They’re engaged in the Twitter equivalent of a fishing expedition, hoping I’ll follow back without thinking twice. No, sorry. I won’t. Chances are, I’m going to block you before I follow you.

Harsh? Maybe, but it’s time for a reality check. If your approach to Twitter is to follow as many people as possible, hoping they’ll follow you back, you’re doing it wrong. What is the point of having a 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or even a million followers if they’re not listening? You don’t get a prize for having large numbers of followers.

The average lifespan of a tweet is five minutes and surely shrinking. That’s not a whole lot of time when it comes to sending a marketing message. But it gets worse. You only make an impact if your message is actually read. Go back, look at the people who “follow” you. How many of them are a) engaged in Twitter to the point where they’re reading every word, b) following so many people, all inbound messages are a blur, or c) still using Twitter after their initial rush of excitement?

(Hint: most of the people who auto-follow everyone who follows them aren’t reading 99.99% of their inbound messages. Savvy folk use applications that allow them to “group” followers so they only see people they want to see. Less savvy users are overwhelmed by volume and ignore it all. Oh and it seems the only people who believe this approach works are “marketing experts” who sell this stuff to wanna-be marketers. It’s a self-perpetuating circle.)

If you’re not using Twitter to engage in conversation (conversation, by the way, is not pushing yourself and product non-stop), why are you there? The people who have adopted Twitter, who love it, who use it regularly are also the people who automatically block marketers, spammers, and all-around annoying people. They simply do not have patience for people who think it’s okay to ruin the experience…yeah, talking to you, marketer, who @ messages me with spam. You are blocked so fast!

And yes, being blocked is bad. Enough people do it to you, and it alerts the Twitter police. They hate spam as much as the rest of us. They have the power to stop you.

In other words, sure you have followers, but do they care? Which makes me ask: why are you so intent on quantity over quality?

So how does this happen? To answer that question, we’ve put together a guide detailing how different members of the publishing community use Twitter to engage and share. These case studies, with links to people we follow because they are so good at communication!, will help you see how you can use Twitter for yourself. As you’ll see from these examples, the key thing to remember about Twitter is it’s all about having fun with the community.

As always, if you have any questions or comments, we’re here to talk!

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

You can learn more about twitter at Tweet Camp, a new online workshop from Booksquare University.

In response to her own desire to connect with others in the book industry, Jennifer created the Directory of Book Trade People on Twitter. Today, this veritable who’s who of the publishing Twitterati is the go-to resource for publishing professionals. She created a separate author directory, helping hundreds of authors take advantage of the power of Twitter to connect with their readers, build their personal brand, and keep current with industry news.

Jennifer’s directory projects and her always-relevant and interesting Twitter stream lead me to ask her about the business utility of Twitter. In this short interview, she explains how she personally uses Twitter and how Twitter is transforming the way the publishing industry interacts.

Learn more about Twitter at Tweet Camp, a new online workshop from Booksquare University.

Interview:

Links:

• @jennifertribe on Twitter
• Directory of Book Trade People on Twitter
• Directory of Authors on Twitter
• Tweet Camp at Bookquare University

General consensus: someone is doing it all wrong!

While it’s critical that businesses — including authors and publishers — find a way to incorporate Twitter in their social strategy, faking it in a world where authenticity is prized is the wrong approach. The purpose of Twitter is to build community via conversation. The users of Twitter embrace the fact that it breaks down traditional social walls.

When I join someone’s community on Twitter, either by following them or via @ replies or other means, I expect that the thoughts and opinions expressed belong to that person. It is that personal touch that makes me want to buy a book, attend an event, or help spread the word. In return, I expect authenticity. If you can’t find it within yourself to compose the occasional 140-character message, then you need to rethink your Twitter strategy.

Those who ghost tweet are often trying to sell, sell, sell — a turn-off for followers, or creating a false impression. These are not social activities.

Ghost tweeting is different than corporate tweeting. Businesses often delegate the job of tweeting to one or a few employees. Comcast has salvaged its online reputation through the efforts of its in-house Tweeter, Frank Eliason. Instead of corporate mumbo jumbo, people who mention (or complain) about Comcast on Twitter receive a response from a real person who works to solve their problems.

(Other businesses could learn a lot from this approach. Contrast this approach with Best Buy. The company is on Twitter, but it doesn’t look like anyone is doing brand monitoring. Seemingly ignoring customers suggests that Best Buy doesn’t get the social part of social media. In this instance, their presence on Twitter is counter-productive.)

There are times when a ghost is appropriate. For example, if you’re tweeting as a character, obviously there is a puppetmaster pulling the strings. Pretend people can’t type. The key to tweeting as a character (or group of characters) is remaining in character. Breaking the code destroys the experience. One friend commented (verbally!) that he was really into the Mad Men tweeters* until they started begging for votes in a real-world contest.

The suspension of belief was destroyed. He unfollowed all of them.

It it better to sit out the Twitter experience than to do it in a way that might alienate the audience you’re trying to reach!

* – An unauthorized group of fans who decided to tweet as the characters from the television show. Some tension arose between the group and AMC.

Many people join Twitter based on the hype, yet aren’t sure what to do next. The determined stick it out and learn through trial and error. Most people, however, find some basic guidance in the world of Twitter to be very welcome.

That’s one reason we’re launching Tweet Camp, the first of a series of social media trainings from Booksquare University (doors open in June!). Twitter, like most social networks, is deceptively simple. It seems like it’s a no-brainer, yet leaping into what seems like an endless stream of consciousness requires a bit more preparation, some planning, some thought (hey, the same thing goes for Facebook, as well…when we launch our Facebook class, you’ll learn how easy it is to do it all wrong!).

If you’ve already joined Twitter and find yourself daunted or even slightly confused, let us offer a small piece of advice: just sit back and listen. If you’ve started out following a large number of people or just a few, take your time and read the Twitterstream. Get a sense of how conversation flows. What tweets sound like in your mind. The various conventions used to adhere to the 140 character limit.

Though the chatter on Twitter is constant and entertaining, the most beneficial aspects of the service come from the listening. So take your time and just watch the stream flow by, just listen to what’s being said. And then, when you’re ready, wade in and start talking!

* – It should be noted that the Nielsen measurements being cited only factor usage of the main Twitter website. They do not count the plethora of third party applications, including mobile applications, being used by the Twitterati. Given the reach and ubiquity (and full functionality) of these apps, it’s likely the true retention rate is much higher.

First, the retweet (abbreviated RT) is not part of the official Twitter protocol. It is a social convention developed by Twitter users, and it’s become such an important part of the culture that most third party applications include buttons/controls to make it easy to retweet. At its most basic, retweeting is the simple act of forwarding someone else’s tweet, verbatim and with attribution, to your follower list.

Example:

RT: @booksquare: is it wrong that my kitten is a caffeine addict? (sent to her followers by JenSchaller)

If you’re going through the Twitter website, the act of retweeting involves copying and pasting the comment into the text box and prepending “RT” or “Retweet” (more characters for the latter) and sending it to the world. Simple as can be, and even more simple if you use an application like Twhirl, which makes this happen with the click of a button.

So why do people retweet? First, of course, to pass on interesting comments from people they follow. Second (and don’t discount this!), it’s easier than composting your own 140 character tweet. Third — and I do this a lot — to confer status and draw attention to the people I follow in hopes that my followers will find them as fantastic as I do. Retweeting links is part of my mix, and it gives credit to the person who wrote the post or found the cool link.

This credit is social capital. In the Twitter world, sharing is part of the social contract, and retweeting is a great way to share. So what can possibly be controversial about that?

Well, I don’t think that the people who oppose retweeting object to the practice in principle — it’s more of an objection to information overload. Even those with a relatively short following lists can quickly become overcome on high volume news days. And I’ll be frank: there’s nothing more annoying that fifteen, twenty, more retweets of the same information (one friend laughed because something she’d said was retweeted so much, it came back around to her, original attribution completely lost).

I have established a rule for myself when it comes to retweets: if the original post comes from someone I know is followed by many of the same people who follow me (and you’ll know, trust me!), then I don’t retweet. Unless it’s big news that I want to make sure gets to as many of my followers as possible.

Since retweeting information is easy (oh so easy), I force myself to exercise restraint. If it’s a story I feel I must add my two cents to, then I will add my own spin to the story, compose a new tweet, add the link (generally it’s a link in this situation), and post with a via attribution (example: via @booksquare).

Yeah, I am big on giving credit where credit is due because it generates good will, and I’d appreciate the same treatment if it’s something I sent out into the world. Think of attribution as a form of Twitter karma: you get what you give.

Finally, Dave Winer, a pioneer of social media, posted a piece called “Retweet is Stupid” that raised some hackles. For my money, most of the reaction was to the post’s title, not the message. Winer wasn’t objecting to the act of retweeting, he was commenting upon the fact that there is no inherent metadata in the action. Winer compared the act of retweeting to “liking” something or voting an item up or down. These latter acts create a system of popularity when it comes to tweets, and, to be honest, that sort of status can be seductive.