Whilst there is significant investment in social analytics, the best that most tools can offer is a postmortem look at performance. You can tell for instance how often a tweet was shared or clicked on, but this doesn’t tend to provide more than a heuristic look at what it is that your followers want from you.
There have been various attempts to understand trends from this data, with MIT for instance producing research into what kind of tweets traditionally get shared and retweeted most frequently. Researchers from Microsoft have added their own thoughts to the field, with a paper looking at whether the interest level of a tweet can be predicted.
To test this, the researchers took a crowdsourced approach whereby individuals were sourced to personally rate and label particular tweets as interesting or not. This process was preceded by a survey sent to participants to actually ask them what made a tweet interesting for them.
The responses to this question were then grouped according to whether they related to the context the tweet was made in (ie for news stories), or the content itself (ie whether it was funny).
From this survey, it emerged that the source of the tweet was the most important, with those from reputable sources increasingly regarded as interesting, with social proof metrics such as the number of retweets proving spectacularly unimportant to users.
The labeling process was much less conclusive however, with the participants proving about as successful as identifying any interesting tweets as you would expect from a random sample.
So, unfortunately, if you’re on the hunt for the holy grail of what will make a tweet interesting, it’s fair to say that this paper will leave you to continue your search elsewhere. Given the complex nature of Twitter however, the researchers were at pains to point out the subjectivity of what people found to be interesting, and there in lies the challenge for all of us. With each individual baring unique traits and characteristics, the ability to narrow those tastes down via an algorithm will have to be something for the next team of researchers.
Great article. I'm not sure if there will ever be a true algorithm to identify what makes any tweet the "pick of the litter". (Although, I’d be the first I line I there was such a thing). Instead, I think it comes down to the whole package. For example, a brand that followers the 4:1:1 ratio rule will have their tweets perceived as more "interesting" by their followers as opposed to an over-promoting brand. A social brand must be helpful, be engaging and have a true (likeable) personality to sustain a satisfied following.
Think about our personal lives. At a party, if likeable, considerate & outgoing Johnny makes a corny joke about what happens when two peanuts walk into a bar (excuse the bad joke, I'm clearly not the comedian), the crowd will enjoy the joke and a few laughs will be shared. However, if the always shy, often rude, maybe didn't say hello at the bar last week Timmy makes the same joke, the likelihood of getting the same laughter and crowd engagement is low.
At the end of the day, the closer we can get to being a virtual best friend, being the one friend you can go to for anything, anytime, the one who can make you laugh and can make you cry (okay, hopefully not cry, but maybe the warm fuzzies), the closer we get to figuring out the je ne se qua of social media.
Thanks for stopping by Mary. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whilst there may be some general principles we can rely on when we tweet, it does seem very unlikely that we will ever reach a stage where we can predict with accuracy what will work and what won't.
Indeed, I kinda hope that we don't ever reach that stage as it will probably mean our relationships have grown pretty dull.
Haha so true.
Figuring out what works is all part of the fun of building a customer community!
I'm not sure if there will ever be a true algorithm to identify what makes any tweet the "pick of the litter". (Although, I’d be the first I line I there was such a thing). Instead, I think it comes down to the whole package.
Think about our personal lives. At a party, if likeable, considerate & outgoing Johnny makes a corny joke about what happens when two peanuts walk into a bar (excuse the bad joke, I'm clearly not the comedian), the crowd will enjoy the joke and a few laughs will be shared. However, if the always shy, often rude, maybe didn't say hello at the bar last week Timmy makes the same joke, the likelihood of getting the same laughter and crowd engagement is low.
At the end of the day, the closer we can get to being a virtual best friend, being the one friend you can go to for anything, anytime, the one who can make you laugh and can make you cry (okay, hopefully not cry, but maybe the warm fuzzies), the closer we get to figuring out the je ne se qua of social media.