The old paradigm that a story in the paper = your 15 minutes of fame is dead.
Yesterday I was featured in a story in the Star-Ledger newspaper about Twitter, which included my blog address. It was an interesting but pretty low-key experience. Despite the prominent placement of the article on page two of the paper, and my name in the first line, the only feedback I’ve had so far is from people I already know who heard about the story from me. There have been a few extra unidentified visits here to the blog that may have been from strangers reading the article, but a newspaper story obviously doesn’t convert to hits easily. Can’t say I’m any more famous than I was on Saturday :).
What’s curious is that I’m seeing less response than I did to the newspaper stories that featured me eleven years ago, (coincidentally also on Mothers Day) when I got a bunch of emails from strangers! Could it be because back then the web was new, and newspapers were a primary source of information? That now internet stories are old news, and fewer people read the paper? Hmm…
To anyone reading who is interested in Twitter, I suggest that you check out Twittervision, or read a bit though my “with friends” Twitter page to really get a feel for how it all works, then, if you like, sign up and add me via my profile page. I just know there are other closeted geeks out there ;).
Say hi in the comments!
8 Comments
I feel the same way - I mean, my tweet was there with Obama and John Edwards! But not one new follower from it. And you and dossy were really prominently featured - I wonder what his feedback is.
I do think people just dont “get” twitter because its so hard to explain and it just doesnt make sense until you use it.
[Reply]
Hi!
Amusing myself via Twittervision, saw your tweet about a new blog post.
And what is this “newspaper” of which you write?
[Reply]
While I’m disappointed that I didn’t see any new visitors from the article, I’m honestly not surprised.
Still, it was a good article–I don’t think we were misrepresented or quoted out of context and Kelly did a good job of not hating on Twitter like so many other MSM journalists.
[Reply]
I liked the article….still not sure I’m sold on Twitter tho!
[Reply]
I like Twitter and Jaiku as a way to follow web celebs and as an announcement medium for online events.
Twittering a Ustream event is an excellent use of the technology.
I also recommend Twittervision as an introduction to the phenomenon
..Neil
[Reply]
I read the article through your link (though once upon a time the Star-Ledger was my daily paper). I understand Twitter better through the article, but I can’t say it really appeals to me. Probably because I’ve been through too many gizmos that have sucked time out of my day that I should have spent doing something else.
All that said, I figured you’d have hundreds of it through it!
[Reply]
Telling people about twitter always gets one of two reactions: 1) eyes glaze over in 3 seconds 2) eww that sounds gross, twitter, who thought of that name? or 3) what weirdos would use THAT? there’s nothing exciting about it. However, I still love it. Given those 3 responses, i think an article trying to explain twitter is just not going to get much airtime in a print newspaper.
i’m from jersey (moved out to los angeles 2 years ago) and am excited to find your blog from the article :>
[Reply]
Hi new commenters Radioactive Jam and Anjali. Thanks for coming by!
Neil, that’s exactly how I got started, following “web celebs” during SXSW. What hooked me was when they started adding me back. Plus for me, the “one liner” format works well, I don’t obsess over it like I do with my blog :).
Dossy, TJG, I thought Kelly did a great job, she didn’t take it all too seriously like most reporters do.
Lisa, BGM, I may drag you in yet, you know, if your lives slow down enough :). LP has joined up!
[Reply]