[...] Government Twitter etiquette: talk but don’t follow I’m biased because I’m quoted in the article, but Neil Williams asks an interesting question: Is it bad form for a corporate Twitterer (like a govt dept) to follow new people to gain followers? If it is - how can government and other corporates build their Twitter following without following people on Twitter itself? (tags: twitter ettiquette) [...]

[...] by ulrn2twtr on November 16, 2008 An interesting question addressed in Government Twitter etiquette: talk but don’t follow is how can a government agency interact with tweeters?It’s a good article and the author and [...]

I’ve never actually considered twitter in that way before - to be honest I’m still at the ‘deciding if theres any point’ in it stage (I’m leaning towards yes there is but needs good management side!).

Now you bring it up though yes I can definitely see why that would freak some people out - obviously not if you’re a consultant type (then you’d just be grateful presumably), but if out of the blue your local Council suddenly started following you that could be a bit weird.

When I saw your title ‘talk but don’t follow’ my thought was well whats unusual about that?! Not only from a Government perspective but I think in society we’re still largely set up that way - the higher up/more important you are the less you need to engage - not right of course but I think largely thats how people & organisations still behave.

So now I have thought about it I say no it shouldn’t be used as a marketing strategy, yes if people do follow Govt. departments they should definitely follow back - but they should only seek to use a tool like Twitter in the first place if they’re prepared to engage. If they just want to send out messages they should use a normal SMS service instead & market it in other ways.

You guys send out some really interesting tweets. As long as those tweets are *true* (honest etc) then what’s the problem? It seems sad that process has to get in the way.

@James - thanks for the feedback. I’ll pass it on to people back in the office.

@Steph - know what you mean, but I’m with Dominic: there’s room for personal and business use of all social software. It’s a pretty well established model now wouldn’t you say?

@Dominic - I started out from that position and was all for doing it, until I started asking other people what they thought. Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t feel at all invaded by a follow from *anyone*. But it’s starting to look like that’s a minority view, in which case doing so would probably be counter-productive.

I follow FCO, not just because of my ridiculous crush on DM, and I find it vaguely interesting. I know that it is not cool, or trendy, to say: but I just don’t like twitter. I have really tried, and I don’t see a corporate value. It may start off as something that is done by someone ‘interesting’ in the department, very soon they will be replaced by someone who either can’t be bothered and/or will delegate.

Therefore this is a very short-lived public sector love-in with twitter. I don’t see any corporate value in it, or longevity, and believe that the escalation of the opportunity cost will kill it in departments.

Fun for a bit, and yes we should have a good old paddle and play, but in six months time, I would be very surprised if anyone is bothering any more.

Prove me wrong am often wrong

Wondering what makes blogs so permanent and twitter ephemeral Emma, given your commitment to blogging? Thinking personal choice is all we’re discussing here. There isn’t any science to it…

@dominiccampbell (see what I did there?) Don’t get me wrong, I think blogs have a similarly short life in government circles, am struggling to see their benefit - and not sure that I have ever committed to departmental blogging?! All this stuff needs to settle, but as far as corporate public sector comms goes, I don’t see a longevity in this - for the mainstream stuff.

Consultation is different - tat I believe should incorporate all kinds of social technology.

But as you say, personal theory only.

I remember feeling weird when I received the notification that No 10 was following me on Twitter - it did feel Big Brothery. But I was one of their early followers, and I could understand that perhaps they wanted to get a feel of the conversation among their early adopters. So I agree with charmermark’s answer to your original question - if the organisation genuinely wants to follow me and will read my tweets, then fine (particularly if I’m already following them, but also fine if I’m not). If it’s just to get me to follow back then not.

To my mind, it’s very simple. Replace the words ‘is following you’ with ‘is listening to you’ - and tell me where the problem is.

But let’s not get carried away. Nobody believes Barack Obama was actually interested in what you had for breakfast, but so what? It’s a nice gesture, it’s better than not doing it, and there are functional benefits too. What the heck, just do it.

Further thoughts on this topic from a US blogger here.