Was this the stupidest Tweet EVER? (probably)

The last week or so, I've been meaning to post something about those people who keep doing the Twitter equivalent of pushing a flyer in my face by incessantly promoting their books/seminars etc. You know the ones where you want to reply: "yes, I saw that message the first 20 times you posted it, thanks". But you don't, because, well, you're a coward and you want an easy life.

But sometimes you see something SO bad, SO poorly executed, you can't help yourself. Friends, this is that moment:

Around lunchtime today, I received an @ message on Twitter from someone called Ellen Brandt, saying "I Don't Like What You Wrote. You Should be Stabbed With Stiletto Heels, Have Vultures Eat Your Liver".

Not so unusual for a journo to get that sort of thing - but the comment was followed by a tiny.cc link. Checking it out, it was a link to a blog post, which turns out to be a sort of long and kinda dull ‘humorous’ article about people attacking other people online. It's also the only post on the blog, which is sort of weird.

The article seems to be the work of Dr Ellen Brandt, an entrepreneur and Ivy League educated historian who has written 3,000 magazine articles. Cripes. Turns out she’d posted the same @ Tweet to hundreds of people today, most of whom didn’t really get the joke and thought they were being insulted – cue lots of conversations where Ellen accuses them of having no sense of humour, of not being sophisticated enough to understand her humour, and – best of all – not understanding how the Internet works.

Sending an insulting Tweet with a blind link to your own blog is a GREAT idea, Ellen says, because:

Creative marketing is not "spam." We in Little Media must be creative to compete with Big Media. Interactivity is what makes Internet media different from print media.

Now I’m willing to bet that Ellen’s Twitter feed, blog post and business website (she writes up the life stories of 'ordinary' Americans) got thousands of hits out of that stunt today. Yay, right?

Except it’s still the most stupid Tweet I’ve ever seen. By a long way.

Because at least 50% of people will instantly dismiss Ellen as a spammer and block her from their accounts. All those connections, all those relationships, are now dead. Another significant proportion will have followed through the link, realised it was a bit of shameless self-promotion, and blocked Ellen from their accounts. Or will just ignore her the next time she gets in touch.

And an unfortunate few, who asked Ellen not to send them that sort of thing - well, they got insulted for their trouble. I particularly liked the woman who said she'd reported Ellen as a spammer and was told: "Sweetums. It is OVER. Do not talk to me again."

Way. To. Go. 

I think the lesson we can learn from this is:

• If it looks like a plug, sounds like a plug and clicks like a plug, it's a plug. Don't try and dress it up.
• Don't post links without telling people what they are.
• Don't assume people will get your sense of humour, especially when wishing them physical injury

And most important of all:

• If someone objects to your plug, don't call them stupid, unsophisticated or "sweetums" and ESPECIALLY don't do it online where it's indexed by Google and available for anyone to see for all time.

Comments

[dr. ellen brandt]

Your "commentary" shows why virtually everyone who's read this article likes it.

The idea that on the Internet, unlike anywhere else, one can attack complete strangers for no reason whatsoever and just get away with it may be attractive to some venomous souls, but the rest of us are getting very sick of it.

As for what one can and cannot do on Twitter: If there were groups there, so one could read full bios and make slower contacts, that would be wonderful.

As it is set up now, it is clearly hit and miss. One tries to judge one's proper "audience" from the kinds of commentary they're making. But it is not that easy.

For instance, in your case, I thought you might be someone with a sense of humor. How sorry I am to have been mistaken.

Ellen

[dr. ellen brandt]

Sally,

If I saw an E-mail for you, I would send you a longer letter, and we could have this debate in private, instead of your insulting someone you don't know on-line.

So here is mine, so you can write to me: lifestories@optonline.net

First off, I have been on Twitter exactly ten days. I am used to Linked In, where one gets detailed bios of people and has a better idea of whom one can approach. I have a large, wonderful, and loyal network there.

Twitter gives one no instructions on how to build your following, nor on what is and is not acceptable, in terms of broadcasting one's new publications.

My blog is brand-new.

But I'd be happy to give you a link to examples of my print production.

I have been working in another field the past decade and am excited to be returning to what I expect will be very heavy-volume journalism again.

I was the long-time business editor of a major women's magazine and have published over 3,000 magazine articles.

I covered both extremely serious material for dozens of different "trades" and lighter material for women's mags and general interest magazines. And I used to be a heavy contributor to the tabloids, which far from being ashamed of, I liked very much.

I have never done PR, like you do, although early in my career I was an investor relations manager and a reional vice president of the National Investor Relations Institute.

I have three Ivy League degrees, and I used to be a college professor.

Lifestories is a little videotaping business in which I specialize in doing autobiographies of the extreme elderly. It has been a fairly unimportant waystation for me, and if my publications career starts booming again, which I fully expect it to do, I will probably not take video assignments any longer.

Why don't have the courtesy and take the time to read some of my print articles and - if you like - start up a correspondence with me, before proceeding with a "hatchet job" campaign based on literally NO knowledge of my background or my philosophy of Internet media.

By the way, I have just launched a new group at Linked In called Media Revolution, where we will discuss some of the issues your blog raises.

My attitude - and it is a philosophical one - even a political one - is that if the domination of traditional media gatekeepers is at long last being challenged on the internet now, it is a superb time for we in Little Media to push the boundaries as hard as we can and attempt to become our own gatekeepers in a new world where soon, Anything Goes may become our slogan of both independence and profitability.

We probably have a lot in common, and if you took the time to know me and talk with me, I am sure we could be friends.

Ellen

[David Child]

I think what we may have here is a shining example of why the written word (especially online and on Twitter) has the power to create confusion, upset and anger on all sides.

Having read around this I understand both points of view (and yes that fence is hurting my ass before you ask) but it goes to show that there can never be hard and fast rules when trying to create networks online. Each of us like to be approached in different ways - and get humour in many different ways as well.

Building connections online is for me about trying to create personal relationships - I unfollow people as frequently as I follow new ones because what they say either offends, bores or otherwise doesn't interest me. What I create therefore on Twitter is a network of people who share/contradict my opinions but otherwise engage me (or in the recent case of Perez make me laugh out loud).

I think it's fair to say if you contact a lot of people with a fairly provocative opening line you're going to excite some and turn others off. Six years in PR has proven at least that much to me.

Sally, well done for voicing your opinions. Ellen, well done for voicing yours too.

And whoop for online debates. Now, it's hot and sunny outside so I'm off to enjoy it - and connect with some Twitter friends offline!

[Sally]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for commenting first of all. Just a couple of points I'd like to respond to, if I may.

First, you say you tried to judge my interest before sending me an @ message, and you are now amazed and hurt I wasn’t in on the joke. Really? Because you spammed me on an account I maintain for a client, who offers preschool activity classes. Doesn’t scream ‘relevance’ to me.

Anyway, I actually agree with the central idea of your article. We're not fans of trolls round these parts - but I thought the article was a bit academic for my personal taste, is all.

But this blog post wasn’t titled “stupidest article ever” or even “stupidest person ever”. I’m not criticising your article, your experience, your qualifications or your education – as I said, they certainly seem extensive.

I’m not even criticising the fact you used Twitter to spam people – there are bigger things in life to worry about, really.

If you look at what I am criticising, I think you have to agree, it’s fair comment:

First, you plugged without saying it was a plug. In any media, not just Twitter, a lack of transparency is a no-no (Wal-mart, anyone?)

Second, you posted an insult. Yes, if someone clicked through they’d see it was a headline, but how were they to know? Particularly because most of them had no idea of who you are! Think about it – if you received something in the mail saying “you’re an asshole” with a box to open, would you open the box? If someone rang your phone and said “I hate you, please hold” would you hold?

Sure, those are easy mistakes to make and Lord knows, we’ve all been there.

But what made this whole thing horrifyingly bad and made me read the screen through my fingers is that when people told you (perfectly validly) that you were spamming, or that they felt insulted or threatened by your message, you INSULTED them.

You accused people of having no sense of humour, you threatened to report people to Twitter, you called someone “sweetums” and told them not to talk to you for goodness’ sake!

David’s being much nicer than me and sitting on the fence (typical PR), but he knows as well as I do that’s the kind of thing that could lose a PR their client and their job.

You’ve been involved in online communities for a long time, you say, and you're working in publishing so surely you know you just CAN’T insult a reader who doesn’t like something you say online.

Even if you think they’re a raving idiot without the necessary brain power to understand your beautiful copy, you say something like “Gosh, that’s a really interesting perspective, thanks for taking the time to contact us”, don’t you? (to anyone I've ever said this to, I meant it. Honest.)

If I complain at Gap and the cashier tells me I’m an idiot for complaining and clearly don’t understand the sophisticated fashion the store offers, why on earth would I shop there again? I wouldn’t. Doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour, does it?

I hope you see my point. It's not about what you're writing or your experience or anything like that - it's about respecting the audience in any media (social or otherwise, big or little) and admitting when you've got things a bit wrong.

[dr. ellen brandt]

Sally,

First of all, on the "why you," it's difficult when you first come on Twitter without any Groups to screen by alma mater or sorority or fields of interest or professional groupings.

So since my preferred audience is well-educated, sophisticated, and interested in media and humor, I've been using keyword searches like satire and irony and intellectual and . . . it's experimental and sorta fun.

So probably, you used one of those key words, I read the full Tweet, it sounded interesting, your attached bio sounded interesting - so I chose you. Nothing calculated or momentous about it!

On the title of the blog being perceived as a threat: Do you know anyone anywhere ever who has actually stabbed an enemy with a stiletto heel and then sicced his or her pet vulture on 'em??? If so, I wanna write about them! But really . . .

Third, on the girl I called "Sweetums." First, "sweetums" is a reference to a popular American comic book strip called 'Blondie,' which anyone over 40 in the US would understand, but maybe this young lady was not American and almost certainly not over 40, so I should have gauged my audience better.

But as for the customer complaint business, she had written me a very nasty Tweet - I think three of them, actually! - in which she said she was so enraged at being sent my headline, she was complaining to Twitter Customer Service about my being a mass murderer or Ninja assassin or something.

So naturally, I wrote to Twitter Customer Service to protect myself from HER complaint. Wouldn't you?

It's ironic that this brouhaha would ensue over a blog in which the main topic is people being mean to total strangers, because they don't like something said total stranger WROTE.

You should have contacted me, at least on Twitter, and spoken or corresponded with me before raking me over the coals.

Perhaps I should have done the same with the irate young lady.

I would like this to end on a cordial note. And I hope you will write some sort of follow-up to your blog which is far less strident towards me.

And please do write to me, so I can give you a link to some of my print articles. I would at least like you to acknowledge that I am a very good writer.

[Sally]

Yeah, having looked into this a bit, I’m going to have to change my opinion on this somewhat. You know I said I thought the Tweet was stupid, but not you? Changed my mind.

You’ve posted this message repeatedly for the last week or so, despite more than 200 people responding to tell you it was a) offensive b) spam and c) irrelevant to them. You responded in the same way to many of these posters, although I note with interest many of your Tweets have been deleted so that only one side of the conversation remains.

So you can’t pass this off as the mistake of a Twitter novice who didn’t know any better but someone who has deliberately adopted a strategy of using offensive and threatening language online in full knowledge that a significant proportion of the audience is going to respond by blocking you.

I’m not sure what it is you're looking to achieve with this particular campaign, but if it's anything to do with building long-term credibility or relationships? I think you've blown it. It’s a DUMB strategy, it really is.

Here’s just a tiny sample of the responses from the last week:

@VenerAbility weirdo

@VenerAbility Using the word "stabbed" is beyond satire, It's reckless

@VenerAbility there's a way to market your own articles and it isn't by @replies

I've learned a lot from many people of all ages. I have nothing to learn from @VenerAbility. She's STILL spamming!

@VenerAbility Blocked you, you piece of sh%^!

@JustinKownacki Holy fuck. @VenerAbility wins the award for most irritating spam-use of Twitter (today, at least). (lol)

@VenerAbility was there a time in your life when you were sane?

@VenerAbility You can bet I'm not following you. 'nuff said.

@VenerAbility ...Why are you spamming me?

Was anyone else an unwitting test subject for @VenerAbility.I guess she figures Spam for the sake of research isn't Spam. Not a happy lab rat

@VenerAbility welcome to my blocked list. =)

Aww @VenerAbility doesn't like what I wrote and threatened me, along with many others, with violence. Real original, c*nt, and hypocritical.

FTR @VenerAbility, adding your degree to your username in blogs is as pretentious as those who put it on their license plates.

@VenerAbility Are you doing a massive #twitter blast??

[dr. ellen brandt]

It's the same little clique saying the same things over and over, and I didn't see the first one until Sunday.

I have been very cordial to you, Sally. If you can't be cordial back, that is your decision.

[Wordsmith_for_Hire]

Barking. If you're so used to t'interwebz but unfamiliar with Twitter surely the first thing you should do is google for advice on Twitter etiquette. What a twanker...

[SteveR]

Ellen

I'm really confused. You accuse Sally of a hatchet job because she has said she thinks your unsolicited message was stupid.

Note that I used the word unsolicited there. It's important.

If you send someone something they never asked for, you don't really have the right to complain if they don't like what you sent.

That's doubly true if you've sent that unsolicited message based on nothing more rigorous than a quick Twitter keyword search for "humour" and "satire". Why should we read your published articles before having an opinion on what you do? That's hardly a courtesy you've extended to the recipients of your threatening Tweet, is it?

As a self-professed expert in Internet communications, it's staggering you could misjudge something so badly.

[Bertan Budak]

I'm sorry Ellen, but I agree with Sally.

You're totally wrong and have your head so far up in the clouds that you're not even taking note of what Sally is trying to say to you. You @ messaged this tweet to my girlfriend (another hack) the other day, and I must say I was not impressed. She didn't find it amusing either.

Additionally, three Ivy league degrees. Amazing. However, don't think just because you're a "well-educated" individual that people should show you respect and understand your ridiculous PR strategies. If you've come out of a reputable higher education institute and make such elementary mistakes as this, then it really does make me question the education system in the States.

Thanks,
Bertan

[Anne]

"Twitter gives one no instructions on how to build your following, nor on what is and is not acceptable, in terms of broadcasting one's new publications."

My telephone didn't come with such instructions, either. Nor did my email account.

[Directingart]

Don't mention her name next time. Your helping her prove he point.

[Sally]

I disagree.

If you read the article Ellen wrote, she states that she has no problem with people who disagree with things she writes when they have a specific, reasoned objection - which I do. I made a list and everything.

My only personal comment was that to claim you'd done something out of inexperience and lack of knowledge - and then to continue even when more than 200 people have told you that it's offensive - is pretty dumb. And I don't think that's trolling. It's just fair comment.

[Jim]

Ellen, you're not funny. The only people who think you are funny are not funny themselves. Therefore, if you are not funny, and the people who think you are are not funny as well, then you (and they) are boring. Have fun with your boring people.

[brit]

Sally, so glad you stand up!

[Long Island Girl]

She's offensive and unfortunately is trying to make her fortune off the elderly. They call it something besides business in my world...it's called preying.