valley Tweet-Up, a philanthropic networking event that brings people together to raise money for local family-oriented charities.

The blog posts here are solely her opinion and do not represent her employer or any other organization with which she may be affiliated.

Biography

Jennifer Leggio

Jennifer Leggio (@mediaphyter) has been a communications professional for more than 15 years, focusing primarily on enterprise technology and security. She is currently the director of strategic communications for a leading network security vendor. Jennifer is also passionate about all things social media, especially enterprise, security, privacy and reputation issues, which is why she writes about these things for ZDNet.

A well-connected communicator, Jennifer has led or supported interactive social networking efforts for security industry conferences including RSA Conference, Black Hat USA and SOURCE Conference, and founded the Security Twits, a community for network security professionals. She also helps run communications for the Security Bloggers Network.

Finally, Jennifer co-hosts the Quick'n'Dirty social media podcast with Aaron Strout, is a founding member of Technically Women, a communal blog project, and manages marketing and public relations for Silicon Valley Tweet-Up, a networking group that raises money for family-oriented charities. Jennifer was profiled in Silicon Valley San Jose Business Journal's "40 Under 40" edition, as a rising star for 2009.

5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Curators and Patrons
russhatfield Updated - 8th Nov 2009
Hi Mitch,

I hadn't paid much attention to lists, frankly. My initial reaction was: Great, now I can get tweets en masse very easily. Click...following 200 more...click again...following 50 more, etc. As if I wasn't struggling already wink I'm starting to see niche uses for them, though, as you discuss.

I like Josh's(@kitson) use of "curator". I think it's a good analogy to illuminate at least some of the dynamics here.

By way of analogy: There are millions of pieces of art in the world, and millions of artists throughout time across all media and techniques. Yet, we are only exposed to a relative handful of these even across all our museums, our schools and even nowadays when so much is available online. We have class systems, too: artists(Da Vinci, Picasso, van Gogh), Works(Mona Lisa, The Thinker, David) and even museums(Louvre, Vatican, MMOA) and I'm sure we even have a class system for curators, though I'm not familiar enough to know.

It's obviously highly subjective. What/who makes the cut? Who decides? Who says this is art? that this artist is great? that this museum is great? and so on. Curators obviously play a major role. In the place of doing my own research, assessments, etc. -- assuming I even knew how to go about this -- I put my faith in the curator and consume his selections. Some of us are more discerning, more independent thinkers, with more experience/knowledge so we'll augment and supplant these choices with our own. But I would argue that many -- dare I say, most -- people are rather passive patrons more than willing to follow the curator with Walking Tour guidebook in hand. And there is nothing necessarily "wrong" with this, IMO.

Some people won't care. If I'm "new" to art appreciation I could do worse than hitting the Louvre, MMOA and Smithsonian and then calling it quits, living the rest of my life satisfied that I had appreciated, learned and experienced some wonderful things. I'm not one of these, mind you, but I think many will be, by default, and that many will be happy enough to be so.

But it does beg the question: what about all those other wonderful works of art? those great artists? those wonderful museums? the ones that, for whatever reason(there are many, rational and not), didn't "make the cut"? Hide in the shadows never to be known. What are we missing out on by being passive patrons and putting our faith in the hands of a few curators, as good as they are? and, especially, when some of these curators might be lazy or indifferent.

Even as frictionless as Twitter is, constraints(the time we have, our technical literacy, tools available, having a clear purpose for using Twitter, etc.) almost demand something like lists. In fact, this frictionless might be the issue.

Since she will have so much "power" over so many users -- especially new ones -- I wonder if there should be some mechanism(s) in place to ensure we don't have passive/lazy Curators running the museum. Keep them thinking about just who gets on and STAYS on these lists. In a sense, re-introducing a little friction back into the system.

Just some random thoughts(these could be horrible ideas; haven't thought them through):

- have lists "expire" after X amount of time. You have to go back into them and "renew" an inclusion before expiration and you can't do this in bulk. Ostensibly, you would re-assess the appropriateness of a member each time you renew.

- have limits on lists: the number that one can curate/create, number of members per, maybe even the number of lists that any single person could show up on. Good things often come out of scarcity, even the forced/artifical variety.

- people having over X Followers would not be allowed on a list, since more exposure is hardly a need of theirs. Conversely, only people having fewer than X Followers could be a list member. This could be an equalizer.

Again, just brainstorming wink

All-in-all, I think it will set up a class system. It's natural and I don't find that inherently "bad". For a lazy patron, this could be limiting(they could miss out on much). But you have to wonder how much effort a lazy patron would expend anyway. Those who are truly interested in taking the road less traveled to see what sort of goodness they might find off the beaten path won't let lists stand in their way, and would actually find/create smarter ways to leverage them.

I get the sense you're speaking more to how this might impact the overall dynamic of Twitter, especially for new users. Also, how this might impact the nature of Following others. And what happens if folks don't get direct followers? and if this leads to less interaction? and if this, then, leads to lack of interest in the platform? A potentially vicious cycle: those not on the big lists leave because they tire of tweeting to themselves...and those on the big lists leave because they have nobody to tweet to.

I'm surely being dramatic wink Regardless, it'll be an interesting thing to watch unfold in the coming months(or sooner). I suppose Twitter can always just do away with Lists overnight if they needed/wanted to, as well. Experimentation and iteration are some of the hallmarks of Twitter-like companies, after all. Someone has to be the guinea pig wink

Glad to see you on ZD. Hope you get more opportunities here!

Russ
Seattle, WA
http://www.twitter.com/russhatfield
Mitch does a great job of showing why a class
system could emerge and how to use lists to
level the playing field by unfollowing those
who don't follow back but still follow them
through lists. If this gains widespread
adoption, it could certainly take the wind out
of the sails of those who may follow but follow
few back, and this would change social
dynamics.

I believe that creating lists may result in a
dual class of Twitizen ? Those who are on lists
of influential people and those who are not.
To some extent lists may freeze the status quo
of power structures within Twitter as they
exist today, giving those with influence even
more, while making it much harder for new users
to be discovered and may hinder engagement by
the long tale of users.

I elaborate on these thoughts more here:
http://bit.ly/1glydV
0 Votes
+ -
Twitter is for.....well....
cornpie 6th Nov 2009
....twits. I'm sorry but I just can't care about this. As a co-worker of mine said yesterday "I'm too busy living my life to post messages about it every 15 minutes let alone have time to read messages about what someone else is doing every 15 minutes."

I have to agree. The whole thing is a fad that will (hopefully) run its course soon.
Sometimes I wonder if we haven't reached a point of diminishing returns on social media tools' functionality. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know how lists fits into Twitter's profitability strategy (if they have one yet).
0 Votes
+ -
Don't expect Twitter lists to change much
kathyherrmann 7th Nov 2009
Hi Mitch!

You pose some thoughtful questions and my
answers derive mostly from a personal view
point.

I didn't have much interest in Twitter lists
when they first came out. My interest is
growing -- but not because of the lists per se
but because of poor quality Twitter iPhone
apps.

None of them satisfy me so I've started to
think about using Twitter Lists as an
alternative on the go to keep up with folks I'm
interested in. At least until better iPhone
apps emerge.

Beyond that, I've had interest in seeing the
lists of other folks in my circle, and it's
lead me to find new people. Can't say I have
much interest in the lists of big namers,
though, and I won't adopt any of their lists
just because they made them.

Stepping back from the personal, though, and
taking a macro view, I tend to disagree with
you that Twitter lists will create a tiered
Twitterverse..at least more tiered than it
already is.

There's already tiers of influencers and I
don't see lists changing that much, either by
way of expansion or contraction.

Some folks will always want to follow the big
names and celebs while others just won't care.

Aside from that, the world is so segmented
today I don't see any one group of influencers
gaining Twitterverse domination.
0 Votes
+ -
Curators and Patrons
russhatfield Updated - 8th Nov 2009
Hi Mitch,

I hadn't paid much attention to lists, frankly. My initial reaction was: Great, now I can get tweets en masse very easily. Click...following 200 more...click again...following 50 more, etc. As if I wasn't struggling already wink I'm starting to see niche uses for them, though, as you discuss.

I like Josh's(@kitson) use of "curator". I think it's a good analogy to illuminate at least some of the dynamics here.

By way of analogy: There are millions of pieces of art in the world, and millions of artists throughout time across all media and techniques. Yet, we are only exposed to a relative handful of these even across all our museums, our schools and even nowadays when so much is available online. We have class systems, too: artists(Da Vinci, Picasso, van Gogh), Works(Mona Lisa, The Thinker, David) and even museums(Louvre, Vatican, MMOA) and I'm sure we even have a class system for curators, though I'm not familiar enough to know.

It's obviously highly subjective. What/who makes the cut? Who decides? Who says this is art? that this artist is great? that this museum is great? and so on. Curators obviously play a major role. In the place of doing my own research, assessments, etc. -- assuming I even knew how to go about this -- I put my faith in the curator and consume his selections. Some of us are more discerning, more independent thinkers, with more experience/knowledge so we'll augment and supplant these choices with our own. But I would argue that many -- dare I say, most -- people are rather passive patrons more than willing to follow the curator with Walking Tour guidebook in hand. And there is nothing necessarily "wrong" with this, IMO.

Some people won't care. If I'm "new" to art appreciation I could do worse than hitting the Louvre, MMOA and Smithsonian and then calling it quits, living the rest of my life satisfied that I had appreciated, learned and experienced some wonderful things. I'm not one of these, mind you, but I think many will be, by default, and that many will be happy enough to be so.

But it does beg the question: what about all those other wonderful works of art? those great artists? those wonderful museums? the ones that, for whatever reason(there are many, rational and not), didn't "make the cut"? Hide in the shadows never to be known. What are we missing out on by being passive patrons and putting our faith in the hands of a few curators, as good as they are? and, especially, when some of these curators might be lazy or indifferent.

Even as frictionless as Twitter is, constraints(the time we have, our technical literacy, tools available, having a clear purpose for using Twitter, etc.) almost demand something like lists. In fact, this frictionless might be the issue.

Since she will have so much "power" over so many users -- especially new ones -- I wonder if there should be some mechanism(s) in place to ensure we don't have passive/lazy Curators running the museum. Keep them thinking about just who gets on and STAYS on these lists. In a sense, re-introducing a little friction back into the system.

Just some random thoughts(these could be horrible ideas; haven't thought them through):

- have lists "expire" after X amount of time. You have to go back into them and "renew" an inclusion before expiration and you can't do this in bulk. Ostensibly, you would re-assess the appropriateness of a member each time you renew.

- have limits on lists: the number that one can curate/create, number of members per, maybe even the number of lists that any single person could show up on. Good things often come out of scarcity, even the forced/artifical variety.

- people having over X Followers would not be allowed on a list, since more exposure is hardly a need of theirs. Conversely, only people having fewer than X Followers could be a list member. This could be an equalizer.

Again, just brainstorming wink

All-in-all, I think it will set up a class system. It's natural and I don't find that inherently "bad". For a lazy patron, this could be limiting(they could miss out on much). But you have to wonder how much effort a lazy patron would expend anyway. Those who are truly interested in taking the road less traveled to see what sort of goodness they might find off the beaten path won't let lists stand in their way, and would actually find/create smarter ways to leverage them.

I get the sense you're speaking more to how this might impact the overall dynamic of Twitter, especially for new users. Also, how this might impact the nature of Following others. And what happens if folks don't get direct followers? and if this leads to less interaction? and if this, then, leads to lack of interest in the platform? A potentially vicious cycle: those not on the big lists leave because they tire of tweeting to themselves...and those on the big lists leave because they have nobody to tweet to.

I'm surely being dramatic wink Regardless, it'll be an interesting thing to watch unfold in the coming months(or sooner). I suppose Twitter can always just do away with Lists overnight if they needed/wanted to, as well. Experimentation and iteration are some of the hallmarks of Twitter-like companies, after all. Someone has to be the guinea pig wink

Glad to see you on ZD. Hope you get more opportunities here!

Russ
Seattle, WA
http://www.twitter.com/russhatfield

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix