I'm a numbers man. Yeah, it's a competitive guy thing.
Today it's marketing metrics. Seven years ago it was social
I saw the top Dallas LinkedIn member had 1,200 connections.
In the words of a A
Chorus Line, I said "I can do that". And I did, and
much more. In three years I was number three in the world.
Value modest. Cost in time great. Return low. Recommended
The past two years the game has changed, expanded to Facebook
and Twitter. But there is one difference. At least with
LinkedIn I had access to connection data like location and
industry to target contacts. I had an email address I could
mail (for now, until LinkedIn takes that away). It's a real
You don't have that with Facebook and Twitter. The value of
a marginal unengaged contact is nil. And 100,000 times 0 is
still 0. As Paul Gillin writes in Do
fans and followers really count?, anyone can buy or
acquires tens of thousands of followers. So you can keep your
45,293 twitheads. I'm not impressed.
Our updated scorecard for the Twitter numbers studs:
Value negligible. Cost in time modest. Return negligible.
And it's a good thing. Because you can focus on the numbers
that really count - customers, sales, and engagements. You
can build relationships that have real enduring value ... not
big numbers filled with hot air.
Now if you still want to build those LinkedIn connections,
have I got a deal for you ...
a comment to this post