Twitter Auto-DMs are Pure Evil

[Dana_W]

Okay, so I follow a few hundred new people on Twitter every day, which is part of the reason that I have built up a huge Twitter following.

And what this means is...every day I get DOZENS of pointless auto-DMs in my Twitter mailbox, thanking me for following and offering me a free report or a free video.

Let me tell you - offering me your free report does NOT make me like you more. There's so much free information out there these days that giving away a free report is basically meaningless unless it's coming from someone like Marlon Sanders or Willie Crawford or John Reese or Big Mike or Mike Filsaime, who have already proven that they know what they're talking about.

It's really slow and tedious to erase DMs on Twitter so I don't usually bother. So now I have almost 5000 DMs in my mailbox, and furthermore....buried among those dozens of DMs that I get every day...are usually several DMs from people inquiring about my press release services or just wanting to ask me a question. So I HAVE to scan all of those dozens of spam DMs to make sure I'm not missing any.

My advice - don't waste your time with auto DMs. If you want to communicate with anyone, take the time to send them a real live message addressed to them; it's a million times more powerful then an automated message.

[JRG]

lol, the auto dm is a big debate on Twitter these days. I use to actually type a dm for every new follower that just said "thanks for the follow" and everyone thought it was an auto dm but I was actually writing it! So now I do not send a dm at all. I actually try to send an @reply to each new follower but as an actualy response to something they have tweeted recently. Takes a lot more time but it engages them immediatly.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Dana, there's kind of a mixed and conflicting message here.

You say that a DM giving a free report is worthless unless it's coming from
one of those names you mentioned above. Okay, fair enough.

So then are you saying it's okay for successful people to use auto DMs?

If so, who decides what's successful?

I'm no Willie Crawford or Marlon Sanders, but I'm certainly successful.

Shouldn't I offer people a free report?

That's the problem when you deal with absolutes like this, not to mention
that just because you personally don't like auto DMs doesn't mean that
everybody else feels this way.

Personally, they don't bother me. I just look in my email box for the ones
from people I know who probably have something important to say and
read those...ignoring the rest.

I understand your frustration with having so many followers that you can't
weed through all that crap, but to tell somebody, "You're not good enough
to send me an auto DM", I don't know. To me, that's just being a little bit
of an elitist and a snob.

Sorry, but I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.

Nothing personal.

[yourreviewer]

Another reason why marketers are widely hated by everyone. Any system that is created for a genuine social interaction is invariably abused and filled with their crap tactics.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by yourreviewer

Another reason why marketers are widely hated by everyone. Any system that is created for a genuine social interaction is invariably abused and filled with their crap tactics.

Exactly. Marketers fill up every available space with their loud, obnoxious spam. I don't even look in my mailbox on Twitter. It's futile. Anyone actually sending me a real one ... it doesn't get read either because I'm not going to take the time to try to weed through all the muck.

[ken_p]

i do understand that its pretty annoying. and this is not the first time i've encountered someone complaining about auto DMs, so i am wondering, why more and more people are using it, and the result is more and more people are getting annoyed. Lol

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by Dana_W

There's so much free information out there these days that giving away a free report is basically meaningless unless it's coming from someone like Marlon Sanders or Willie Crawford or John Reese or Big Mike or Mike Filsaime, who have already proven that they know what they're talking about.

That your personal opinion and not based on fact. The make money online market is not limited to the Warrior Forum or to people who know who Willie, John, or Filsaime are.

Free reports still work as well as they always have. It helps to be well known but the content of the free report is more important.

Originally Posted by Dana_W

My advice - don't waste your time with auto DMs. If you want to communicate with anyone, take the time to send them a real live message addressed to them; it's a million times more powerful then an automated message.

Agreed, good point.

[mathiaslebesby]

I created a Twitter account about a month ago, and startet following 1000 people the first day. I now have a little more then 1000 followers, but I don't really see the benefit.
Sometimes I post a link there and maybe I get three of four clicks but that's about it.

I prefer Facebook... There you can actually get to know people. I have 2700 friends there so obviously I don't "know" all of them, but I've gotten to know at least some people.

[ken_p]

Originally Posted by mathiaslebesby

I created a Twitter account about a month ago, and startet following 1000 people the first day. I now have a little more then 1000 followers, but I don't really see the benefit.
Sometimes I post a link there and maybe I get three of four clicks but that's about it.

I prefer Facebook... There you can actually get to know people. I have 2700 friends there so obviously I don't "know" all of them, but I've gotten to know at least some people.

I prefer facebook too. Now, i think twitter has become a marketing tool, instead of a social network, that i thought of first.

[TheAngelGuy]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

That your personal opinion and not based on fact. The make money online market is not limited to the Warrior Forum or to people who know who Willie, John, or Filsaime are.

No, it's not her personal opinion and and it's got nothing to do with facts or not. It's based on what the experience does for her, and obviously multiple others having the same thing happen.

It's really easy to get cerebral with things that others experience as difficulties and not recognize that there IS actual difficulty going on, something that could be profited from if someone were to come up with a solution.

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

Free reports still work as well as they always have.

Ron, try to see that she's not talking about the content itself, but more the methodolgy that didn't work. If I didn't know you, and you came up to me door and offered me a free report to come inside for a couple of minutes, I'd probably call the cops. If Donald Trump did it, I'd offer him dinner.

Nothing personal towards you in that scenario, but don't forget that marketing is always about perception, and that there's more than just the product involved in a purchasing decision. People always have a tacit relationship with the creator, author, or company providing it, and if the marketer doesn't realize that and work that angle, too, a lot of people like Dana, myself, and others, aren't going to even WANT to listen, no matter how good the material is.

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

It helps to be well known but the content of the free report is more important.

Sure, content is important, but if someone can't get me to read it in the first place, then it's really their loss. "Content is king" only AFTER you've earned the right to give the person the content in the first place.

It's almost the difference between Coke and generically-branded soda. Same "content", right? But lots of people don't buy it simply because that personal trust factor hasn't been established yet or if they don't know who or where it's coming from.

Not wanting to argue about this or make anyone right or wrong, just to point out additional factors, and that the most successful marketers use every additional factor to their advantage. Unsuccessful ones have their content ending up in Dana's (and lots of others) recycle bin. I'd love for it to be as cut and dry as "he who has the best content wins" but reality doesn't always play by nice, clear rules of what we want.

I think everyone, at one time, has created great content, and yet sold nothing. Then when they added the relationship factor, things started producing more positive results.

The IM'ers who are going to take something away from this thread are the ones who care about the experience of the end user.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Dana_W

My advice - don't waste your time with auto DMs. If you want to communicate with anyone, take the time to send them a real live message addressed to them; it's a million times more powerful then an automated message.

Agreed.

No doubt auto-DMs are also the reason some people (ahem) don't reply to the real DMs I send them. Auto-DMs are really the scourge of Twitter. They interfere with actual messaging.

After all, the point of social networking is the social aspect of it. Some people seem to think that social networking is all about "Have your robot talk to my robot."

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I understand your frustration with having so many followers that you can't
weed through all that crap, but to tell somebody, "You're not good enough
to send me an auto DM", I don't know. To me, that's just being a little bit
of an elitist and a snob.

I don't like spammers sending junk to my eMailboxes either. I don't think anyone is "good enough" to send me spam. Does that make me an elitist?

Thankfully, many of the third-party Twitter services are dropping auto-DM options. And, with others such as Tweetlater, you can opt-out so you don't even see the junk anymore.

Here's a sampling of my current DM stream:

1 Personal Msg
2 Personal Msg
3 Auto-DM junk
4 Auto-DM junk
5 Auto-DM junk
6 Auto-DM junk
7 Personal Msg
8 Personal Msg
9 Auto-DM junk
10 Auto-DM junk
11 Auto-DM junk
12 Auto-DM junk
13 Auto-DM junk
14 Auto-DM junk
15 Auto-DM junk
16 Personal Msg
17 Personal Msg
18 Personal Msg
19 Personal Msg
20 Personal Msg

Before some of the third-parties dropped auto-DMs and before I found out I could opt-out from Tweetlater, it was much worse than that. Those auto-DMs interfere with real direct messaging, that is, they interfere with communications from real people. People don't sign up with social networks to communicate with bots.

Here's the thing... If I followed someone because their tweets interested me, odds are that I've checked out their website link. That's the place to offer your free report. An auto-DM, therefore, just wastes my time and clutters my DM stream, and makes it that much harder to spot a real DM from a real person. So, what your auto-DM really says is that you don't value me or my time. Perhaps it is also a sign that your tweets do not offer enough value to entice people to check out your site. Otherwise, you would not need to spam them--I mean--auto-DM them to try to get them to visit your site.

Originally Posted by mathiaslebesby

I created a Twitter account about a month ago, and startet following 1000 people the first day. I now have a little more then 1000 followers, but I don't really see the benefit.
Sometimes I post a link there and maybe I get three of four clicks but that's about it.

You need targeted followers. And then you need to tweet links of interest to them. Sometimes, I might tweet a link and only get 3 or 4 views from Twitter. Other times, I can tweet a link and get hundreds. The more worthwhile the link, the more likely it will get retweeted too, which brings in even more views.

I prefer Facebook... There you can actually get to know people. I have 2700 friends there so obviously I don't "know" all of them, but I've gotten to know at least some people.

I don't have a problem getting to know people on Twitter. Facebook just strikes me as a bloated mess. I find Twitter to be much easier for social networking.

[Dana_W]

To clarify: I'm not actually thrilled to get an auto-DM from ANYONE, famous or not. The issue of giving away free reports and the issue of sending auto-DMs are sort of two separate topics, I guess, except for this -

On Twitter, it's common to receive DOZENS of auto-DMs offering to give away a free report. If you go to someone's website and they offer to give away a free report...that's a lot more powerful.

If you look at 30, 40, 50 Dms and each one wants you to download a free report...that's just a massive time-suck.

So in my opinion, offering a free report to people via DM on Twitter is not an effective way to build a list - and has the potential to annoy the recipients of the DM.

I am ALL for marketing, I am only on Twitter to make money - but I am in favor of effective marketing that gets the highest return on my time investment, and I don't find that auto-DMs offer value for either the sender or the recipient.

[Jagged]

[Originally Posted by Dana_W:
Let me tell you - offering me your free report does NOT make me like you more. There's so much free information out there these days that giving away a free report is basically meaningless unless it's coming from someone like Marlon Sanders or Willie Crawford or John Reese or Big Mike or Mike Filsaime, who have already proven that they know what they're talking about.]

I think after you re-read your words here, you will probably want to re-phrase this. I can see where your coming from...but...
I can see a lot of newer members who are working hard and are proud to get their first product out & want to share that with others who have helped them along the way....sinking back in their chairs thinking..."if thats the way people are viewing things...whats the use?"

I'm a longtime admirer of your work and your contributions to the WF Dana, but this comment, IMO will haunt you someday...

[My advice - don't waste your time with auto DMs. If you want to communicate with anyone, take the time to send them a real live message addressed to them; it's a million times more powerful then an automated message. ]

Now this I agree 100% with you. What a major pain to sift through the DM's....has to be a better way!

Ken

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Dana_W

To clarify: I'm not actually thrilled to get an auto-DM from ANYONE, famous or not. The issue of giving away free reports and the issue of sending auto-DMs are sort of two separate topics, I guess, except for this -

On Twitter, it's common to receive DOZENS of auto-DMs offering to give away a free report. If you go to someone's website and they offer to give away a free report...that's a lot more powerful.

If you look at 30, 40, 50 Dms and each one wants you to download a free report...that's just a massive time-suck.

So in my opinion, offering a free report to people via DM on Twitter is not an effective way to build a list - and has the potential to annoy the recipients of the DM.

I am ALL for marketing, I am only on Twitter to make money - but I am in favor of effective marketing that gets the highest return on my time investment, and I don't find that auto-DMs offer value for either the sender or the recipient.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly (and please correct me if I'm
wrong) even people like Willie Crawford and Marlon Sanders shouldn't use
the auto DM feature?

If not, then what do you suggest they do, just Tweet their free report
offering? If they do that, the only ones who will get that tweet are the
ones who are on at the time.

If they use manual DM, can you imagine how time consuming that would
be for somebody who gets 50 new followers a day?

The irony of this whole thread is that, in an IM world where we constantly
preach "automate" as much as you can, you're saying that in THIS case,
this is a bad thing.

And ultimately, isn't whether it's good or bad come down to testing?

If John Doe has an auto DM going out about a free report to his followers
and he tracks the link (using a unique one for Twitter) and finds he is
getting a 20% opt in to total followers, isn't it worth his time (actually it
takes none of his time) to do this?

Again, personal preferences aside, it all comes down to if it works for you
or not. If so, use it. If not, don't use it.

Because there is always going to be somebody who says "This is annoying
to me so you shouldn't do it"

Which is not what you should base your business decisions on.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

I don't like spammers sending junk to my eMailboxes either. I don't think anyone is "good enough" to send me spam. Does that make me an elitist?

Okay, maybe I'm just dumb as a stump and don't get this Twitter thing at
all. Granted, I don't really use it that much. But how is an auto DM spam?

First of all, the only people who get my auto DM (if I even have one) are
the ones who follow me. So I would think that they want to hear from me,
otherwise, why follow me to begin with?

Now, if you're saying that each DM should be personalized, such as, "Hi
John, thanks for following me. Here's a link to my blog where you can
read some great articles on...whatever" what happens if you're getting
50 followers a day? You're literally spending your life sending these out.

Okay, so then using the DM feature at all as a "thank you for following me"
is a total waste, if we're going to go on this premise.

So what's left for telling people that you have this great free report or
blog or whatever? The only thing that's left is each individual tweet.

The problem with THAT is that the only people who see it are the ones
who are online at the time.

So if we're going to allow initial contact with each person who follows us,
I don't see the difference between an auto DM or a DM aside from the
insertion of the person's name in the message.

And again, if you're getting 50 followers a day, do you REALLY want to
spend that much time telling these people about what you have to offer
them?

So somebody please tell me, what's the better way that insures that you
reach all these people that doesn't make doing it a day long chore?

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by TheAngelGuy

No, it's not her personal opinion and and it's got nothing to do with facts or not. It's based on what the experience does for her, and obviously multiple others having the same thing happen.

Firstly, she can speak for herself and tell us what she means.

Secondly, she said "giving away a free report is basically meaningless" unless you're a Guru. I can't point to countless factual examples where giving away a free report is very meaningful. I know non-gurus who have built entire businesses around giving away free reports.

If she is saying that giving away a free report specifically with Twitter Auto DM's is meaningless, well that's something different that should be clarified.

Originally Posted by TheAngelGuy

Sure, content is important, but if someone can't get me to read it in the first place, then it's really their loss. "Content is king" only AFTER you've earned the right to give the person the content in the first place.

You're confusing "earning the right" with being well known or being a guru. You could be completely unknown, but if you offer a free report based on your success with a topic that I'm interested in, I will get it.

If you need evidence of this, just look at the WSO forum. There are many lesser known Warriors making lots of sales everyday.

The bottom line is you don't have to be well known to get people's attention with free reports. You just have to make the free report compelling, back it up with some proof, and target it to the right people.

To Dana's point, maybe Twitter Auto DMs are not the right place to target your free report, but that doesn't mean that free reports are meaningless. Far from it.

I can go on Digital Point right now (where nobody knows me) and offer a free report showing how a non-guru has made well over a million dollars online sitting in front of a computer in his pajamas. I guarantee you that free report won't be ignored.

Content is still king no matter whether you're Jay Abraham or Joe Schmoe.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

First of all, the only people who get my auto DM (if I even have one) are
the ones who follow me. So I would think that they want to hear from me,
otherwise, why follow me to begin with?

But they are hearing from you when you tweet.

Now, if you're saying that each DM should be personalized, such as, "Hi
John, thanks for following me. Here's a link to my blog where you can
read some great articles on...whatever" what happens if you're getting
50 followers a day? You're literally spending your life sending these out.

Don't send marketing DMs at all, unless they are in response to a question or problem that someone tweeted. And, in that case, it's better to tweet a reply to them so that others see it.

Okay, so then using the DM feature at all as a "thank you for following me"
is a total waste, if we're going to go on this premise.

Yes.

So what's left for telling people that you have this great free report or
blog or whatever? The only thing that's left is each individual tweet.

The problem with THAT is that the only people who see it are the ones
who are online at the time.

Tweet it periodically at different times of the day. But, make sure you have other non-marketing tweets in between. 1 marketing tweet for every 4 non-marketing tweets seems to be the typical minimum level.

So somebody please tell me, what's the better way that insures that you
reach all these people that doesn't make doing it a day long chore?

If you want to automate it, you can use services which will send tweets at scheduled times. But, be sure to automate non-marketing tweets in the mix as well.

Be sure to interact with people too. People want to see that you interact with other people and aren't just there promoting your own stuff. It is a social networking service, after all. People want to see the social part, and they are more likely to buy from someone who socializes than someone that just uses Twitter as an RSS feed for their blog or marketing messages. At least, that's been my experience...

[Tyrus Antas]

Unlike traditional email, twitter spam is not an inevitable tragedy. You're only getting it because you're "spam following" people! Don't do that and your message box will be crystal clear, zero spam.

Now I do the same thing, but I don't bitch about it. It's just the inevitable result of the strategies we use. You can't spam and not expect to be spammed.

Tyrus

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Tyrus Antas

Unlike traditional email, twitter spam is not an inevitable tragedy. You're only getting it because you're "spam following" people! Don't do that and your message box will be crystal clear, zero spam.

Not true at all. If someone follows me, I follow them back. I don't consider that to be spam following. And my message box is not crystal clear...

[iantrader]

Er, what's Twitter...?

Ian

[matthewd]

I agree with you about the Auto DMs being annoying... but
completely disagree that the only free reports worth reading
are from the list of people you just named.

Honestly, there is a name or 2 there that I would avoid
free reports from.

But, there are tons of free reports that are not meaningless
that come from people that haven't proven themselves to
be anything at all yet... maybe that free report is the proof?

[Jason Moffatt]

"Lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas".

What do you expect when you randomly follow tons of people you have no clue about?

That's part of the side effects of the mass follow strategy. It ruins the Twitter experience. But hey, it sure does make everyone look really popular though!

[TheAngelGuy]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

I can go on Digital Point right now (where nobody knows me) and offer a free report showing how a non-guru has made well over a million dollars online sitting in front of a computer in his pajamas. I guarantee you that free report won't be ignored.

Ron, you're right, and no, the report won't be ignored. On Digital Point.

But if you want Dana to read it, you better do it a way other than she (and others) are getting frustrated with.

We're not talking about content here. Great content is only the start. Deliverability is a key concept, too, and Dana is simply letting us know that this is one delivery method that can be tweaked up for better results.

[Dana_W]

All right, to clarify again - when someone sends a link to a free report in an automatic direct message on Twitter - it is likely to be one of a dozen or more similar direct messages with links to free reports that the recipients get EVERY DAY. This makes it much harder for that report to stand out as anything special. Nobody has time to read that many free reports every day. I simply do not see Twitter DMs as the ideal way to promote a free report.

In my opinion, it's much more effective to use Twitter to convince people to go to your website...where you're offering some excellent free information in a short post, or lots of short posts, that are right there on the home page...along with an opt-in form, where people can get your free report.

And if you want to know how to use Twitter to steer people towards your site...my best method is to write a good post like "Here's Why Your Press Release Was Rejected", and link to it from Twitter.

JASON MOFFATT:

"Lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas".

What do you expect when you randomly follow tons of people you have no clue about?

That's part of the side effects of the mass follow strategy. It ruins the Twitter experience. But hey, it sure does make everyone look really popular though!"

Jason, Jason, Jason...we're like matter and anti-matter when it comes to our views on Twitter, aren't we?

Yeah, yeah, I'm a Twitter ho, who promiscuously follows back one and all. What can I tell you - it works for me. It pays my bills and keeps my daughter in Hollister shirts.

[Dana_W]

And by the way - I'm not saying that newer people in the IM world have nothing valuable to say or that their free reports aren't worthwhile. I am saying:

1.) In general, if I have limited free time and there are dozens of free reports available and one of them is by someone who I respect, am familiar with, and know to be successful - and the other dozens of reports are from people I have never heard of - I will probably tend to go with the people that I know. Exception to the rule - if I see people giving great advice here on the WF or anywhere else, I'll seek out what else they have to say. David Preston, Maria Gudelis...I've discovered lots of great new mentors here.

This is not me being snobby - this is me being deluged with information and having limited free time to devote to reading new things.

2.) ANY free information that is offered in a DM on Twitter is buried among 30, 40, 50 other DMs - and it's harder for that info to stand out at all, no matter who sent it.

[Asher]

It's really slow and tedious to erase DMs on Twitter so I don't usually bother. So now I have almost 5000 DMs in my mailbox, and furthermore....buried among those dozens of DMs that I get every day...are usually several DMs from people inquiring about my press release services or just wanting to ask me a question. So I HAVE to scan all of those dozens of spam DMs to make sure I'm not missing any.

I don't know if you guys know this (from the looks of it, you don't)
but TweetLater lets you PURGE ALL your Direct Messages.

I understand your problem, Dana. I also know that there are some
messages that you wish to keep but once you flush the whole DMs
down the Twit-gutter, it's MUCH easier for you to delete and remove
and new DMs.

I love that feature.

I'm sure you will too!

Asher

[Loren Woirhaye]

Marketers extolling the benefits of following 1000s of
people they know nothing about and have no interest
in have created their own Frankenstein monster it seems -
a time-sucking beast that takes at least as much as it
gives... and with the profusion of would-be net-preneurs
jumping on the Twitter bandwagon, hoping to automate
"relationship marketing" with what is basically a spamming
method - well... we reap what we sow.

Twitter-boosters have created this situation with their
following habits.

[Michael Lee]

Here's a step-by-step process to stop new followers from auto-DM'ing you:

1) Follow @OptMeOut
2) Wait for it to follow you back.
3) Send @OptMeOut a DM (any message will do, even unrelated)
4) Unfollow @OptMeOut

Hope it helps.

Michael

[Paul Myers]

Not meaning to be harsh, Dana, but I think this is hysterical.

Are you using some automated tool to "follow" all those people whose tweets you're probably not going to read on any kind of regular basis? Do you use any tool(s) to unfollow the folks who don't follow you back?

Yes, I do see and understand the difference. But it's just really funny to hear someone complain about the results of automation in social networking if they use it themselves.

If you contact someone directly, don't you think you invite a reply?


Paul

[Dmitry]

What inspires me in your post is that you "follow" on pretty much auto-pilot 100's of people every day, yet you DON'T want their auto-DM's. Irony?

EDIT: Just saw Mr. Myers reply above (who once even accused me of spam haha) and I completely agree with him!

[Alan Petersen]

I see both side but I see where Dana is coming from. Personally, I shut off my auto-DM long ago. I don't auto-follow. I still check everyone's who follows me first and yes it's getting a lot harder to do and it's not efficient at all. I'll probably have to change that soon or only follow peeps whose names I recognize.

With regards to auto-DM's it has ruined the DM experience with Twitter for me. If I don't know you I won't read it. Even if I get an instant DM asking "how am I doing" I figure it's a BS auto DM anyway since I don't fancy having a conversation with a tweet later pre-scheduled message I don't reply. Luckly Tweet Deck makes it a little easier to glance them all to see if any DM's in there are real.

Someday they'll probably introduce a captcha form before you can send a DM so this will all be a moot point anyway.

[Michael Lee]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Not meaning to be harsh, Dana, but I think this is hysterical.

Are you using some automated tool to "follow" all those people whose tweets you're probably not going to read on any kind of regular basis? Do you use any tool(s) to unfollow the folks who don't follow you back?

Yes, I do see and understand the difference. But it's just really funny to hear someone complain about the results of automation in social networking if they use it themselves.

If you contact someone directly, don't you think you invite a reply?


Paul

Hi Paul,

I think what Dana is referring to is that she doesn't like DM's that are not really personal, but just tactics to promote their products or site.

A welcome DM really should be a welcome message, building a relationship first and slowly before doing any type of marketing.

Thanks,
Michael

[Paul Myers]

Michael,

I understand that. My point is that she seems to be using automation to initiate contact, and objecting to an automated follow-up.

Seems... odd.


Paul

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Loren Woirhaye

Marketers extolling the benefits of following 1000s of
people they know nothing about and have no interest
in have created their own Frankenstein monster it seems -
a time-sucking beast that takes at least as much as it
gives... and with the profusion of would-be net-preneurs
jumping on the Twitter bandwagon, hoping to automate
"relationship marketing" with what is basically a spamming
method - well... we reap what we sow.

Twitter-boosters have created this situation with their
following habits.

To my knowledge, Dana has always recommended targeted following; that is, following people likely to be interested in what you have to offer.

As for me, I don't see it as a time-sucking beast. Most DMs just don't get read. And that's the real downer. The scourge of auto-DMs has really devalued the DM system.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Not meaning to be harsh, Dana, but I think this is hysterical.

Are you using some automated tool to "follow" all those people whose tweets you're probably not going to read on any kind of regular basis? Do you use any tool(s) to unfollow the folks who don't follow you back?

I don't know how Dana does it, but I don't use any automated tools at all. All my tweets, follows, unfollows, DMs and so forth are done manually. And, yes, auto-DMs are annoying. They are of little or no value and they either waste time or cause me to miss real DMs.

Plus, I think some marketers have forgotten about the phishing expeditions that have occasionally taken place on Twitter. The phishing expedition of this past January involved sending out DMs with links that presented a fake Twitter login page. Websites can also be used to infect users with viruses, malware, spyware, JavaScript exploits and so on. As a result, there are people that won't click on a link, especially if they don't know you.

Thus, the importance of building a relationship first, and not auto-DM'ing people with marketing messages when they first follow you. A follow does not a relationship make. It gets it started; you still have to build that relationship.

[Chuck Staff]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Not meaning to be harsh, Dana, but I think this is hysterical.

Are you using some automated tool to "follow" all those people whose tweets you're probably not going to read on any kind of regular basis? Do you use any tool(s) to unfollow the folks who don't follow you back?

Yes, I do see and understand the difference. But it's just really funny to hear someone complain about the results of automation in social networking if they use it themselves.

If you contact someone directly, don't you think you invite a reply?

Paul

Couldn't have said it better myself, Paul... Sounds a wee bit like "do as I say, not as I do".

[melanied]

I don't really even read my Twitter inboxes. There are thousands of DMs in there!

[Jason Moffatt]

Originally Posted by melanied

I don't really even read my Twitter inboxes. There are thousands of DMs in there!

Further reinforces my assertion that marketers don't really pay attention on Twitter.

[Dana_W]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Michael,

I understand that. My point is that she seems to be using automation to initiate contact, and objecting to an automated follow-up.

Seems... odd.


Paul

I auto FOLLOW people to save time, yes. But I don't fill up their mail boxes with auto messages. I answer people's questions to me on Twitter, I DM people directly if I have something to say to them or to ask them, I go on there and interact. I don't actually see the similarity between automatically following people who I think might use my services - and between sending out automatic messages.

If I weren't automatically following - I'd either be manually following people, or paying a VA to do it for me.

[melanied]

I pay attention, just not to my DM inbox. I pay attention to the tweet stream.

[Dana_W]

Originally Posted by Dmitry

What inspires me in your post is that you "follow" on pretty much auto-pilot 100's of people every day, yet you DON'T want their auto-DM's. Irony?

EDIT: Just saw Mr. Myers reply above (who once even accused me of spam haha) and I completely agree with him!

I want to hear from people directly either in the Tweetstream or via DM, talk to them, answer their questions about press releases or publicity if they have any, ask questions of them...but I don't send out auto DMs and I don't see any value in receiving them.

I'm on Twitter to network and interact, the same as most other people on Twitter. Some people network to meet other people and socialize, some people do it to promote themselves and their businesses. It's a social NETWORKING site. Auto-DMs don't encourage much personal interaction.

[Jason Moffatt]

Originally Posted by melanied

I pay attention, just not to my DM inbox. I pay attention to the tweet stream.

And what if you have a DM that wanted to hire you for $5000?

You'd miss out by not paying attention.

And following 5000 people, I tend to argue that you don't pay attention unless you are super human.

If that's the case, please teach me how to pay attention to 5000 people simultaneously. I'd LOVE to know how to do that.

[Paul Myers]

Dan,

I don't know how Dana does it, but I don't use any automated tools at all.

Okay. That's much more in the line of my understanding of networking. That leaves one question: If you initiate contact, is the person entitled to reply?

I considered using an auto-DM when I first got on Twitter. I waited to see the environment, to get a feel for that idea. Took me two days, I think, to decide it would be a very bad idea. Message stream pollution is rarely a good thing.


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Dana,

It's a social NETWORKING site.

I think you may have emphasized the wrong word there.


Paul

[Jason Moffatt]

Time for a little bit of a obvious wake up call.

If you follow someone, you deserve whatever they send.

And that means whatever they send. You really have no room to gripe as you are the one that followed them in the first place.

It's a very simple system, and I'm a bit puzzled how someone could be peeved by something that resulted from their own actions.

[Paul Myers]

Dana,

I auto FOLLOW people to save time, yes. But I don't fill up their mail boxes with auto messages.

You'd automatically generate an email to me about the follow. Is doing that in bulk something you feel is appropriate?

To repeat my question, slightly differently, why is automated contact okay for you, but not as a means of reply? Because of who is inconvenienced?

Cost of your business model ma'am. You play, you pay.


Paul

[Gunter Eibl]

These auto DMs are really a pain. I read about a software somewhere that can identify those and delete them automatically but I forgot what it was.

I'm using tweetdeck which can at least separate replies from direct messages.

Gunter

PS: follow me on twitter! lol GunterEibl (GunterEibl) on Twitter

[melanied]

Well, I don't really use that Twitter account to market products or get jobs - I use it for fun and to meet people and get to know people. And also to interact with friends from college, and various other parts of my life.

So, I don't pay attention to every tweet by every person I'm following - that's true. But I do jump on when I feel like talking and participate in conversations - and I've made some good friends that way, actually. I think of it like a forum - I don't participate in EVERY thread, but I do respond to what interests me. That's just how I like to use Twitter.

If I missed a DM by someone wanting to hire me...bummer. :/ But advertising my services isn't the point of the account, so chances are, I haven't. LOL.

Originally Posted by Jason Moffatt

And what if you have a DM that wanted to hire you for $5000?

You'd miss out by not paying attention.

And following 5000 people, I tend to argue that you don't pay attention unless you are super human.

If that's the case, please teach me how to pay attention to 5000 people simultaneously. I'd LOVE to know how to do that.

[jasonl70]

I like Dana, but this one has me scratching my head some..
I have to think that following hundreds of people a day and complaining about the all the DM's is kinda like opting in to hundreds of lists a day and complaining about all the email you get.

[Paul Myers]

Know what would be cool? If you could auto-block anyone who tried to auto-follow you.

I'd pay for a tool that did that.


Paul

[Asher]

Originally Posted by Jason Moffatt

Time for a little bit of a obvious wake up call.

If you follow someone, you deserve whatever they send.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Cost of your business model ma'am. You play, you pay.

Hi Dana,

I think it's time to bite the bullet and admit that this isn't
really proof that auto-DMs are harmful. Since you got in
to it, you gotta take it.

The only thing you can do is deal with it.

I agree 100% with Jason and Paul.

But let's get this over and all go back on our merry,
Twittle ways.

My $0.02 worth of Tweet-feed-thought

Asher