To drive traffic, tweet and repeat

I used to think it was bad form to repeat my tweets about blog posts or other information I wanted to get out to the twitterverse. But Guy Kawasaki (@guykawasaki) says it’s okay to repeat your tweet — if you want to drive more traffic to your blog, website or whatever you’re linking to.

Kawasaki tested this theory that repeat tweets bring more traffic, and whaddyaknow, it works! For Guy Kawasaki, anyway. (More on that later.)

In his first experiment, Kawasaki repeated a single tweet four times, eight hours apart. Although the original tweet brought more traffic than the others, “the next three still yielded very good results.”

In his next experiment, he tweeted a post with link daily for nine consecutive days, with results similar to the first experiment.

Let’s assume that I had listened to the dogma and tweet either of these just once. (This would be based on the delusion that every follower of mine read every tweet every day, so repetition is unnecessary if not impolite.) This assumption would have cost me 3,000 to 4,000 fewer clickthroughs.

To which I can only say:

3,000 to 4,000 fewer clickthroughs!? zOMG.

There’s a reason he’s Guy Kawasaki and I’m not.

But, maybe his theory holds water for those of us who have Twitter presences followed by fewer than the 164,000-plus in Kawasaki’s posse. I get the feeling that too many repeated tweets, too close together, would lead to a drop in followership.

Still, it’s not always about the numbers of followers. It’s about quality, right?

Friday Five: blog of the beast edition

I was originally going to title this post “Friday five: of Twitter and teens, robots and brands.” Then I found out that today’s post is number 666 for this blog. Oooh. Scary. I thought about conjuring up some frightening doomsday posts, but in this economy, things are scary enough. Plus, I already had this stuff in the hopper, even before Thursday’s big Twitter/Facebook meltdown, which was apparently a huge denial-of-service attack aimed at bringing down one socially networked guy in the Republic of Georgia. Talk about overkill, scorched earth, using the atom bomb to kill a fly, etc.

Anyway, on to the five, which is just some interesting stuff I gleaned from the web, Twitter, etc., earlier in the week.

  1. Teens don’t tweet, eh? Earlier this week, Mashable reported that the percentage of the under-25 age group in the United States using Twitter is only 16 percent. This despite the fact that that age group makes up 25 percent of Internet users in the U.S., and everyone knows that that age group is the most tech-savvy of them al, or so goes conventional wisdoml. But what the Mashable story and the other headlines miss is the apparent healthy growth in the number of young tweeters since January (see chart; click it to enlarge). It looks like the better question may be, What is behind the apparent growth of twittering teens? (P.S. – When the news of this study broke on Wednesday, it became a trending topic on Twitter, and apparently plenty of the people tweeting about it were, in fact, the under-25 group.
  2. You’ve read the book. Now see the slidedeck. One of the essential elements of The Cluetrain Manifesto — a must-read book for anyone involved in online communications — is its 95 theses. Now they are available as a slideshow. (Thanks to @markgr for the link.)
  3. 10 Facebook marketing resources, via @EMGonline (Educational Marketing Group’s Twitter feed).
  4. Gah! Robots! They’re in Twitter! They’re on Facebook! Gahhh!
  5. A more social definition of brand. “For years I’ve thought of a brand as the image of a company in its customer’s mind. … [T]oday, thinking about the new corporate communications landscape, it struck me that a brand is more like the ongoing contact between company and customer.” A thoughtful and thought-provoking post from Engaging Experience (via @mStonerblog).

Have an enjoyable weekend. I’ll see you around on Twitter or possibly Facebook — unless they get hit again. If so, then maybe on the blogosphere. They can’t get every blog, can they?