Yet More Shit About Twitter February 10th, 2009
Does the world need another post about Is that a good enough reason to not write one? Well it probably is but I’ll do it anyway.
The whole world appears to have become obsessed with a medium of communication restricting every contribution to 140 characters just because Philip Schofield thinks it’s a good thing. That’s just weird. There is no other field of human endeavour where people would sit up and listen to Philip Schofield. If he suggested the Sudanese Government were perpetrating genocide in Darfur most right thinking people would seek a second opinion.
I imagine that when Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone and Even Williams first began to consider how to propel Twitter from the niche to the mainstream then Philip Schofield wasn’t at the top of their list. I doubt they had him anywhere on the list. I doubt they have a bloody clue who he is.
Twitter executive: “Who can we get to demonstrate that Twitter is an exciting and vibrant platform for engaging with celebrities?”
Twitter employee: “Philip Schofield?”
Twitter executive:”Who?”
Twitter employee: “He used to be a continuity announcer on Children’s TV in the 80’s and was friends with a gopher”
Twitter executive: “Please leave.”
The strange thing about it is that it’s actually worked. Through his admission on This Morning he goes on Twitter and…… talks about things, he’s triggered something in the minds of other celebrities. Looking at Schofield’s profile you are suddenly struck by one glaring fact. Over 50,000 other people give a toss about what he’s got to say. That’s slightly incredible.
Now I’m no celebrity but I’m sure if I were it would raise a question in my mind. If that many people care about Schofield then how many would I get? This seems to have prompted an unseemly surge of celebrities gasping to tell us what they’ve had for tea.
Jack Schofield (no relation, actually I have no idea if he is or not) has done a handy list of celebrities on Twitter. Stalking truly has never been so easy.
With a little bit of delving you can put a figure on how good a celebrity is. Brent Spinner (Data from Star Trek) has 17,312 followers. When you make a comparison with MC Hammer, who has 45,140 followers, it is immediately obvious that MC Hammer is 160% better. If you think about it, we all sort of knew that, but it’s nice to put a figure on it.
Twitter has become the currency of celebrity. It is only a matter of time before we someone from Eastenders top themselves because the public have rejected them through Twitter. I think that can only be a good thing.
It has also provided an insight into celebrity lifestyles. The immediate benefit of Twitter is that someone has the opportunity to communicate with hundreds/thousands of their “fans” without the barriers of PR or media censorship. The immediate problem with Twitter is, what if you’re boring? A rather bad example of this is Dave Gorman, when he’s on the telly, is a very funny man. On Twitter he comes across as a very very serious man. Now that’s not a bad thing, if you’re funny for a living then having to perform like a seal is probably grating to say the least.
Whereas Richard Bacon who is largely famous for Konnie Huq and cocaine (though probably not at the same time), has turned out to be very funny. I’m a little worried that he has removed freewill from his life and replaced it with Twitter but that is his choice. Worryingly Richard only has 11,547 followers. This makes him statistically more rubbish than Brent Spiner, my theory could be a bit flawed.
The most interesting thing about celebrity usage of Twitter is their inverse relationship with it. Most people sign up, search out some friends and then wait for someone to notice them. The inverse perspective is to sign up and then get bombarded by requests for information from people you’ve never met before. This makes the point that when we get the likes of Philip Schofield telling us how great Twitter is, they’re really telling us about something that will bear little or no resemblance to our experience. When it becomes represented in the mainstream as a celebrity stalking tool it loses some of its function and worth.
Tags: Celebrity, Twitter
Posted in Media, Misc | Comments (2)
February 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Had a look at Twitter for a while and just like FB became quickly bored of it and deleted.
Concluded it is more about vanity and feeding egos than it is anything useful. Oh except for the mental stalker(s) – a great new tool in their armory.
I’m off to look at myself in the mirror for a while. . .
Mister BC (is Slam diggy diggy diggy di ding da dang da dang)
May 9th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
The thought of cocaine and Konnie Huq has made me rather excitable.