How to lose followers on Twitter – a helpful guide for lawyers and legal journalists
Everyone should understand how Twitter works, whether they use it themselves or not
My Twitter account now has 33,000 followers and I genuinely have no idea why. This is not false modesty or a so-called ‘humble brag’. It is because there are many far better legal journalists and lawyers on Twitter, all of whom are worth following more than for my erratic tweets.
Accordingly, I cannot explain why I have so many followers. If I suddenly had half or double the number, I would not be able to explain that either. But what I can share is how it seems to have happened over time, and this may be useful to any other legal journalist or lawyer interested in using the Twitter social platform.
The first thing is to look not at how one gains followers but how one loses them. Unless your account is being followed because you are a celebrity or public figure, then the person who has just followed you really has no idea who you are. And people who follow easily also unfollow easily. Say something boring or uninformative, you will be unfollowed. Post two or more tweets and then you will be unfollowed just because you are clogging up their timeline. It may well be that thousands are following you, and this perhaps is nice; but on the way hundreds, if not thousands, will also unfollow you. On average, I get unfollowed by up to a dozen people every time I tweet.
So the first key is to not worry about being unfollowed; it usually is not personal, just evidence of a dynamic medium. At worst, it just means you said something interesting enough to be followed in the first place.
But what attracts followers? In my experience, it tends to be when people retweet you. This means that they have reposted your tweet to their follower list. The effect of this is that people who are not already following you will come across your existence and think you may well be worth a follow. But even here there is no way one can aim for this. Retweets are entirely in the gift of your followers. If they do not think you worth retweeting they will not retweet you, and nor should they.
And this takes you to one underlying merit of social media. So-called ‘social media strategies’ usually do not work. Other than at the margins, increasing a social media profile cannot be done by mere contrivance. Even those who acquire thousands of ‘bought’ followers are swiftly exposed and discredited. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, social media abhors phoniness. If your purpose in having a Twitter account is simply to increase followers then you are actually unlikely to do so.
My own approach to Twitter is mixed. It is a great means for sharing information, especially links, and viewpoints, and for instantly getting feedback. Sometimes the responses are boring or banal; but often there are those willing to share a fresh insight or engage in constructive criticism. On the other hand, there is a great deal of misinformation and sometimes sheer nastiness. But none of this is a special feature of Twitter; it is a feature of people generally.
In respect of the law, Twitter is a superb forum for pointing out errors in news reporting and for promoting generally the public understanding of law and our legal system. It is now becoming common for interesting trials to be live-tweeted and discussed, and for the mainstream media to then play catch-up.
The combination of live tweeting and legal blogging can mean that newspaper reports of the very same case add no or little value. For lawyers, Twitter can also be a rich source of information about clients and their environments. A lawyer who only looks at press cuttings may as well be looking at cave art. So even if a lawyer or legal journalist does not want to tweet, it is increasingly important that he or she understands how Twitter works.
David Allen Green, media correspondent of The Lawyer
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (26)
Penny Tristram | 10-Aug-2012 12:50 pm
I think it helps that you Tweet a lot, and that you are very generous in engaging with and promoting others. Also, your Tweets come across as warm, humorous and human, which is why I followed you.
Did you get a big spike in followers around the time of #twitterjoketrial? Often, being well-known outside Twitter will attract a lot of followers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PRUE | 10-Aug-2012 2:30 pm
DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE TO GET A TWITTER ACCOUNT NOW ....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Aug-2012 3:48 pm
Like other areas of life, popularity/notoriety on social media is self-propelling - the more you engage with your audience, the more they engage with you and each other. Probably the most important advice above is not to take un/following personally - people's motives are genuinely not worth analysis, and as long as one is personable, human and informative in one's tweets, a happy medium is to be found. (and in answer to penny's comment /question, I first encountered you in the context of Simon Singh but really took notice because of twitter joke (sorry if this is duplicated, I'm typing on my phone)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ciaran Goggins | 10-Aug-2012 4:19 pm
Or as in your case block those whom are either bettering you in an argument or when they point out an inaccuracy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim Johnson | 10-Aug-2012 5:20 pm
Green is an example of one of those new breed of people who treat numbers of followers on twitter as something akin to a badge of honour. He appears to leap onto every bandwagon going, including the recent pornography case at Kingston Crown Court in an effort to increase his following.
However he doesn't like criticism, even when justified. I know of several examples, including recently a senior lawyer, where he has blocked tweeters after being correctly challenged.
Sadly social media provides a platform for his ilk who seek to pontificate and self aggrandise.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Allen Green | 11-Aug-2012 11:07 am
Thank you for all the lovely comments!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Aug-2012 12:31 pm
Prue - yes. But first learn some basic online etiquette ie that writing in caps is the equivalent of shouting. Pipe down!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Walsh | 12-Aug-2012 9:49 am
I agree with Tim. Green is a self-publicist of some genius, and a classic "reinventer" (a strong Tory well into his 20s, it doesn't work out for him as a commercial lawyer, and Lo! He's suddenly a liberal lawyer offering opinions whenever it gets him attention). The Twitter joke trial was a fine example of this, a pure construct of Green, with a little help from Fry and Murray. No cause célèbre at all: Chambers pleaded guilty after a duff legal ruling by magistrates, and he was unlucky on first appeal to come before a particularly asinine circuit judge, sitting with two more lay justices. It goes to the High Court and is put right. At the heart of the case a very simple point with a very simple answer - was the tweet menacing? What exactly was Green's role in this, as solicitor? The appeal required no preparation at all and would have been entirely advicate driven. But look at the self-generated coverage and you would think Mr Green was the capes crusader.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Aug-2012 0:43 am
May I suggest a new law of the internet? Allen's Law - If the author of a piece states they have not committed a humble brag, then one must deduce their humble brag is compounded by an infinite degree
As for how to gather Twitter followers, a cynic may suggest becoming involved with a high-profile court case, even if one's direct legal experience is utterly irrelevant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Allen Green | 13-Aug-2012 11:27 am
@James Walsh
"The Twitter joke trial was a fine example of this, a pure construct of Green, with a little help from Fry and Murray."
It was more that it was of natural interest to tweeters and it was the first case of its kind to get to appeal.
"No cause célèbre at all: Chambers pleaded guilty after a duff legal ruling by magistrates..."
Incorrect. There was no "legal lruling by magistrates". Paul pleaded guilty before a single district judge who then allowed him to vacate the plea.
"...and he was unlucky on first appeal to come before a particularly asinine circuit judge, sitting with two more lay justices."
The Crown Court appeal was the first time lay magistrates were involved.
"It goes to the High Court and is put right."
At the first High Court hearing the judges were split 1:1. Exceptionally, and only for second time this century, the court had to reconvene with three judges. Not very straightforward.
"At the heart of the case a very simple point with a very simple answer - was the tweet menacing?"
With benefit of hindsight, yes. But until High Court decision, it was not clear what, if any, basis an appeal may be suceessful on.
"What exactly was Green's role in this, as solicitor? The appeal required no preparation at all and would have been entirely advicate [sic] driven."
Indeed, I was part of a team and we worked well together.
"But look at the self-generated coverage and you would think Mr Green was the capes [sic] crusader."
A little harsh? You will see that John Cooper did most of the press and TV coverage on verdict, not me. For a supposed "self-publicist", I am dreadful with cameras and microphones!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment