NetGalley

Author Topic: Article on fake Twitter followers in NYT  (Read 556 times)  

Online thesmallprint

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Article on fake Twitter followers in NYT
« on: January 29, 2018, 09:17:23 AM »
This set me thinking of how much this might be replicated on Facebook and how it affected advertising spend.  Summary is: many retweets from so-called 'influencers' (one with a million followers earns about $20,000 per promo tweet) are made by bots.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Offline TwistedTales

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Article on fake Twitter followers in NYT
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2018, 12:35:24 PM »
Ive been testing boosting posts on FB. The first boost usually results in likes and link clicks that make sense, as in if you check the profiles they look real. The second boost resulted in very odd profiles that had only one or no posts and were from unusual countries. I cant work out (a) why those accounts, and (b) if they were real accounts. If they werent then it doesnt say anything good about FB.

As for twitter, buying fake accounts has been around for a long time. The sellers openly advertize it as a service. Of course, that leave Twitter with a credibility issue. My last tweet had a promo option so I checked it out. Twitter wants to charge me $50 - $5,000 to promote that tweet, not that I ever would because it really wasnt that special. Worse still, it promised me 100 engagements (which can just be someone clicking on the image) for $50 and it wouldnt even let me choose the countries (what kind of targeting is that). By comparison, FB will boost a post for as little as a few dollars and I get to target by region, interests, etc.

Twitter need to lift their game. You cant have articles like this highlighting half their members are fake and expect to charge top dollar for non targeted boosts. How stupid do they think we are? I feel vaguely insulted.

Offline ireaderreview

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Books Butterfly - Connecting Readers to Authors
    • View Profile
    • Books Butterfly Book Promotions (Kindle, Nook, Apple, Kobo)
Re: Article on fake Twitter followers in NYT
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2018, 04:22:24 PM »
With most/all online services you should focus on

Results

rather than vague things like - impressions, eyeballs, visits, visitors etc.

******************

Facebook - no option because Google and Facebook are basically the only games in town if you want to do digital marketing to a very large audience
If you're an author you have to test FB Ads because it might work very well for you and be a good complement to other marketing channels

Facebook has had a long history of 'measuring errors'. However, they have now signed up (i think with Nielsen) to improve their measuring
Also all the bad publicity means they will be very careful about future 'measuring errors'

****************
Social Networks between 20% to 55% of all accounts are fakes. so 'Reach' is sort of meaningless. Only Results matter
You can count things like
Clicks to your site
CPC
Sales
Follow on Sales

And starting off small and gradually increasing is what works best
Actually that works best for Google Adwords too

Remember, in Bidding systems they always try to maximize. So they will make random fluctuations that aren't really random. They want you to pay more and more for same clicks.

**************

There are some good threads about Facebook Ads and AMS ads and the main takeaways are the same you'd find in other advertising areas i.e.

Boosting Posts is not very useful
Targeted Ads work very well on Facebook
Must focus on Sales, otherwise you'll just get Likes or other useless things and not sales

what I don't see discussed (except by a few authors)

is trying to get BOTH sales and email subscribes from FB ads

***********************

Twitter is good if you are very focused and build up your follower list full of your actual customers or find someone relevant to your book or book genre. Otherwise Twitter is more for 'information/news/awareness' and not geared towards sales. However, if you go into NICHE or ULTRA NICHE then it's very good

Get 50 to 100 Sales for Your $1 Book! Get 2,000 to 5,000+ Downloads for your Free Run Books! Get 200 to 400+ Sales for Your $1 Box Set!

Books Butterfly | Free Book Promotion | Paid Book Promotion

Applies to Following Genres: Mysteries, Thrillers, Suspense, Romance, Christian, Non-Fiction, How To, Cookbooks, SciFi Thrillers, Memoirs, Romantic Erotica, Steamy Romance.
Please Note: We also promote in other genres.


Offline JRTomlin

  • Status: Agatha Christie
  • *********
  • Posts: 16887
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • J. R. Tomlin on Writing and More
Re: Article on fake Twitter followers in NYT
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2018, 07:10:42 PM »
I am truly baffled why any author would think that buying followers on Twitter would garner them anything except bragging rights, if you wanted to brag about something so silly.

Saor Alba
J. R. Tomlin

Offline RightHoJeeves

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Gender: Male
  • Perth
    • View Profile
    • Lawson Copywriting
Re: Article on fake Twitter followers in NYT
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2018, 07:27:26 PM »
I am truly baffled why any author would think that buying followers on Twitter would garner them anything except bragging rights, if you wanted to brag about something so silly.

It only really has any use as a short term scam if you're an influencer. Say you're a model (or have access to one). You buy 50k followers or whatever, and then convince businesses to advertise on your platform and get money. But of course that is fairly short term and would inevitably fail and be exposed because you wouldn't actually be delivering any real results.

James Lawson