Bio not provided
I tried WP Engine for six months and wouldn't recommend them to anyone, no matter who they are using as a webhost today. My site crashed more with them — nay, specifically because of them and the actions they took — more in 6 months than it has in 6 years with all my other webhosts combined. In a word: Don't.
1 year, 5 months ago on How much traffic is your website really getting?
Follower counts do matter to publishers, whose business is "mass communicating" and "content distribution." The follower counts of those followers is not important, however.
1 year, 6 months ago on A Letter To Those Of You With 1,500 Twitter Followers Or Fewer
Did your Facebook ad get the room rented in Phoenix?
2 years, 7 months ago on Silos, Facebook Advertising, and Opportunity
I'm not sure promoted tweets work in Tweetdeck, which is the platform I use.
I loaded Twitter in a web browser this morning (the old school way) and saw a tweet from Kathy Ireland, whom I do not follow. I blocked her and reported her for spam, as I will be doing with all irrelevant promoted tweets.
2 years, 8 months ago on Is Twitter Spamming Users?
@tonia_ries Yep, I've seen one of those super small firms in my line of work too. They have maybe 5 employees and 1,000 followers on Twitter. All they did to get their account verified was pay the bare minimum for a few sponsored tweets. It's still a few thousand bucks.
If you hit my website and send me an email, I can send you a slide deck from Twitter that will provide some more details and context. I don't think it includes pricing though.
2 years, 8 months ago on Toyota Under Fire For #CamryEffect Twitter Spam Superbowl Promotion
Edward, I quoted you a few times in this 2,000 word examination of the subject:
Also, here's part 2, the companion piece to the above article:
2 years, 8 months ago on Can advertising really help Bank of America?
@tonia_ries@LucretiaPruitt Twitter has said Verified status is reserved for those facing a high likelihood of impersonation, meaning celebrities. This initially stemmed from a lawsuit involving LA Dodgers coach Tony La Russa who was pissed about a parody account.
Twitter also gives Verified status to select government agencies, like the CDC.
The only other way to get Verified status is to hand Twitter a wad of cash and become a sponsor/advertiser. There are some super huge brands on Twitter that aren't verified. There are also some super puny brands on Twitter that *have* been verified… but only because they paid money for it.
I've investigated Verified accounts thoroughly for two separate articles about the subject, and have even spoken to Twitter representatives a couple times. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me.
Article from 2009 (see poll results):
Article from 2011:
@LucretiaPruitt There is little- to no value in "Verified" status within the Twitter community. "Verified" only means Twitter thinks you're special — either one of their paying advertisers or a celebrity. Twitter does not listen to- nor care about any other users.
With every new social media tool, enthusiasts stress all the things the technology makes possible. "Look at all these cool things you can do!" But obsessing over features does not form a persuasive, strategic argument. Every time something new and shiny comes along, there are armies of pundits ready to label it a "complete and utter game changer." Why? Because they are in the business of hyping new stuff. Clients are partly to blame. They expect the media and their vendors to keep them abreast of all the latest and greatest. When was the last time a client asked a vendor if there was anything new they should be considering only to hear the vendor say, "Nope, you just need to keep doing more of what you've been doing because it works?"
At the end of the day, managers have to decide how to allocate their (very limited) resources. How many employees can they afford? What roles and responsibilities do these employees have? How much budget is available for each initiative/department? By the time a company has launched a Twitter account, created a Facebook page, embraced LinkedIn, launched its blog, plugged into Foursquare, uploaded its YouTube videos and god knows what else, they're at least one fulltime employee deep and probably on their way to 2 or 3. And for what? Can they track the incremental gains? No. Could they have probably generated a substantial return by applying those HR (and other resources) elsewhere? Almost certainly. It's as if social media consultants believe that their clients' time, staff and budgets are limitless. Where does it end? And don't try arguing that setting up and managing a Google+ presence "only takes a few minutes." All this social media stuff "only take a few minutes" that — by the end of the week — adds up to quite a few hours.
So how can companies discern the difference between an innovation they absolutely must embrace, those that might possibly be helpful, and those they can pass over (at least for the time being)? Spouting tangential statistics like "there are 700 million people on Facebook" and unsubstantiated opinions like "it's the future of the internet" are not the underpinnings of a strategy. Anecdotal facts and broad generalities do not help Manager X decide why they should pull Employee Y off Project Z so they can work on A, B and C in order to accomplish 1, 2 and 3.
The real trouble with social media strategies is that the objectives are reverse-engineered to make the case. Instead of looking at a company's objectives and asking, "Which tools are the ones most needed to reach our goals?" you hear social media experts try to convince clients that "fostering online engagement" is *THE* new objective — sales, revenues and other strategic goals be damned.
2 years, 11 months ago on “Google+: Should I Give a Shit?” — We Have A Bigger Problem