How chuffed should we be about our 10,000 Twitter followers?
edits this blog. Twitter: @chblm
Great news! The College of Journalism’s Twitter account has just acquired its 10,000th follower.
It’s a nice round number but should we be patting ourselves on the back or wondering why we’re not in the same league as Richard Branson (2.4 million followers), Robert Peston (180,000) or the Countdown numbers expert Rachel Riley (40,000)?
I’d argue that we’re in a specialised area and have a good reach among our target audience. I’ve been tracking our follower numbers over a couple of years and they’ve gone up in an almost straight line. I’d have thought that the more followers you have, the faster you’d acquire new ones – making a nice upwardly accelerating curve. The reality perhaps is that the more followers you have in a specialised subject area, the fewer there are left who want to follow you – even if you have more people spreading the word.
So are our Twitter efforts worthwhile? The social network absorbs a huge number of many people’s working hours, but is it time well used?
In a previous post I made some calculations from the Twitter accounts of 10 journalists and 10 celebrities, arguing that, although follower numbers aren’t all that matters, it’s still worth looking at them if you’re a journalist wondering how much effort to devote to Twitter. With all the caveats, you’re probably wasting time if you’re tweeting non-stop to a few hundred followers. Conversely, if you add a decent number of followers with each tweet, you’re building a unique channel to your audience at very little cost in either time or money.
Here I’ll compare my results from the Twitter accounts of journalists and celebs with those of big companies and public bodies, to see how efficiently each group appears to be building those channels. In all cases the accounts I’ve picked are somewhat arbitrary but, I’d hope, among the top examples of their field.
From figures collected in March, it looks like, of these groups, journalists were the earliest adopters of Twitter, followed by celebs and then, in order, public bodies and big companies. While the average journalist in my sample had been on Twitter for more than three years, the average big company had been on for two years and three months.
It’s measured like this:
TPI = total followers/total tweets + total followers/age of account (in days).
The idea is that a high TPI is a sign of an account that’s growing its following efficiently. Inactivity is penalised because the second figure in the formula gets smaller the longer your Twitter account has existed. But in themselves more tweets lower your TPI – by reducing the first figure. So a high TPI shows you are getting ‘more bang for your buck’ from your Twitter efforts, by adding followers at a good rate without spending every waking hour tweeting.
In these terms, then, here are the TPI scores of my 10 public bodies. (With their figures and those of the companies that follow, the difference between the few high scores and the rest was so great that I’ve plotted them on a logarithmic scale):
Taking the average TPI for my four categories, celebrities, perhaps predictably, are far ahead (so again I’ve used a logarithmic scale):
So how does the College of Journalism’s Twitter account fare?
Well, a day or two ago I calculated our TPI as 9.33, which puts us near the bottom of the above ranges, between BAE and British Gas and a little below the Scottish Parliament.
But of course they are bigger bodies than us and not in the same sector. So here’s how we rate against the Twitter accounts of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Department of Journalism, City University, The Poynter Institute (US) and Columbia School of Journalism (US):
But of course, as the BBC, we’re not here just here to chase ratings or to show off our Twitter Potency.