The Real Meaning of Ashton Kutcher's 1M Twitter Followers
If This Dude's at the Pinnacle of the Attention Economy, the Attention Economy Needs a Bailout
As media market-share wars go, this one's epochal. This week Ashton Kutcher -- the former "That '70s Show" star and "Punk'd" auteur now mostly known for being married to Demi Moore and doing Nikon commercials -- declared his intention to beat out CNN in the race to become the first Twitterer with one million followers. At midday Tuesday, when ABC News first reported on the throwdown, it counted 858,660 Kutcher followers; by Wednesday afternoon he was up to 903,508, coming within spitting distance of top celebrity Twitterer, Britney Spears; by Thursday he overtook her. By the time you're reading this -- well, check for yourself.
Waking up is never as brutal when u do it before the sun comes up. I think it's a light thing.tonight is the anniversary of the splitting of the redsea! Mind over matter, we can make miracles happen!!!!
I feel like I'm running for class president. I'll get us pizza 4 hot lunch on Tuesdays AND Fridays!
If this guy's at the pinnacle of the Attention Economy, then the Attention Economy needs a bail-out.
Using a new-media tool, Kutcher is leveraging his fame to make himself more famous by declaring his intention to become, well, even more famous -- this time in the statusphere. That's gotta be good for something, right? That basic self-marketing function works too, of course, for other public figures (politicians, authors, etc.) who have thousands of "followers" -- or "friends" on Facebook. They get to build personal-brand mind share, and sometimes actually push product. Yay. Good for them.
But what about the millions of people who have been sucked into Web 2.0 who aren't live-and-die-by-the-media figures with agendas to advance or products to push or personal brands to burnish? Well, that's where the supposed social-networking value equation starts to get a little wonky. Sure, plenty of civilians find value in investing a lot of time in virtual friendships. And for them, social-networking is its own reward. Yay. Good for them, too. But the reality is that the Attention Economy works much like a bubble economy in the way it redistributes the "wealth," or value, of attention.
Take Ashton and Brit, for instance. He's only "following" 70 Twitterers. But more promiscuous Britney is following 77,554 -- which is, of course, insane. It's humanly impossible to follow that many Twitter streams.
Either way, Ash and Brit are evidence that something rather retro is happening to the social-networking realm. The most successful Twitterers and the most-friended users of Facebook with really active news feeds are reverting to a rather pre-Web 2.0 paradigm: broadcasting. The Few speaking to The Many.
What's wrong with that? Nothing. Except that Ev Williams and Biz Stone at Twitter -- not to mention Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook -- can almost sound like revolutionaries in the way they talk about the leveling power of social networking. But really, not that much has changed! I know I will get bashed for saying that. Honestly, I'm not forgetting that tools like Twitter can facilitate immediate human connectedness and sometimes even aid actual revolutions. But those who think the mass protests central to the so-called Twitter Revolution in Moldova couldn't have happened without Twitter are forgetting Harper Magazine Senior Editor Bill Wasik's 2003 invention: the Flash Mob, a phenomenon that got the word out mostly by e-mail -- which, of course, can be as instantaneous as Twitter. (Perhaps you were involved in celebrating the latest iteration of flash mobbery -- World Pillow Fight Day, on April 4.) Electronically-assisted word-of-mouth, whether pro-pillow or pro–Moldovian democracy, is inspiring, no doubt. But let's not forget that the core activity here is the marketing of an idea -- getting people to act, either logically or illogically -- through broadcasting.
My point? Just that the utopian rhetoric of social-networking aside, the lesson of media history is that, regardless of the rise and fall of media conglomerates, media is almost always about The Few profiting at the expense of The Many's attention. To put that another way, The Many are actually investing their mind share -- their currency in the Attention Economy -- in a way that leads, for the most part, to the enrichment of The Few. To put it rather cynically, a certain portion of The Many are getting ripped off -- deprived of more and more of their mind share for little or no gain (or possibly a big loss).
There's a parallel, of course, to the housing bubble. At some point it suddenly dawns on millions of people that they've paid way too much for way too little actual value. (If you're one of the people who has read every one of Mr. Kutcher's more than 1,400 Twitter updates ... well, just realize that you'll never, ever get that time back.)
Anyway, here's hoping Ashton Kutcher makes good on that pizza promise.
RSS Feed
RSS (What is RSS?)
http://weareorganizedchaos.com/index.php/2009/04/17/ashton-kutcher-broadcasts-his-twitter-race-to-1-million-win-over-cnn-live-on-ustream/
Its hilarious...Twitter/Social Media Space is like a great bar...its fantastic until all you %%$#*&# find out about it and then take over and then we hate it. But there is always another great bar to find. This is what happens in the real world, why wouldn't happen here.
For all the early adopters, there will be somewhere or something else that you can go and play in...don't be so freaked out...
I find it fascinating and LOVE IT that a PR stunt, competition, bit of fun and charity support has catalyst world engagement.
The global talk, the conversation, the controversy...is exactly what social media is about. A CONVERSATION... And isn't that what the guy has done? Doesn't matter if you like it or not he wins, cause your all talking about it!
Awesome Case Study Material in my books!
so follow me! www.twitter.com/codenamemax
Regardless of what you think of this competition/PR stunt, the fact is that they generated lots of awareness for a good cause and will save lives.
I am baffled, and increasingly wearied, by the chronic crankiness re: social media (nugies and no pizza from aplusk for anybody who trots out your mother's Buick slogan "web 2.0"...) from the digital ivoryists.
The argument rings too false as it strives so hard to steal an ironic and superior edge on even the most benign - entertaining! - moments in the unfolding fabric of a new way of being together and connecting online.
More darkly, just below the surface of all this huffiness seems to lurk an itchy contempt for all those great unwashed million(s) who dare trample the fresh grass of a new channel of personal media ---- a lush and hidden abck yard previously reserved for the secret priesthood peopled by the author and his carefully selected tweeps.
There's a serious whiff of "there goes the neighborhood" about all this and THAT IS something to get cranky about.
Thom Kennon
tkennon@twitter.com
However, I haven't seen this event as the start of anything revolutionary. It seems very much mass media to me: one-to-many. There isn't really a lot of communication back-and-forth.
Recently someone suggested to me that some of the celebs on Twitter might be paid by Twitter to generate buzz for the company. And now that I read about the elaborate efforts for this (the competition, the billboards, the appearances on Oprah). it does seem to be done on Twitter's behalf.
I've been far more thrilled with the buzz about Susan Boyle.
http://twitter.com/slainson
But what is the meaning of this victory to the marketing world? What did it prove?
In a single word, Transformation. This was the defining moment of how the Internet won over the Television. It is, as Ashton said, "A changing of the guard...from the old way of consuming media to the new way of consuming media." Not only did CNN have the advantage of having continuous air coverage, but they had not one, not two, not three, not four, but over five nationally, and in fact, internationally recognized faces and names plugging their Twitter account. And yet Ashton still won.
So, how is this transforming? As Ashton said "The new wave is here...We get to choose what we want to see and don't want to see and who we want to have broadcast." It no longer resides with the big companies, "the Giants" forcing you to watch endless commercials, listening to their points of view, or buying into their ideology. But the power now rest firmly in the hands of the consumer. This simple competition has put forth what we should already know. Consumers, People, are going to the web for their entertainment, for their personal growth, and for fulfilling their lives. We now have, more than ever in the history of mankind, the ability to connect across all boundaries, across all oceans, and right through the middle of any misunderstandings that our governments have with each other. We have the power to determine what we watch, what we let into our lives, and with a simple click, close off what we don't like. No longer are our lives dominated by mass media force feeding us what they want us to hear or what they think we should hear.
It's remarkable that a multinational news and cable organization would compete with a single man and lose. It's ironic that they would tell their viewers to go to the web. The very medium which will one day replace watching CNN on the television.
The masses have spoken. The dice have been cast. The internet is the ultimate victor here. "Victory is ours!!!!"
Will the marketing world wake up? Will they see that the consumers they are spending millions trying to reach on the television are not even there any more? I don't know. Perhaps if they are visionaries they will. But if they are steadfast in their resolve that the television will continue to be their best channel, then they will go out the same way that the newspapers and print media are going out today...a slow and agonizing death.
Congratulations Ashton and thank you for your efforts to rid the world of Malaria. Thank you also for the clarity of this message: the world has truly gone to the web.
Patrick Houlahan
VP of Business Development
AdJack
www.AdJack.tv
"I feel like I'm running for class president. I'll get us Domino's 4 hot lunch on Tuesdays AND Fridays!"
Twitter otherwise seems fairly annoying, but if people are so interested in the inane happenings of other people, especially celebs, might as well have some product placement.
I can imagine it now:
Tween: "OMG ASHTON LIKES DOMINO'S! I DO TOO!"
20somethingguy: "HAHA the Domino's thing on You Tube was killer"
The world is changing. http://malarianomore.org/ gets it. They, along with organizations of any size and in any industry, were the benefactors last night.
The funds and awareness generated by Mr. Kutcher's brilliant 'stunt' are proof. The power-shift from traditional media to social media is no joke and it's not a fad. It doesn't matter what you think of his movies or TV shows - you have to give Ashton credit for converting the potential energy of his Twitter buzz into real dollars that will improve lives.
The world won't change overnight, but last night was certainly a milestone. The dawn of a new era. Maybe you just don't get it yet. Don't worry, you will. Embrace it or go the way of the dinosaur.
http://tweamr.com/the-bar-has-been-set-absolute-perfect-marketing-twintegration/
I follow Ashton and Demi because they are intelligent and fun. It's a way for me to watch some celebrities up close as they want me to see them.
But in terms of how this will transform my friends and family who are so busy with jobs and kids that they can't stay plugged into Twitter, not so much.
I'm fine with all the hooping and hollering. I've been heavily involved in online communication from 1993 on. I have a "wait-and-see" attitude for a lot of stuff.
Twitter has been very useful to me as a networking tool. I'm one of those marketing/media/writer types who likes to exchange ideas with other professionals. But I know lots of Gen X and Gen Y friends who really don't see a value it it for themselves.
http://twitter.com/slainson
Since the beginnings of any civilised society the market place was the hub of civilisation, a place to which traders returned from remote lands with exotic spices, silks, monkeys, parrots, jewels - and fabulous stories. Interactive Communication, properly executed, more resembles an ancient bazaar than fits the business models companies try and impose upon it.
People respond to interactive opportunities like Twitter because it seems to offer some intangible quality long 'missing in action' from modern life. In sharp contrast to the alienation wrought by homogenised broadcast media, interactive opportunities provide a space in which the human voice would be rapidly rediscovered. Unlike the lockstep conformity imposed by television, advertising, and corporate propaganda, interactive communication gives new legitimacy - and free rein - to play.
People long for more connection between what we do for a living and what we genuinely care about. We long for release from anonymity, to be seen as who we feel ourselves to be rather than the sum of abstract metrics and parameters. We long to be part of a world that makes sense rather than accept the accidental alienation imposed by market forces too large to grasp; to even contemplate.
Remember the market place, of old. Caravans arrived across burning deserts bringing dates and figs, snakes and parrots, monkeys, strange music and stranger tales.
The market place was the heart of the city, the kernel, the hub.
Like the past and the future it stood at the crossroads. People worked early and went there for coffee and vegetables, eggs and wine, for pots and carpets. They went there to look and listen and to marvel, to buy and to be amused. But mostly they went to meet each other...to talk and interact! Markets are conversations...as is Twitter and the Internet!
It is all there in my book "Television Killed Advertising" detailing where we have gone wrong in the past and where we could still go wrong in the future. Would you like to discuss the further? paul.ashby@yahoo.com
But Twitter isn't as useful for busy people who aren't using it for (1) professional networking, (2) marketing, (3) publishing, or (4) personal entertainment because it's more geared to real-time exchanges. Many people don't have the time to check in with it all that often. They don't have time to stop the other stuff they are doing to post and read Twitter messages.
In contrast, Facebook (or at least the old Facebook before the Twitter-like redesign) works better for an occasional visit. You can read it late at night when you have some downtime. You can play games, take quizzes, etc.
All of my non-media, non-marketing friends/family have TVs, video games, cellphones, MP3 players, etc. In other words, they will use technology. But none of them uses Twitter. And I don't have any reasons to suggest that they do other than to have a bit of fun watching Ashton and Demi talk to each other. There's nothing on Twitter that they can't get elsewhere, and, at the moment, more conveniently.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just curious how Twitter is supposed to transform the lives of the people I see around me. And I speak as someone who spends hours a day online communicating with people.
http://twitter.com/slainson
Most of my followers are either:
a) somebody who wants to sell me something and is hoping I will follow them in kind, or
b) fashion models -- yes, fashion models -- who are obviously confused and not really paying attnetion to the tweets anyway.
Relatively few of my followers are anything I would consider legit.
It's all noise.
Ash, Brit, even Oprah and company, are feeding from the bottom of the consumer trough... throw in Obama while we're at it.
Unfortunately pitching this market is easier than the educated affluent audience, but then you can't do that with a 140 word message, since the affluent expects information about the product or service which could force the others to read!
In the end, the CHANGE that is necessary is going back to basics, but then that would be too hard for your Brit and Ash to understand. And for creatives making Bart Simpson, Family Guy and company is so much easier to harvest low lying fruit.
What Ashton Kutcher will do with this huge attention?
Will he be able to engage in a two ways dialogue with all these followers? Is Twitter just another Tv like media? To push YOUR message.
We are now in the attention economy, in which the new scarcest resource isn't ideas, capital or talent, but attention itself. Today's businesses are headed for disaster-unless they learn to manage this critical yet finite resource, or fail!, warn Thomas H. Davenport and John C. Beck
Businesses which will succeed in this attention economy are the one that take customers attention as a loan or managed as an investment" NOT something they "paid for". Companies that fully understand and appreciate those distinctions will be the winners in the future, observe Michael Schrage.
How will YOU manage YOUR consumers attention differently if you take it as a loan or as an investment into your company?
Our advice for companies in today's economy is completely different. We have a Great post about it here : http://bit.ly/S5lH
www.stevenstark.net
There is also the issue of what this all means about "the loser", CNN. Is Ahston Kutcher really more powerful than all the CNN news crew combined? Um.. no. The average CNN viewer is far less likely to be on Twitter (let alone actively following celebrities on Twitter) than the average Ashton Kutcher fan. Signing up to follow Ashton Kutcher may have been as much about the young generation showing they could beat the older generation (Wolf Blitzer comes to mind) than it was about any strong desire to follow the daily musings of Ashton Kutcher. While many impressive people may be active on Twitter, the people who are constantly Tweeting and following hundreds of other people tend to be those with A LOT of time on their hands. They probably do not have jobs, or kids, or much responsibility. I am guessing the average C- student Tweets more often and follows more people than the average A+ student. I am guessing the average unemployed 27 year old living with his parents tweets more and follows more people than the average 27 year old who is supporting himself or putting herself through grad school. Yes, Ashton won, and he should be congratulated for that! It was a great PR move as well as a nice way to get funds to a good cause. Lots of free media, and of course it is great for his image that he is not just that much more famous now, but that people are pointing out that he helped a worthy charity. Will this win revolutionize the world? Is this a new shift in power? Has Twitter become more powerful than any other form of communication? Does this mean more people care what Ashton is thinking than what CNN is reporting? I suspect the answers to these questions are no, no, no and... no. That said, hats off to Ashton for a very successful ending to this highly hyped story. Bravo! Well done!
Michal Ann Strahilevitz, Ph.D.
It was not a value vote by any means, but a very transitory attention vote that will burb off like the morning clouds. A confirming sign of narcissism as explained by Pinsky.
I am saying that as a seasoned twitterer with my own value prop for its usefulness in media. The value here if any is that we are talking about the already progressing shift toward media personalization, that broadcasters need to learn to lead in, rather than follow.
Lots to be said about that, that I can't cover in this post. That is what http://fourthspeaker.com is for.
Andrew
Twitter.com/cellecast
Michal Ann Strahilevitz, Ph.D.
And any individual can jump in. You point out Ashton as some example of "same old, same old," but any look at the top 100 Twitterers by followers would tell you immediately this is not the case. There are normal people on there, entrepreneurs, housewives, bloggers, small businessmen, independent bands, comic book artists. It doesn't align AT ALL to Q rating or fame in the real world. These are people who have understood the potential early on - like Ashton, who is first to a million not just because he's a celebrity, but because he got it early on.
Just think of the ramifications. Kanye West has said more than once he doesn't do interviews anymore because more people read his blog, and he can get the message out without the media.
Even brands are finding it easier to reach large numbers of people without spending a cent on media. While you're looking at that top 100 twitterers list, look at how many brands are on there. Look how many followers they have. That's how many people, right now, they can reach without spending a cent on media. As often as they want. Tell me that's more of the same old, same old.
Rick Webb, Barbarian Group
So what makes Twitter a better replacement of old media than anything else on the Internet?
I'd say that YouTube is probably the more revolutionary device. And this week's example of the popularity of Susan Boyle via YouTube is a more important example to me than the Kutcher/CNN contest.
And the fact that everyone went on Oprah to discuss Twitter seems to confirm that old media has clout.
There are new sorts of celebrities on Twitter. But there are also new sorts of celebrities on YouTube and blogs. Every form of media creates audiences with stars.
How, exactly, is Twitter going to revolutionize media in ways that are different than other forms? Again, if you have 1 million followers, but you are only following 100 people, that's one-to-many, just like lots of other forms of mass media. It isn't a true dialogue.
I think all of this has been done to pump up Twitter to either sell it at a good price or make it more attractive to advertisers.
I like Kutcher and have found him one of the better things about Twitter. So this isn't a slam against him at all. I just don't buy into the idea that Twitter is all that much different than what we've already had online.
http://twitter.com/slainson
I think at the end of the day, there are those who "get it" and those who don't.
Thanks for the article. I think you've made a lot of really good points here about The Many over the Few (sounds rather reminiscent of a certain Manifesto), and how many of us are sheep following a few people. Certainly, many of @aplusk's posts aren't terribly relevant to anything. Now, I don't follow him (am I the only one at this point), but I did glance through his tweets, and I see him doing more than just inane babble. I see him trying to help people, donating to causes, giving poor people mosquito nets, encouraging philanthropy by engaging in it himself. Is it a calculated PR move? As a PR person, I have no doubt. But still, he's trying to make a difference, and maybe that will inspire some of his million followers to do the same. Maybe this Attention Economy isn't all bad.
Jean Levasseur
What can you really say in 140 characters over an extended period of time that is worth that much.
Have you all already forgotten the dotcom bust? The frenzy was just as great in 2000 then died until people started figuring out how to really use the web.
Listening to inane thoughts by celebrities is one thing, but to actually replace something of value?
Much ado about nothing.
#1 Why do I follow @THE_REAL_SHAQ or @aplusk? Entertainment. While some of the comments are utterly pointless nonsense, when you put all the wacky brain dumps together, they are FUNNY! Imature? Yes, but they are an entertaining escape. I follow @cnnbrk or @bronto for news and/or information. Don't confuse the two. We watch Nickelodeon and MSNBC for two totally different reasons. The same goes for the twitters we follow.
Point #2, this is a true democracy. If we aren't entertained or educated by @aplusk we won't follow him. Period. He's got the followers, now will he keep them? I say yes.
The fact that he only follows 70 or so of his followers says A LOT about Ashton. He uses twitter and he uses it correctly. Companies could learn a lot from Ashton and Shaq, unfortunately too many company's still don't get it. They're on twitter because that's what they think they need to do, not because they know how it can help their business AND their consumer.
Happy twittering,
@bnash972
@freshpie
I disagree though when you mention email being as instanteneous as Twitter. It might even be, but email isn't broadcasting. And no broadcasting media is as instanteneous as Twitter.
Maybe Twitter will be a thing of the past soon, but that will only because something better and faster comes to the surface.
www.roaringtwentieswriter.blogspot.com
@abernst
There have been days when I've found myself not even reading tweets & status updates because there was a "threshold" to how much media I was mentally able to handle (or stomach), while still being productive with the time I had.
So many people spend so much of their time reading & viewing useless information on the web that offers no immediate benefit, change, or personal growth to them.
If this is where society is headed, then sadly, we're only becoming increasingly primitive in our way of thinking and setting ourselves up for a major breakdown socio-culturally, apparently affecting our education, business, and morals.
I believe this whole web 2.0, social media push will eventually reach a place of plateau, and you'll start seeing more people pull away from it, if something is not done about it.
Frank
http://www.absrocketpro.com
Ben
http://www.howtobuildgolfclubs.com
Doesn't matter if you like it or not he wins, cause your all talking about it!
jim,
http://www.buildingmaintenanceoftoday.com/
Kirschan
http://www.fdiinsider.com