I don’t use Twitter (wow, this is sounding like my “I don’t have Facebook” post, but I don’t have any strong objects to Twitter) at present, because I don’t think I have anything worth “tweeting” about. Plus, I still find Twitter to be somewhat confusing. I do, however, read Twitters that I’m fond of– for fictional characters in a webcomic that I read on a regular basis, or for magazines. I don’t look at the Twitters of people I know because, honestly, I don’t really need to know if they’re working on a project, going to go have a shower, or … anything more personal than that.
I do, however, read about Twitter. I read the article “How magazines should use Twitter“, for example. Note that the title doesn’t question if a magazine should use Twitter, but rather, assumes that the magazine does use Twitter or, if they don’t, implies that they should hurry up and start “tweeting”.
About what? Well, The Walrus magazine is cited as an excellent example, because it is “witty, upbeat and personal,” engaging with the magazine publishing industry rather than simply broadcasting about their magazine. In my opinion, simply broadcasting is rather like a one-sided conversation: you’re talking at someone, not with someone, and you’re certainly not listening.
“How magazines should use Twitter” suggests that The Walrus is listening, and a quick look at The Walrus‘ Twitter seems to support that. There are a lot of tweets sharing links, but there are also a lot of tweets that are in response to individuals and other magazines.
I assume those links are part of their RSS Feed, talked about in the article as the bare minimum way that magazines should use Twitter.
I don’t agree with the article, however, that having no Twitter is better for a magazine than having one which only uses Twitter to post RSS feeds. After all, a magazine that uses Twitter can possibly reach a new audience, even if their tweets aren’t very interesting, or there is no interaction with others. Getting yourself out there – as the article suggests Best Health is beginning to do – ought to be better for a magazine than not having any presence on Twitter. So long as the Twitter is professional, rather than personal – and how personal is an RSS Feed? Not at all! – I think the magazine would benefit from being on Twitter, even if it unable to devote more time to improving their involvement with the Twitter community.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
My Delicious Bookmarks
Tweet on Twitter? Well, Magazines Should!
March 22, 2009 — amyelizabethgI don’t use Twitter (wow, this is sounding like my “I don’t have Facebook” post, but I don’t have any strong objects to Twitter) at present, because I don’t think I have anything worth “tweeting” about. Plus, I still find Twitter to be somewhat confusing. I do, however, read Twitters that I’m fond of– for fictional characters in a webcomic that I read on a regular basis, or for magazines. I don’t look at the Twitters of people I know because, honestly, I don’t really need to know if they’re working on a project, going to go have a shower, or … anything more personal than that.
I do, however, read about Twitter. I read the article “How magazines should use Twitter“, for example. Note that the title doesn’t question if a magazine should use Twitter, but rather, assumes that the magazine does use Twitter or, if they don’t, implies that they should hurry up and start “tweeting”.
About what? Well, The Walrus magazine is cited as an excellent example, because it is “witty, upbeat and personal,” engaging with the magazine publishing industry rather than simply broadcasting about their magazine. In my opinion, simply broadcasting is rather like a one-sided conversation: you’re talking at someone, not with someone, and you’re certainly not listening.
“How magazines should use Twitter” suggests that The Walrus is listening, and a quick look at The Walrus‘ Twitter seems to support that. There are a lot of tweets sharing links, but there are also a lot of tweets that are in response to individuals and other magazines.
I assume those links are part of their RSS Feed, talked about in the article as the bare minimum way that magazines should use Twitter.
I don’t agree with the article, however, that having no Twitter is better for a magazine than having one which only uses Twitter to post RSS feeds. After all, a magazine that uses Twitter can possibly reach a new audience, even if their tweets aren’t very interesting, or there is no interaction with others. Getting yourself out there – as the article suggests Best Health is beginning to do – ought to be better for a magazine than not having any presence on Twitter. So long as the Twitter is professional, rather than personal – and how personal is an RSS Feed? Not at all! – I think the magazine would benefit from being on Twitter, even if it unable to devote more time to improving their involvement with the Twitter community.
Share this:
Like this: