5 Reasons You’re Not Getting My Shorty Vote

by Andrew Miller on 02/05/10

COMMENTS: 21 Comments | Rants, Richmond, Social Media

I didn’t want to have to write this post but I’ve talked with so many people that feel the same way I do that I’ve realized this might actually be some useful feedback for Shorty contestants everywhere.

First, a couple of disclaimers: I don’t know Dave (@madmain on Twitter) personally [Update: He reminded me that we did speak on the phone a year ago about using the RichmondWiki project in his new media seminars, but I did not count a 15-minute phone call a personal relationship] but I hear he’s actually a nice guy in real life. I have no personal beef with him and my opinions certainly aren’t shared by everybody else. I just call it like I see it.

But since he’s asking so many times and in so many ways, I can’t sit by and not offer my reasons for NOT voting for him to win a Shorty Award. I guess it’s my way of offering some insight into why people might not be inclined to vote. Who knows, maybe this will help somebody win next year without alienating a lot of followers in the process.

I have not, and will not, vote for @madmain for a Shorty award because:

1. Direct Message Spam

What you tweet about is your own business, but when you ask your employees to DM [Update: Dave said he didn't ask his employees to DM people, they did it because they wanted to...but it came from the agency account so in my mind it came from the company/brand = same thing] me asking for a vote you are spamming, plain and simple. I don’t view the message below any differently than I would an unsolicited email that I did not opt in to receive. What does that accomplish? It lowers my opinion of the brand/company/person that sent it.

2. Overly Repetitive Requests for Votes

One or two requests for votes are fine. But hundreds upon hundreds [Update: Dave counted and said he had only 92 "asks" in 3 weeks. Sorry for the hyperbole] and dozens [Update: Dave counted and said it was only an average of 4.5 each day] each day come across as begging and do not an interesting conversation make.

Any social media marketer knows that repeatedly begging and cajoling your followers for “conversions” is a losing long-term strategy. Social networks and community-driven sites are supposed to be built on mutual value and reciprocal relationships. Brands that simply shout are going to be ignored because they ask but don’t give.

My favorite Twitter analogy is that of a cocktail party. Short conversations with interesting people that can potentially lead to follow-ups and larger conversations. The last time I was at a bar and somebody begged me for something it was a dude selling roses. He was kind enough to drop the issue after a polite “no”.

3. Shifting Signal to Noise Ratio

I still follow @madmain because he occasionally offers an interesting perspective or clues me in to a person that I would want to follow (although not with #followfriday pimping). That’s how it’s supposed to work. But when the ratio of vote requests to useful content increases dramatically it becomes harder to follow the conversation and derive value from the relationship (for me, at least). [Update: Dave counted and said he tweeted over 500 "non-asks" things during the same time period]

4. There’s Nothing In It For Me

Again, back to the value equation. What do I gain from voting? If it meant I could opt out of the unsolicited DM’s and redundant requests for votes then I would consider it. But so far you’ve only taken, you haven’t given me anything in return.

Would a vote secure a future reciprocal act? Again, there’s some value there but it hasn’t been conveyed so I have to assume I have nothing to gain from voting.

5. Social Media Should Not Be a Popularity Contest

As I’ve said before (a year ago today, actually), social media is just communications enabled by newer technologies. It’s still just People + Relationships + Communication. Twitter is just a technology that allows the number of people and communications to scale, sometimes too easily and too fast.

If we can assume that most people use social media to develop relationships and communicate, we must also assume that those people want to develop quality relationships. What happens as the quantity of those relationships increases? The quality must decrease.

In Conclusion

Again, this is not a personal attack, but more of an explanation that Shorty contestants all over may find useful. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments, on twitter, or over a beer.

You May Also Like:

POSTED ON 02/05/10

COMMENTS: 21 Comments TAGGED: Richmond, Shorty Award, Social Media, twitter

21 Comments on » 5 Reasons You’re Not Getting My Shorty Vote

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

JackAttack February 5, 2010 at 11:58 am: Andrew – Great post. Everyone I have spoken to on the issue has said the same thing about Dave’s incessant, blatant, shameful self-promotion. How this man got Ad Person of the Year last year in Richmond is beyond me. It is unbelievably damaging to his brand.

By the way, Dave, it’s just Twitter! You’re not famous!
Marisa February 5, 2010 at 12:19 pm: My friend in Richmond, @heyitsphil, retweeted this article, and the girls and I at our little agency in Florida enjoyed watching the commentary unfold on twitter.

Although @madmain views this article as an isolating personal attack, anyone with a website and online marketing strategy will find this to be a relevant, informative post. Spam & begging is isolating and a turn-off, and can cause a brand to lose what could have easily been loyal followers.

It’s purely constructive criticism on a universal level; advice all brands and online entities will benefit from, and hopefully @madmain will take into consideration for future Shorty awards.

@madmain– it is more satisfying to earn a Shorty award organically rather than winning it by begging & shoving vote reminders in the faces of otherwise uninterested parties.

Achieving an award organically is a great goal to set for next year.
RVA twitter February 5, 2010 at 12:50 pm: Shorty Awards… comin’ up short.
Ad Professional February 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm: Not only was I turned off from the DMs from him and his employees last year, the incessant begs, the constant self-promotion… but I even listened to employees of this agency say on twitter they were getting PAID to garner him votes. “Three more votes and I get a bonus!” etc.

If you are an ad agency who has to resort to bribes to “win” votes…
I’ve never understood how Richmond doesn’t see this “King” has no clothes…
Tom Starck February 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm: Wow, you must have really gotten to him to make him respond with exact counts! That’s hilarious! You said what everyone else (probably even his own employees) was thinking.
Jon February 5, 2010 at 5:18 pm: This is a great post, and thank you for posting it Andrew.

The shorty awards are a complete waste of time. They could be somewhat cool if they fixed the flawed voting system, but you are right – its not a competition. Social Media is just another means of communication? Should we start giving awards for those who send the most texts/emails/IM’s about certain subjects?

One thing I have enjoyed about the Shorty Awards? Its let me decide who I need to go ahead and unfollow.

On a side note, I feel that #2 and #3 numbers may still be skewed. As in – out of the 500 tweets, how many are replies versus ‘normal’ tweets? For someone with so many followers (and talks to them), a large number of them can be ‘thanks for the vote’ which I have seen a lot of people doing this year.

While I haven’t gotten and DM’s asking for votes this year (probably related to those who constantly talk about the Shorty’s I unfollowed), I have received a couple of emails (not sure where they were pulled from) requesting votes.
It's good for RVA February 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm: Earlier in the week the claim was made that the Shorty candidates were campaigning in the name of winning Richmond national recognition as a social media hub. Not surprisingly, no one bought the “it’s good for Richmond” plea. Richmond IS a hotspot for social media leaders and participants and deserves national recognition. Andrew’s post and the [mostly] insightful and [mostly] sophisticated conversation that has followed prove it.
Tony February 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm: Well said Andrew! I have nothing against these people either, but it’s like they are living in some fantasy world 24 hours a day where all they do is update their status on their iPhones. How are they able to accomplish any real work? I use Twitter, but I post maybe 5-6 times a day at most. There are people who post 100 times a day or more and who think it’s a good idea to respond “@” someone constantly as a way to self-promote (especially when they are responding to TV personalities). What does that prove? That you are good at being a suck-up and shameless self promoter? There are several people like this well know to all Richmond Twitterers.

The whole concept of Shorty Awards is absurd. None of the “votes” even relate to anything significant. “I vote for so-and-so for a Shorty Award because he drives a nice car!” counts as a vote, but has nothing to do with the person’s talent, or lackthereof, nor does it relate to the quality of their Twitter posts — and I thought THAT was the whole focus of these stupid “awards” anyway??
Concerned Twitterer February 5, 2010 at 5:33 pm: No way– what Dave isn’t counting is the Re-Tweet. He Re-Tweeted nearly every vote for him and that wasn’t counted in his “4.5″ a day or “92 asks” and one day this week my whole page was his repeats of others votes way over 4.5.

The over-arching issue with @madmain even outside the Shortys is how many times his own username appears in his own Tweets, ReTweeting every time he’s mentioned by someone, as if to show off to his followers that someone mentioned him, etc.
Madvain February 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm: Wow…Dave has sunk even lower, which I didn’t think was possible. He’s probably at home tonight, sipping a scotch, thinking we are all just jealous and haters and we’re just envious of his skills.

Not so, Dave.

That he is obviously so publicly irritated speaks volumes. At our agency, his constant self promotion and cocky attitude has led us to call him madvain.

His employees should do themselves a favor and save themselves now instead of later. “Madison and Main” on a resume in this town is an immediate move to the “No” pile.
Random Person February 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm: The guys a [redacted by Andrew]. Want to win a shorty award? That would be because youre an [redacted by Andrew] with no life. Ive heard many stories about people receiving phone calls from his staff asking them to lend a hand in voting for him or supporting him, etc. Pretty pathetic. If there is a noteworthy award to be won (shorty awards are obviously not included) then you should win on merit and not on self promotion.

Great article. It was not a personal attack, but seriously, anyone that tries to be a social media “expert” is a [redacted by Andrew] that missed the point of it in the first place.
Andrew Miller February 5, 2010 at 5:41 pm: Hey guys, let’s keep it civil, please? Discuss the tactics and try not to resort to name calling. Thanks.
RVAbluedevil February 5, 2010 at 5:59 pm: Thanks for this post. It’s dead on as far as I’m concerned.

I think the larger question you bring up is “what’s fair and what’s spam on Twitter?”.

I’d argue @madmain’s current campaign for the tax service uses spam tactics by creating a user, then having that user blindly follow as many people as possible (using madmain’s own user lists, one would assume) in hopes that they follow back and register for a giveaway. Some may say that’s not spam, but it sure feels that way to me.

Couple that with madmain’s constant retweeting of traffic from that feed through his personal feed, and you start to get the feeling that he’s trying to pump up numbers to prove something to a client more than creating a true social media conversation and building relationships. The whole thing seems like the worst of direct mail and telemarketing brought to the social media world. Is it just me?
Travis Oliver February 5, 2010 at 7:15 pm: No matter what your opinion on certain people or companies (in full disclosure I work for the company that is being spoken about.) you all seem to miss the point entirely on social media. All social media Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin etc. are opt in methods of interacting. You have to elect to put some one in your feed, You have to elect to follow or friend someone. By doing so you allow their message to be presented to you and you give them the right to send you messages and DMs. Spam is unsolicited communication, however when you opt in the you are saying I give this person the permission to communicate with me. If you don’t like the message unfollow or defriend. If you don’t want the DMs unfollow or defriend. Any of you who are upset about shorty voting keep in mind you chose to follow Dave, you chose to allow him to present his message to you and you chose to allow him to have the ability to DM you. If you don’t like it you have the option to chose to opt out. Social media is about this choice and there is no right or wrong way to use it only the way you so chose.
Travis Oliver February 5, 2010 at 7:17 pm: by the way sorry about the typos, I am in no way a copywriter
Concerned Twitterer February 5, 2010 at 7:43 pm: Right. Except that you don’t have to follow someone to be affected by their spam. Lists you follow (that you may not control) become tainted. Local hashtags become insufferable to follow. Searches of Twitterers by geography become clogged. It isn’t coming to a private email, it’s being said out loud.

If you only think of social media as an opt-in strategy on the readers part, I think you are the one missing the point and trying to apply a very traditional-marketing mindset. It is about signal to noise and community.
Travis Oliver February 5, 2010 at 9:18 pm: It appears as though you agree with me. You choose you’re searches you choose which list you follow. If you are not happy with the results of those searches or the information in the list you have the choice to alter your search or unfollow a list. I’m also assuming, maybe incorrectly, that you’re saying the #RVA has become tainted by the Shorty Award voting post. I would hardly say that anyone’s tweets were enough to even make a discernible difference in the hashtag’s stream.
Richmond SEM February 5, 2010 at 9:35 pm: @Travis
I don’t think anyone, especially Andrew, is missing the point here. In fact, I think Andrew articulated it about as well as anyone can (that includes the big boys).

People + Relationships + Communication = Bingo.

Dave has the first point covered. Obviously, enough people are in touch with what he’s doing/saying to warrant a blog post. It gets sticky at relationships and especially at communication. Based on the edits to your post, Dave has clearly reached out to you, but what about everyone else on here and Twitter that have expressed frustration in his Twitter behavior? Whether you are a personal or corporate brand, this is an opportunity to reach out, make a personal connection, clarify what needs clarification, and move on. When I tweet that my Comcast service is going bonkers, I get a response from a Comcast rep within minutes offering to help me out. What I DON’T see is Comcast publicly tweeting that too many people complain about their service. Why? Because that’s not showing people you care. It sends a really (and I mean REALLY) negative message about your brand. I respect Dave, his agency, and his work, but I was blown away to see his response to this and a similar incident from last week (i.e. @thedaryljohnson).

Back to Travis’ comment, we “opt in” to a brand because we are subscribing to who they are and what they represent. The day that changes course in a direction we don’t like, we leave. That’s when you’ve lost brand loyalty.

While I think everyone agrees Dave got carried away promoting himself, I think his biggest foul up to this point is how he’s reacted. No one does everything right 100% of the time, but not owning up and showing people you care is not going to make you come out on top.
Travis Oliver February 5, 2010 at 9:57 pm: Neither of my comments were about Dave and what he does or doesn’t do so I’m not sure why that was brought into a conversation with me, they were simply about the fact you have the choice on what type of information you receive in social media. You can complain about what someone is saying all you want but the fact of the matter is that if you don’t like the content of someone’s message unfollow or complain or do whatever it is that makes you feel better, but don’t incorrectly classify it as spam because you chose to receive that content and you can choose to not receive it just as easily and classifying it as something it’s not simply to share your opinion is nothing but malicious. I won’t speak for Madison+Main but I know this if you want to follow me and be a part of my brand great, if not that’s fine too. The equity of an brand lies in it’s most loyal supporters and I was able to leverage my most loyal supporters to garner votes for my own Shorty just like Dave was able to leverage the loyalty of his most loyal supporters to garner the votes he did. Side note Dave has not reached out to me about any of these post, I’m not sure if he even knows I’ve made them. I simpley felt the need to engage in the conversation.
Concerned Twitterer February 5, 2010 at 10:13 pm: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=shorty+%23rva
14 pages of Shorty Tweets tagged with #RVA in the last two days.

For a fun game, see if you can guess the common denominator employer.

You seem to be mad that we listened and didn’t like what we heard, being able to only repeat that we “asked for it” by listening, searching, looking at all. Hey, point taken, we’ll stop listening to that brand.

Likewise, if you’re unhappy with someone’s reaction, stop reading.
Richmond SEM February 8, 2010 at 4:19 pm: Travis,

When I buy tickets to a concert or show, I’m doing so with an expectation. That expectation is based on what I’ve known about the band and their music. But my experience does not end when I buy those tickets. I still have to drive to the show, park, wait in line, go inside, buy a drink, get in my seat, then sit and watch the show. After that I leave the venue, get in my car, maybe sit in traffic, and finally get home. Everything that happens to me that night from parking my car to getting home will impact what I thought of the show, my night, and if I would do it again. If you’re only focused on getting me to buy a ticket the first time and NOT on delivering a good product (affordable parking, bearable lines, reasonable drinks, good seats, good show) then you are not gaining my loyalty. This is analogous to just getting me to follow you twitter or Facebook page, but not adding any value to me after I’ve done so.

We subscribe to a brand based on what we expect to receive. When it changes or becomes something else, we choose not subscribe anymore. I expected to have a great night because I love a band’s music, but when the show is poorly organized and the music is poorly mixed, I’m going to think twice about going to see that band or going to that venue.

I would re-think your understanding that social media is entirely about opting in or out of a campaign. You can still make people upset and turn them off of your brand when you don’t deliver – even after they’ve lent you their eyeballs’ attention. In this age when word of mouth is on steroids (r. @garvee), doing this to your audience can have massively damaging consequences.

I would spend more time focusing on how to make things right with your community/audience and less on trying to defend a point or opinion.

Get Updates

Featured Blog Posts

Side Projects

CONNECT WITH ME

Categories