Author: John Ayers

Twitter based film critics are here and movie studios should take note.

/ John Ayers / Leave a comment

MOVIE CRITIC via TWITTER.

You knew it was bound to happen… a movie’s opening weekend can now be witnessed in 140 characters or less while first few minutes of the Friday showing is playing.

I have to admit, I was in a few films with my kids over the past year or so and found myself tweeting about the movie. No big deal right?… Well, a film’s weekend box office often determines the movie’s financial life.

Extension and growth into more theaters in more markets – there is the international release which looks at the domestic success and of course there is VOD, TV, home entertainment, and the list goes on. All of the subsequent revenues a film “banks” on is based in part on that first weekend. Now with TWEETS happening as the film is playing… the open weekend box office is now reduced.

This can be both positive and negative. As we know social media tends to fuel a fire. If the movie is bad, we know it quick and tell our friends. If a movie is great, that will be shared as well.

Mashable’s recent post. http://mashable.com/2009/10/21/twitcritics/   shares some further details.

Bottom line; twitter based critics are here and they are a force to consider.
John

next >

What is TwitCritics?

TwitCritics brings you real-time movie reviews and ratings directly from the Twiterverse.

TwitCritics

twit_critics

@nickondras thanks for the shout out! 🙂12 hours ago 
@curtisgray That is a really interesting concept. Maybe the corrections framework can be extended to a more robust crowdsourcing system13 hours ago 
Thanks @Shibbie@Myxllamatosis @geekCouch@ZackH87 @martinwalsh for sharing! It has been a really hectic day we hope we didn’t miss anyone!13 hours ago 
@ColinMcConville You’re right. Paranormal Activity has been added. It should show up shortly.13 hours ago 

Posted via email from John Ayers Posterous

Twitter based film critics are here and movie studios should take note.

/ John Ayers / Leave a comment

MOVIE CRITIC via TWITTER.

You knew it was bound to happen… a movie’s opening weekend can now be witnessed in 140 characters or less while first few minutes of the Friday showing is playing.

I have to admit, I was in a few films with my kids over the past year or so and found myself tweeting about the movie. No big deal right?… Well, a film’s weekend box office often determines the movie’s financial life.

Extension and growth into more theaters in more markets – there is the international release which looks at the domestic success and of course there is VOD, TV, home entertainment, and the list goes on. All of the subsequent revenues a film “banks” on is based in part on that first weekend. Now with TWEETS happening as the film is playing… the open weekend box office is now reduced.

This can be both positive and negative. As we know social media tends to fuel a fire. If the movie is bad, we know it quick and tell our friends. If a movie is great, that will be shared as well.

Mashable’s recent post. http://mashable.com/2009/10/21/twitcritics/   shares some further details.

Bottom line; twitter based critics are here and they are a force to consider.
John

next >

What is TwitCritics?

TwitCritics brings you real-time movie reviews and ratings directly from the Twiterverse.

Thumbs_up_normal

TwitCritics

twit_critics

@nickondras thanks for the shout out! 🙂12 hours ago 
@curtisgray That is a really interesting concept. Maybe the corrections framework can be extended to a more robust crowdsourcing system13 hours ago 
Thanks @Shibbie@Myxllamatosis @geekCouch@ZackH87 @martinwalsh for sharing! It has been a really hectic day we hope we didn’t miss anyone!13 hours ago 
@ColinMcConville You’re right. Paranormal Activity has been added. It should show up shortly.13 hours ago 

Logo2Lg-share-enTwitterFacebookRssfeed

Twitter Celebrity Hotlist

/ John Ayers / Leave a comment

Brian Solis is a thought leader in the social media marketing/pr space, so it doesn’t surprise me that this Entertainment/Celebrity tweeting study is so well done. It is way more information that some want to know or care to know. But for those who want to delve into the details, there is plenty for you.

With the top Tweeter’s having tens of millions followers combined, these are interesting times; where a personal brand can be more influential than the corporate (or entertainment) brand it is part of.

Twitter Celebrity Hotlist: August 2009

The power to analyze behavior and sentiment on Twitter and translate it into trends and direction is limited only by our powers of observation and imagination. As you may or may not know, I have assumed the role of data analyst at PeopleBrowsr, in addition to the other ventures I’m running or advising. Recently, I published The State of the Airline Industry on Twitter, the first in an ongoing series of Twitter-centric reports. Soon, I will roll out additional reports covering various industries on a monthly basis. If you would like a custom report and analysis generated, please let me know.
The latest in the series captures the essence and vibrancy of celebrity engagement and conversations surrounding celebrities in the month of August 2009. Let’s start by defining “celebrity” as I believe it takes on a new persona and definition on Twitter and Social Media universally. While the majority of the individuals on the list of 60 personalities are representative of real world stars, we are also at the early stages of capturing and recognizing the genre of Internet Famous and micro celebrity. These ambitious personalities have created an online prominence that transcends into the real world fame. Expect the included percentage of the digerati to significantly increase over time, eventually rivaling some of the most visible and renowned household names. If you can think of individuals (either traditional or new celebrity) that we should keep on our radar, please let me know in the comments section.
Overall, we are in the early stages of witnessing what’s possible in Twitter as stars succumb to the seduction of direct fan engagement and the intoxicating allure of real-time response and interaction. Concurrently, fans are enticed and captivated by the prospect of earning the attention of and recognition from the very individuals who inspire them. For them, Twitter represents a direct connection to their idols.
The potential of course is significant as it empowers and strengthens relationships between celebs and followers and ultimately forges bonds in ways not possible prior to the proliferation of socialized media. This rich level of interaction is rekindling and reviving interest in traditional media (movies, music, art, television programming, sports, etc.) as consumers feel a more personal connection with the artist and their work. Perhaps most importantly, we can now connect with the real person behind the celebrity brand.
Social Media is also inspiring innovation in content creation and distribution as it serves as a catalyst for the creation and widespread adoption of new forms of content, consumption, and artistry. In many cases, new media represents a renaissance for stardom, linking individuals who might not have otherwise connected through outside mediums, while also creating new opportunities for everyday people to earn eminence in these new and equally valuable channels.
Influence is equalizing and some artists are able to self-create publicity and promotion simply by publishing Tweets. Direct engagement is also engendering a profound transformation in the professional relationship and arrangement between celebrities and publicists, as many are compelled to engage directly with fans and followers without the help of third-parties. In new media, the days of assistants and publicity agents responding to fan letters and emails are numbered. However, the role of publicity is still required, if not more prominent, as the opportunities for visibility have now multiplied because of new media. Most importantly, what we are witnessing in Twitter is the transformation of fandom into community and perhaps that is, in of itself, a profound phenomenon.
SHARE OF VOICE
Share of voice represents the level of individual presence in the conversations that transpire on Twitter. Much like measuring traditional market share in business landscapes, we are analyzing the volume of mentions, not sales or fan bases, for each celebrity compared to one another. On Twitter popularity and share of voice are directly linked to news and events as well as participatory episodes where conversations are sparked directly by personalities. For example, hip hop artist Soulja Boy often tops the trending topics list each time he hosts a live chat on uStream.tv and invites fans to connect via Twitter.
In the month of August, Miley Cyrus topped the charts with 256,000 mentions with Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block following with an impressive 189,000 references. Rapper Soulja Boy checked in at third with roughly 86,000 tweets, 100,000 behind the number two spot. Controversial gossip blogger Perez Hilton also earned a top spot on the list with 72,000 tweets. Kim Kardashian took the fifth spot with just over 68,000 tweets. What’s surprising however is that Ashton Kutcher, The King of Twitter as the media affectionately proclaimed, captured less Twitter attention in August than one might expect. He does, as you’ll see, lead the list for overall followers. But, as discussed earlier, Twitter attention and conversations are usually driven by a series of sparks. In August, Ashton only published 309 tweets compared to others who sent as many as 1,500 tweets that month. Expect interaction and events become a more significant factor as we continue tracking the industry.
Click here for ultra large version
1. @mileycyrus – 255,938
2. @donniewahlberg – 188,778
3. @souljaboytellem – 86,140
4. @perezhilton – 72,562
5. @kimkardashian – 68,547
6. @aplusk – 66,722
7. @theellenshow – 39,128
8. @stephenfry – 38,325
9. @petewentz – 35,478
10. @ashleytisdale – 34,967
11. @therealjordin – 33,799
12. @mitchelmusso – 32,923
13. @paulaabdul – 26,791
14. @lancearmstrong – 25,477
15. @rainnwilson – 23,433
16. @britneyspears – 22,703
17. @mrskutcher – 21,900
18. @ryanseacrest – 21,681
19. @kirstiealley – 21,316
20. @rustyrockets – 19,053
21. @the_real_shaq – 17,885
22. @wilw – 15,257
23. @thatkevinsmith – 15,111
24. @moonfrye – 13,286
25. @heidimontag – 13,213
26. @mariahcarey – 12,118
27. @jimmyfallon – 11,972
28. @oprah – 11,096
29. @sevinnyne6126 – 10,950
30. @questlove – 10,877
31. @michaelianblack – 10,585
32. @alyankovic – 10,001
33. @wossy – 9,417
34. @greggrunberg – 8,906
35. @denise_richards – 8,468
36. @johnlegend – 8,103
37. @tonyrobbins – 7,884
38. @jimjonescapo – 6,789
39. @chelsealately – 6,789
40. @spencerpratt – 6,424
41. @mchammer – 6,132
42. @eonline – 4,891
43. @cassieventura – 4,380
44. @gossipgirl – 4,161
45. @levarburton – 3,942
46. @pennjillette – 3,577
47. @nickswisher – 2,993
48. @ryansheckler – 2,847
49. @thisislilwayne – 2,774
50. @50cent – 2,774
51. @chriscornell – 2,628
52. @johncleese – 2,555
53. @snoopdogg – 2,409
54. @adventuregirl – 2,336
55. @hodgman – 2,117
56. @lennykravitz – 2,044
57. @robcorddry – 1,533
58. @paulfeig – 1,387
59. @justjared – 876
60. @nottinafey – 292
TOTAL FOLLOWERS
In examining the status of celebrities by followers, it comes with no surprise that Mr. Ashton Kutcher ranks at the very top. In many ways, Ashton is responsible for raising the global awareness and adoption of Twitter, as well as  inspiring other celebrities to embrace the vibrant network. Ashton, along with the now legendary race to 1 million followers, has finally tipped the attraction of Twitter beyond the older demographics that originally defined its importance. Teenagers are now flocking to Twitter in the hopes of not only connecting with their heroes, but also experimenting with prospects of flirting with and possibly earning a taste of micro celebrity themselves. I will publish a separate post on this subject shortly…
The top three spots cumulatively represent over 10 million followers, with each earning over 3 million followers each. Ashton, as mentioned above  is number one with almost 3.8 million followers in August. Ellen DeGeneres is in hot pursuit with 3.5 million. And Britney Spears, who was among the original contestants in the race to 1 million, followed closely behind Ellen with 3.48 million followers.
The separation between the top three and those residing in the next several spots was at least one million followers. In fact, in August, the “2 million follower club” only housed nine members (in order of followers), Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, Shaq, Oprah Winfrey, Demi Moore, Miley Cryus (who’s currently MIA from Twitter), Jimmy Fallon, Lance Armstrong, and Ashley Tisdale. An interesting observation is that the average number of followers for this current grouping of celebrities totals over 1 million at 1,304,518 exactly.
1. @aplusk – 3,778,464
2. @theellenshow – 3,496,041
3. @britneyspears – 3,480,582
4. @kimkardashian – 2,514,112
5. @ryanseacrest – 2,433,803
6. @the_real_shaq – 2,376,782
7. @oprah – 2,333,711
8. @mrskutcher – 2,146,519
9. @mileycyrus – 2,115,282
10. @jimmyfallon – 2,099,368
11. @lancearmstrong – 2,077,717
12. @ashleytisdale – 2,031,465
13. @mariahcarey – 1,783,439
14. @50cent – 1,762,874
15. @souljaboytellem – 1,668,493
16. @eonline – 1,625,453
17. @chelsealately – 1,620,765
18. @petewentz – 1,591,856
19. @mchammer – 1,540,286
20. @perezhilton – 1,524,611
21. @rainnwilson – 1,504,961
22. @tonyrobbins – 1,428,620
23. @thatkevinsmith – 1,390,081
24. @wilw – 1,367,757
25. @pennjillette – 1,355,782
26. @johnlegend – 1,333,071
27. @levarburton – 1,322,238
28. @alyankovic – 1,320,214
29. @michaelianblack – 1,286,746
30. @paulaabdul – 1,267,045
31. @lennykravitz – 1,262,223
32. @adventuregirl – 1,232,757
33. @jimjonescapo – 1,215,956
34. @denise_richards – 1,209,800
35. @moonfrye – 1,183,672
36. @greggrunberg – 1,157,317
37. @chriscornell – 1,149,016
38. @gossipgirl – 1,106,032
39. @ryansheckler – 1,095,415
40. @robcorddry – 1,094,003
41. @questlove – 979,500
42. @nickswisher – 929,752
43. @paulfeig – 903,726
44. @stephenfry – 795,684
45. @heidimontag – 632,138
46. @rustyrockets – 584,832
47. @snoopdogg – 479,882
48. @spencerpratt – 469,747
49. @wossy – 422,144
50. @justjared – 410,589
51. @nottinafey – 390,926
52. @sevinnyne6126 – 359,428
53. @therealjordin – 356,638
54. @mitchelmusso – 324,008
55. @kirstiealley – 287,064
56. @johncleese – 252,519
57. @cassieventura – 214,717
58. @donniewahlberg – 96,616
59. @hodgman – 94,233
60. @thisislilwayne – 2,610
TOTAL TWEETS
When compared to followers, total tweets painted a very different picture. Of course celebrities are “in-demand,” often too busy to tweet regularly. In August, the top two spots for total tweets are actually not actually published by celebrities per se, but by the personalities and vehicles that document the industry and the activities of the celebrities on and off this list. The “queen” of media, Perez Hilton took the top spot with almost 1,500 tweets followed by E! Online with 946. Averaging the number of tweets across the board, we see that our celebrities aren’t too quiet, but not overly communicative either, coming in at just under 9 tweets per day or 255 for the month.
1. @perezhilton – 1,488
2. @eonline – 946
3. @questlove – 865
4. @souljaboytellem – 850
5. @kirstiealley – 819
6. @justjared – 735
7. @donniewahlberg – 608
8. @adventuregirl – 597
9. @petewentz – 506
10. @wossy – 474
11. @mchammer – 443
12. @kimkardashian – 432
13. @therealjordin – 396
14. @mrskutcher – 366
15. @aplusk – 309
16. @mitchelmusso – 308
17. @lancearmstrong – 289
18. @mileycyrus – 287
19. @rainnwilson – 264
20. @stephenfry – 263
21. @denise_richards – 259
22. @spencerpratt – 248
23. @heidimontag – 230
24. @jimjonescapo – 229
25. @moonfrye – 213
26. @greggrunberg – 211
27. @michaelianblack – 202
28. @wilw – 194
29. @johnlegend – 193
30. @cassieventura – 190
31. @ryanseacrest – 180
32. @thatkevinsmith – 167
33. @sevinnyne6126 – 162
34. @paulaabdul – 161
35. @tonyrobbins – 112
36. @hodgman – 95
37. @chelsealately – 83
38. @jimmyfallon – 83
39. @theellenshow – 80
40. @ashleytisdale – 79
41. @chriscornell – 77
42. @alyankovic – 71
43. @robcorddry – 71
44. @paulfeig – 56
45. @gossipgirl – 50
46. @the_real_shaq – 48
47. @rustyrockets – 45
48. @britneyspears – 38
49. @snoopdogg – 38
50. @pennjillette – 37
51. @johncleese – 34
52. @levarburton – 20
53. @50cent – 17
54. @mariahcarey – 16
55. @lennykravitz – 14
56. @nickswisher – 14
57. @ryansheckler – 12
58. @thisislilwayne – 10
59. @oprah – 3
60. @nottinafey – 1
TOTAL FOLLOWING
In Social Media, the act of the “follow back” is a form of reciprocity and recognition. While it is not a required act, it is dearly appreciated. In August 2009, Britney Spears stood above the rest following over 430,000 people, which is 378,000 more than the second spot, held by Stephen Fry who followed almost 55,000 people and 401,000 more than the number three spot held by MC Hammer with 31,317. The delta between the top three and the rest of the group is significant. The majority follow 500 or less with almost half following fewer than 100. This number surprised me however. Averaging the number of people that each celebrity followed, we uncovered an impressive aggregate of 8,903.
1. @britneyspears – 432,814
2. @stephenfry – 54,492
3. @mchammer – 31,317
4. @wossy – 3,966
5. @lennykravitz – 1,863
6. @adventuregirl – 1,246
7. @questlove – 1,135
8. @greggrunbeg – 605
9. @the_real_shaq – 567
10. @spencerpratt – 522
11. @perezhilton – 369
12. @chriscornell – 309
13. @donniewahlberg – 289
14. @tonyrobbins – 279
15. @hodgman – 276
16. @aplusk – 231
17. @souljaboytellem – 229
18. @robcorddry – 218
19. @heidimontag – 191
20. @snoopdogg – 180
21. @therealjordin – 158
22. @jimjonescapo – 153
23. @cassieventura – 145
24. @jimmyfallon – 142
25. @rainnwilson – 138
26. @johncleese – 136
27. @wilw – 125
28. @ryanseacrest – 124
29. @alyankovic – 115
30. @lancearmstrong – 115
31. @moonfrye – 112
32. @mrskutcher – 109
33. @sevinnyne6126 – 105
34. @levarburton – 97
35. @petewentz – 91
36. @johnlegend – 87
37. @thisislilwayne – 87
38. @kirstiealley – 82
39. @michaelianblack – 81
40. @ashleytisdale – 76
41. @justjared – 71
42. @thatkevinsmith – 69
43. @mileycyrus – 68
44. @paulfeig – 67
45. @kimkardashian – 64
46. @ryansheckler – 64
47. @nottinafey – 54
48. @mitchelmusso – 49
49. @eonline – 48
50. @denise_richards – 38
51. @rustyrockets – 32
52. @paulaabdul – 29
53. @theellenshow – 26
54. @mariahcarey – 23
55. @50cent – 17
56. @oprah – 17
57. @chelsealately – 16
58. @gossipgirl – 11
59. @nickswisher – 6
60. @pennjillette – 5
SENTIMENT BEFORE AND AFTER HUMAN SORTING
Similar to the Airline Industry report we published recently, it’s important to note that sentiment, as documented and categorized solely by software algorithms, often misleads the reader. When we apply a human filter to each instance, the results can be profoundly different and is often the case between a truly positive and negative state. In conversations regarding personalities, we observed a profound concentration of positive tweets after human sorting, which is truly distinctive to the celebrity segment and significantly higher than any other industry we’re tracking.
A personal brand, over a product for example, is naturally tied to the psychology of human interaction. When you tweet @ someone, you are, of course, recognizing or hoping to earn the attention of the person directly. In most cases, we’re observing that the positive recognition is linked to the prospect of reciprocity or support.
The sentiment captured and organized using a machine dictionary proves highly inaccurate. The unique machine and human-powered system we’ve built at PeopleBrowsr proves that in the business of perception management and influence, analyzing inaccurate data can prove ineffective, insular, and often futile. Manually analyzing activity provides us with a human perspective as well as empathy.
@50cent
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 82% Negative: 5%
@adventuregirl
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 73% Negative: 0
@alyankovic
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 78% Negative: 4%
@aplusk
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 78% Negative: 2%
@ashleytisdale
Before Human Sorting Positive: 36% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 1%
@britneyspears
Before Human Sorting Positive: 26% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 1%
@cassieventura
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 2%
@chelsealately
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 4%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 1%
@chriscornell
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 3%
@denise_richards
Before Human Sorting Positive: 25% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 79% Negative: 1%
@donniewahlberg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 1%
@eonline
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 3%
@gossipgirl
Before Human Sorting Positive: 11% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 0%
@greggrunberg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 80% Negative: 1%
@heidimontag
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 7%
@hodgman
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 83% Negative: 3%
@jimjonescapo
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 4%
After Human Sorting Positive: 81% Negative: 4%
@jimmyfallon
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 1%
@johncleese
Before Human Sorting Positive: 13% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 0%
@johnlegend
Before Human Sorting Positive: 23% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 0%
@justjared
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 67% Negative: 0%
@kimkardashian
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%
@kirstiealley
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%
@lancearmstrong
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 1%
@lennykravitz
Before Human Sorting Positive: 34% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 0%
@levarburton
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 0%
@mariahcarey
Before Human Sorting Positive: 32% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 4%
@mchammer
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 86% Negative: 1%
@michaelianblack
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 3%
@mileycyrus
Before Human Sorting Positive: 31% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%
@mitchelmusso
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%
@moonfrye
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18%
Negative: 2% After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 2%
@mrskutcher
Before Human Sorting Positive: 26% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 2%
@nickswisher
Before Human Sorting Positive: 32% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%
@nottinafey
Before Human Sorting Positive: 0% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 50% Negative: 25%
@oprah
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 4%
@paulaabdul
Before Human Sorting Positive: 39% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 2%
@paulfeig
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%
@pennjillette
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 94% Negative: 0%
@perezhilton
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 6%
@petewentz
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 2%
@questlove
Before Human Sorting Positive: 16% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 1%
@rainnwilson
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 2%
@robcorddry
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%
@rustyrockets
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 1%
@ryanseacrest
Before Human Sorting Positive: 24% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%
@ryansheckler
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 3%
@sevinnyne6126
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%
@snoopdogg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 0 %
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 0%
@souljaboytellem
Before Human Sorting Positive: 13% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%
@spencerpratt
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 5%
@stephenfry
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%
@thatkevinsmith
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 2%
@the_real_shaq
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 86% Negative: 2%
@theellenshow
Before Human Sorting Positive: 31% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%
@therealjordin
Before Human Sorting Positive: 30% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 1%
@thisislilwayne
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 5%
@tonyrobbins
Before Human Sorting Positive: 23% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 1%
@wilw
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 3%
@wossy
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 3%
—
Connect with Brian Solis on:

 Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, Posterous, orFacebook
—

Posted via email from John Ayers Posterous

Twitter Celebrity Hotlist

/ John Ayers / Leave a comment

Brian Solis is a thought leader in the social media marketing/pr space, so it doesn’t surprise me that this Entertainment/Celebrity tweeting study is so well done. It is way more information that some want to know or care to know. But for those who want to delve into the details, there is plenty for you.

With the top Tweeter’s having tens of millions followers combined, these are interesting times; where a personal brand can be more influential than the corporate (or entertainment) brand it is part of.

Twitter Celebrity Hotlist: August 2009

The power to analyze behavior and sentiment on Twitter and translate it into trends and direction is limited only by our powers of observation and imagination. As you may or may not know, I have assumed the role of data analyst at PeopleBrowsr, in addition to the other ventures I?m running or advising. Recently, I published The State of the Airline Industry on Twitter, the first in an ongoing series of Twitter-centric reports. Soon, I will roll out additional reports covering various industries on a monthly basis. If you would like a custom report and analysis generated, please let me know.
The latest in the series captures the essence and vibrancy of celebrity engagement and conversations surrounding celebrities in the month of August 2009. Let?s start by defining ?celebrity? as I believe it takes on a new persona and definition on Twitter and Social Media universally. While the majority of the individuals on the list of 60 personalities are representative of real world stars, we are also at the early stages of capturing and recognizing the genre of Internet Famous and micro celebrity. These ambitious personalities have created an online prominence that transcends into the real world fame. Expect the included percentage of the digerati to significantly increase over time, eventually rivaling some of the most visible and renowned household names. If you can think of individuals (either traditional or new celebrity) that we should keep on our radar, please let me know in the comments section.
Overall, we are in the early stages of witnessing what?s possible in Twitter as stars succumb to the seduction of direct fan engagement and the intoxicating allure of real-time response and interaction. Concurrently, fans are enticed and captivated by the prospect of earning the attention of and recognition from the very individuals who inspire them. For them, Twitter represents a direct connection to their idols.
The potential of course is significant as it empowers and strengthens relationships between celebs and followers and ultimately forges bonds in ways not possible prior to the proliferation of socialized media. This rich level of interaction is rekindling and reviving interest in traditional media (movies, music, art, television programming, sports, etc.) as consumers feel a more personal connection with the artist and their work. Perhaps most importantly, we can now connect with the real person behind the celebrity brand.
Social Media is also inspiring innovation in content creation and distribution as it serves as a catalyst for the creation and widespread adoption of new forms of content, consumption, and artistry. In many cases, new media represents a renaissance for stardom, linking individuals who might not have otherwise connected through outside mediums, while also creating new opportunities for everyday people to earn eminence in these new and equally valuable channels.
Influence is equalizing and some artists are able to self-create publicity and promotion simply by publishing Tweets. Direct engagement is also engendering a profound transformation in the professional relationship and arrangement between celebrities and publicists, as many are compelled to engage directly with fans and followers without the help of third-parties. In new media, the days of assistants and publicity agents responding to fan letters and emails are numbered. However, the role of publicity is still required, if not more prominent, as the opportunities for visibility have now multiplied because of new media. Most importantly, what we are witnessing in Twitter is the transformation of fandom into community and perhaps that is, in of itself, a profound phenomenon.
SHARE OF VOICE
Share of voice represents the level of individual presence in the conversations that transpire on Twitter. Much like measuring traditional market share in business landscapes, we are analyzing the volume of mentions, not sales or fan bases, for each celebrity compared to one another. On Twitter popularity and share of voice are directly linked to news and events as well as participatory episodes where conversations are sparked directly by personalities. For example, hip hop artist Soulja Boy often tops the trending topics list each time he hosts a live chat on uStream.tv and invites fans to connect via Twitter.
In the month of August, Miley Cyrus topped the charts with 256,000 mentions with Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block following with an impressive 189,000 references. Rapper Soulja Boy checked in at third with roughly 86,000 tweets, 100,000 behind the number two spot. Controversial gossip blogger Perez Hilton also earned a top spot on the list with 72,000 tweets. Kim Kardashian took the fifth spot with just over 68,000 tweets. What?s surprising however is that Ashton Kutcher, The King of Twitter as the media affectionately proclaimed, captured less Twitter attention in August than one might expect. He does, as you?ll see, lead the list for overall followers. But, as discussed earlier, Twitter attention and conversations are usually driven by a series of sparks. In August, Ashton only published 309 tweets compared to others who sent as many as 1,500 tweets that month. Expect interaction and events become a more significant factor as we continue tracking the industry.
Click here for ultra large version
1. @mileycyrus ? 255,938
2. @donniewahlberg ? 188,778
3. @souljaboytellem ? 86,140
4. @perezhilton ? 72,562
5. @kimkardashian ? 68,547
6. @aplusk ? 66,722
7. @theellenshow ? 39,128
8. @stephenfry ? 38,325
9. @petewentz ? 35,478
10. @ashleytisdale ? 34,967
11. @therealjordin ? 33,799
12. @mitchelmusso ? 32,923
13. @paulaabdul ? 26,791
14. @lancearmstrong ? 25,477
15. @rainnwilson ? 23,433
16. @britneyspears ? 22,703
17. @mrskutcher ? 21,900
18. @ryanseacrest ? 21,681
19. @kirstiealley ? 21,316
20. @rustyrockets ? 19,053
21. @the_real_shaq ? 17,885
22. @wilw ? 15,257
23. @thatkevinsmith ? 15,111
24. @moonfrye ? 13,286
25. @heidimontag ? 13,213
26. @mariahcarey ? 12,118
27. @jimmyfallon ? 11,972
28. @oprah ? 11,096
29. @sevinnyne6126 ? 10,950
30. @questlove ? 10,877
31. @michaelianblack ? 10,585
32. @alyankovic ? 10,001
33. @wossy ? 9,417
34. @greggrunberg ? 8,906
35. @denise_richards ? 8,468
36. @johnlegend ? 8,103
37. @tonyrobbins ? 7,884
38. @jimjonescapo ? 6,789
39. @chelsealately ? 6,789
40. @spencerpratt ? 6,424
41. @mchammer ? 6,132
42. @eonline ? 4,891
43. @cassieventura ? 4,380
44. @gossipgirl ? 4,161
45. @levarburton ? 3,942
46. @pennjillette ? 3,577
47. @nickswisher ? 2,993
48. @ryansheckler ? 2,847
49. @thisislilwayne ? 2,774
50. @50cent ? 2,774
51. @chriscornell ? 2,628
52. @johncleese ? 2,555
53. @snoopdogg ? 2,409
54. @adventuregirl ? 2,336
55. @hodgman ? 2,117
56. @lennykravitz ? 2,044
57. @robcorddry ? 1,533
58. @paulfeig ? 1,387
59. @justjared ? 876
60. @nottinafey ? 292
TOTAL FOLLOWERS
In examining the status of celebrities by followers, it comes with no surprise that Mr. Ashton Kutcher ranks at the very top. In many ways, Ashton is responsible for raising the global awareness and adoption of Twitter, as well as  inspiring other celebrities to embrace the vibrant network. Ashton, along with the now legendary race to 1 million followers, has finally tipped the attraction of Twitter beyond the older demographics that originally defined its importance. Teenagers are now flocking to Twitter in the hopes of not only connecting with their heroes, but also experimenting with prospects of flirting with and possibly earning a taste of micro celebrity themselves. I will publish a separate post on this subject shortly?
The top three spots cumulatively represent over 10 million followers, with each earning over 3 million followers each. Ashton, as mentioned above  is number one with almost 3.8 million followers in August. Ellen DeGeneres is in hot pursuit with 3.5 million. And Britney Spears, who was among the original contestants in the race to 1 million, followed closely behind Ellen with 3.48 million followers.
The separation between the top three and those residing in the next several spots was at least one million followers. In fact, in August, the ?2 million follower club? only housed nine members (in order of followers), Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, Shaq, Oprah Winfrey, Demi Moore, Miley Cryus (who?s currently MIA from Twitter), Jimmy Fallon, Lance Armstrong, and Ashley Tisdale. An interesting observation is that the average number of followers for this current grouping of celebrities totals over 1 million at 1,304,518 exactly.
1. @aplusk ? 3,778,464
2. @theellenshow ? 3,496,041
3. @britneyspears ? 3,480,582
4. @kimkardashian ? 2,514,112
5. @ryanseacrest ? 2,433,803
6. @the_real_shaq ? 2,376,782
7. @oprah ? 2,333,711
8. @mrskutcher ? 2,146,519
9. @mileycyrus ? 2,115,282
10. @jimmyfallon ? 2,099,368
11. @lancearmstrong ? 2,077,717
12. @ashleytisdale ? 2,031,465
13. @mariahcarey ? 1,783,439
14. @50cent ? 1,762,874
15. @souljaboytellem ? 1,668,493
16. @eonline ? 1,625,453
17. @chelsealately ? 1,620,765
18. @petewentz ? 1,591,856
19. @mchammer ? 1,540,286
20. @perezhilton ? 1,524,611
21. @rainnwilson ? 1,504,961
22. @tonyrobbins ? 1,428,620
23. @thatkevinsmith ? 1,390,081
24. @wilw ? 1,367,757
25. @pennjillette ? 1,355,782
26. @johnlegend ? 1,333,071
27. @levarburton ? 1,322,238
28. @alyankovic ? 1,320,214
29. @michaelianblack ? 1,286,746
30. @paulaabdul ? 1,267,045
31. @lennykravitz ? 1,262,223
32. @adventuregirl ? 1,232,757
33. @jimjonescapo ? 1,215,956
34. @denise_richards ? 1,209,800
35. @moonfrye ? 1,183,672
36. @greggrunberg ? 1,157,317
37. @chriscornell ? 1,149,016
38. @gossipgirl ? 1,106,032
39. @ryansheckler ? 1,095,415
40. @robcorddry ? 1,094,003
41. @questlove ? 979,500
42. @nickswisher ? 929,752
43. @paulfeig ? 903,726
44. @stephenfry ? 795,684
45. @heidimontag ? 632,138
46. @rustyrockets ? 584,832
47. @snoopdogg ? 479,882
48. @spencerpratt ? 469,747
49. @wossy ? 422,144
50. @justjared ? 410,589
51. @nottinafey ? 390,926
52. @sevinnyne6126 ? 359,428
53. @therealjordin ? 356,638
54. @mitchelmusso ? 324,008
55. @kirstiealley ? 287,064
56. @johncleese ? 252,519
57. @cassieventura ? 214,717
58. @donniewahlberg ? 96,616
59. @hodgman ? 94,233
60. @thisislilwayne ? 2,610
TOTAL TWEETS
When compared to followers, total tweets painted a very different picture. Of course celebrities are ?in-demand,? often too busy to tweet regularly. In August, the top two spots for total tweets are actually not actually published by celebrities per se, but by the personalities and vehicles that document the industry and the activities of the celebrities on and off this list. The ?queen? of media, Perez Hilton took the top spot with almost 1,500 tweets followed by E! Online with 946. Averaging the number of tweets across the board, we see that our celebrities aren?t too quiet, but not overly communicative either, coming in at just under 9 tweets per day or 255 for the month.
1. @perezhilton ? 1,488
2. @eonline ? 946
3. @questlove ? 865
4. @souljaboytellem ? 850
5. @kirstiealley ? 819
6. @justjared ? 735
7. @donniewahlberg ? 608
8. @adventuregirl ? 597
9. @petewentz ? 506
10. @wossy ? 474
11. @mchammer ? 443
12. @kimkardashian ? 432
13. @therealjordin ? 396
14. @mrskutcher ? 366
15. @aplusk ? 309
16. @mitchelmusso ? 308
17. @lancearmstrong ? 289
18. @mileycyrus ? 287
19. @rainnwilson ? 264
20. @stephenfry ? 263
21. @denise_richards ? 259
22. @spencerpratt ? 248
23. @heidimontag ? 230
24. @jimjonescapo ? 229
25. @moonfrye ? 213
26. @greggrunberg ? 211
27. @michaelianblack ? 202
28. @wilw ? 194
29. @johnlegend ? 193
30. @cassieventura ? 190
31. @ryanseacrest ? 180
32. @thatkevinsmith ? 167
33. @sevinnyne6126 ? 162
34. @paulaabdul ? 161
35. @tonyrobbins ? 112
36. @hodgman ? 95
37. @chelsealately ? 83
38. @jimmyfallon ? 83
39. @theellenshow ? 80
40. @ashleytisdale ? 79
41. @chriscornell ? 77
42. @alyankovic ? 71
43. @robcorddry ? 71
44. @paulfeig ? 56
45. @gossipgirl ? 50
46. @the_real_shaq ? 48
47. @rustyrockets ? 45
48. @britneyspears ? 38
49. @snoopdogg ? 38
50. @pennjillette ? 37
51. @johncleese ? 34
52. @levarburton ? 20
53. @50cent ? 17
54. @mariahcarey ? 16
55. @lennykravitz ? 14
56. @nickswisher ? 14
57. @ryansheckler ? 12
58. @thisislilwayne ? 10
59. @oprah ? 3
60. @nottinafey ? 1
TOTAL FOLLOWING
In Social Media, the act of the ?follow back? is a form of reciprocity and recognition. While it is not a required act, it is dearly appreciated. In August 2009, Britney Spears stood above the rest following over 430,000 people, which is 378,000 more than the second spot, held by Stephen Fry who followed almost 55,000 people and 401,000 more than the number three spot held by MC Hammer with 31,317. The delta between the top three and the rest of the group is significant. The majority follow 500 or less with almost half following fewer than 100. This number surprised me however. Averaging the number of people that each celebrity followed, we uncovered an impressive aggregate of 8,903.
1. @britneyspears ? 432,814
2. @stephenfry ? 54,492
3. @mchammer ? 31,317
4. @wossy ? 3,966
5. @lennykravitz ? 1,863
6. @adventuregirl ? 1,246
7. @questlove ? 1,135
8. @greggrunbeg ? 605
9. @the_real_shaq ? 567
10. @spencerpratt ? 522
11. @perezhilton ? 369
12. @chriscornell ? 309
13. @donniewahlberg ? 289
14. @tonyrobbins ? 279
15. @hodgman ? 276
16. @aplusk ? 231
17. @souljaboytellem ? 229
18. @robcorddry ? 218
19. @heidimontag ? 191
20. @snoopdogg ? 180
21. @therealjordin ? 158
22. @jimjonescapo ? 153
23. @cassieventura ? 145
24. @jimmyfallon ? 142
25. @rainnwilson ? 138
26. @johncleese ? 136
27. @wilw ? 125
28. @ryanseacrest ? 124
29. @alyankovic ? 115
30. @lancearmstrong ? 115
31. @moonfrye ? 112
32. @mrskutcher ? 109
33. @sevinnyne6126 ? 105
34. @levarburton ? 97
35. @petewentz ? 91
36. @johnlegend ? 87
37. @thisislilwayne ? 87
38. @kirstiealley ? 82
39. @michaelianblack ? 81
40. @ashleytisdale ? 76
41. @justjared ? 71
42. @thatkevinsmith ? 69
43. @mileycyrus ? 68
44. @paulfeig ? 67
45. @kimkardashian ? 64
46. @ryansheckler ? 64
47. @nottinafey ? 54
48. @mitchelmusso ? 49
49. @eonline ? 48
50. @denise_richards ? 38
51. @rustyrockets ? 32
52. @paulaabdul ? 29
53. @theellenshow ? 26
54. @mariahcarey ? 23
55. @50cent ? 17
56. @oprah ? 17
57. @chelsealately ? 16
58. @gossipgirl ? 11
59. @nickswisher ? 6
60. @pennjillette ? 5
SENTIMENT BEFORE AND AFTER HUMAN SORTING
Similar to the Airline Industry report we published recently, it?s important to note that sentiment, as documented and categorized solely by software algorithms, often misleads the reader. When we apply a human filter to each instance, the results can be profoundly different and is often the case between a truly positive and negative state. In conversations regarding personalities, we observed a profound concentration of positive tweets after human sorting, which is truly distinctive to the celebrity segment and significantly higher than any other industry we?re tracking.
A personal brand, over a product for example, is naturally tied to the psychology of human interaction. When you tweet @ someone, you are, of course, recognizing or hoping to earn the attention of the person directly. In most cases, we?re observing that the positive recognition is linked to the prospect of reciprocity or support.
The sentiment captured and organized using a machine dictionary proves highly inaccurate. The unique machine and human-powered system we?ve built at PeopleBrowsr proves that in the business of perception management and influence, analyzing inaccurate data can prove ineffective, insular, and often futile. Manually analyzing activity provides us with a human perspective as well as empathy.
@50cent
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 82% Negative: 5%
@adventuregirl
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 73% Negative: 0
@alyankovic
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 78% Negative: 4%
@aplusk
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 78% Negative: 2%
@ashleytisdale
Before Human Sorting Positive: 36% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 1%
@britneyspears
Before Human Sorting Positive: 26% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 1%
@cassieventura
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 2%
@chelsealately
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 4%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 1%
@chriscornell
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 3%
@denise_richards
Before Human Sorting Positive: 25% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 79% Negative: 1%
@donniewahlberg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 1%
@eonline
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 3%
@gossipgirl
Before Human Sorting Positive: 11% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 0%
@greggrunberg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 80% Negative: 1%
@heidimontag
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 7%
@hodgman
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 83% Negative: 3%
@jimjonescapo
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 4%
After Human Sorting Positive: 81% Negative: 4%
@jimmyfallon
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 1%
@johncleese
Before Human Sorting Positive: 13% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 0%
@johnlegend
Before Human Sorting Positive: 23% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 0%
@justjared
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 67% Negative: 0%
@kimkardashian
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%
@kirstiealley
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%
@lancearmstrong
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 1%
@lennykravitz
Before Human Sorting Positive: 34% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 0%
@levarburton
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 0%
@mariahcarey
Before Human Sorting Positive: 32% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 4%
@mchammer
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 86% Negative: 1%
@michaelianblack
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 3%
@mileycyrus
Before Human Sorting Positive: 31% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%
@mitchelmusso
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%
@moonfrye
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18%
Negative: 2% After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 2%
@mrskutcher
Before Human Sorting Positive: 26% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 2%
@nickswisher
Before Human Sorting Positive: 32% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%
@nottinafey
Before Human Sorting Positive: 0% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 50% Negative: 25%
@oprah
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 4%
@paulaabdul
Before Human Sorting Positive: 39% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 2%
@paulfeig
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%
@pennjillette
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 94% Negative: 0%
@perezhilton
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 6%
@petewentz
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 2%
@questlove
Before Human Sorting Positive: 16% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 1%
@rainnwilson
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 2%
@robcorddry
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%
@rustyrockets
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 1%
@ryanseacrest
Before Human Sorting Positive: 24% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%
@ryansheckler
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 3%
@sevinnyne6126
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%
@snoopdogg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 0 %
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 0%
@souljaboytellem
Before Human Sorting Positive: 13% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%
@spencerpratt
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 5%
@stephenfry
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%
@thatkevinsmith
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 2%
@the_real_shaq
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 86% Negative: 2%
@theellenshow
Before Human Sorting Positive: 31% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%
@therealjordin
Before Human Sorting Positive: 30% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 1%
@thisislilwayne
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 5%
@tonyrobbins
Before Human Sorting Positive: 23% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 1%
@wilw
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 3%
@wossy
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 3%
?
Connect with Brian Solis on:

 Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, Posterous, orFacebook
?

4021389232_5739e7491e_o4020629887_d8bf7d85ba_o

Do you have 60 seconds?

/ John Ayers / Leave a comment

Do you have 60 seconds?

A Billion for a Billion

<embed name="movie_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/watch-vfl126580.swf&quot; allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="rv.7.length_seconds=46&rv.6.author=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&rv.0.length_seconds=203&rv.4.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F45-lRU0sb2s%2Fdefault.jpg&fmt_url_map=35%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fv21.lscache3.c.youtube.com%2Fvideoplayback%3Fip%3D0.0.0.0%26sparams%3Did%252Cexpire%252Cip%252Cipbits%252Citag%252Calgorithm%252Cburst%252Cfactor%26fexp%3D900032%26algorithm%3Dthrottle-factor%26itag%3D35%26ipbits%3D0%26signature%3D2F5252855B5095B7BB26BD8FEE419E5581DF9C98.5C5C9BDB12D4ACAB81B5AB4AE0FF37F81B1F022B%26sver%3D3%26expire%3D1256018400%26key%3Dyt1%26factor%3D1.25%26burst%3D40%26id%3Dea34815b404e3ea3%2C34%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fv14.lscache1.c.youtube.com%2Fvideoplayback%3Fip%3D0.0.0.0%26sparams%3Did%252Cexpire%252Cip%252Cipbits%252Citag%252Calgorithm%252Cburst%252Cfactor%26fexp%3D900032%26algorithm%3Dthrottle-factor%26itag%3D34%26ipbits%3D0%26signature%3DD65B6D64A77DED76D8DA42A7B3E43A579E606483.1BAB67CBD9713910505AC4932DE054FA74ADFAA0%26sver%3D3%26expire%3D1256018400%26key%3Dyt1%26factor%3D1.25%26burst%3D40%26id%3Dea34815b404e3ea3%2C5%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fv3.lscache1.c.youtube.com%2Fvideoplayback%3Fip%3D0.0.0.0%26sparams%3Did%252Cexpire%252Cip%252Cipbits%252Citag%252Calgorithm%252Cburst%252Cfactor%26fexp%3D900032%26algorithm%3Dthrottle-factor%26itag%3D5%26ipbits%3D0%26signature%3DA714E48D5BF01F0124633285CDACDA985AE1A36A.03A3FC4B8F83B1109D3EA741BCDA58B10AB125DD%26sver%3D3%26expire%3D1256018400%26key%3Dyt1%26factor%3D1.25%26burst%3D40%26id%3Dea34815b404e3ea3&keywords=billion%2Cviews%2Cper%2Cday%2Cworld+food+day&rv.1.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZN0JA5bUdJ0&rv.3.rating=4.5&iv_storage_server=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freviews%2Fy%2F&rv.0.featured=1&rv.5.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRJlPEHL85Ig&rv.6.length_seconds=163&ctb_xml=%3C%3Fxml+version%3D%221.0%22+encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22+standalone%3D%22no%22%3F%3E%3C%21DOCTYPE+GSP+SYSTEM+%22contentxml.dtd%22%3E%3CGSP+VER%3D%223.2%22%3E%3CUI%3E%3Cconfig%3E%3Ccontext+data%3D%22default%22+%2F%3E%3Cparams%3E%3Cattribution_text+data%3D%22Advertisement%22+%2F%3E%3Ctemplates_attribution_font_height_delta+data%3D%227%22+%2F%3E%3Cuse_meta_ad_player+bool%3D%22true%22+%2F%3E%3Cuse_square_close_button+bool%3D%22true%22+%2F%3E%3Cuse_dark_close_button+bool%3D%22true%22+%2F%3E%3C%2Fparams%3E%3C%2Fconfig%3E%3C%2FUI%3E%3CADS+feedback_url%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fservices.google.com%2Ffeedback%2Fabg%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.corp.google.com%2Feng%2Ftesting%2FTS%2Fdocs%2Ftestplans%2Fcafe_testing%2FTestGadget_Template_slideshow_pagead.html%26amp%3Bamp%3Bhl%3Den%26amp%3Bamp%3Bclient%3Dca-mongoogle%26amp%3Bamp%3BadU%3DGoogle.com%26amp%3Bamp%3BadT%3DImageAd%26amp%3Bamp%3Bdone%3D1%22%3E%3CAD+n%3D%221%22+type%3D%22flash%22%3E%3CTEMPLATE_PARAMETERS%3E%3CTEMPLATE_WIDTH%3E450%3C%2FTEMPLATE_WIDTH%3E%3CTEMPLATE_HEIGHT%3E50%3C%2FTEMPLATE_HEIGHT%3E%3CTEMPLATE_URL%3Ehttp%3A%2F%2Fpagead2.googlesyndication.com%2Fpagead%2Fgadgets%2Fclick_to_buy%2Fclick_to_buy_flash_overlay_spec.swf%3C%2FTEMPLATE_URL%3E%3CTEMPLATE_ELEMENT+element_name%3D%22adData%22+index%3D%220%22%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22templateType%22%3ET%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22text1%22%3EJust+25+cents…%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22text2%22%3Ecan+feed+a+child%21+It+starts+with+one+person.+Make+a+difference.%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22text3%22%3Ewww.wfp.org%2Fdonate%2F1billion%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22destinationUrl%22%3Ehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fredirect%3Fq%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wfp.org%252Fdonate%252F1billion%26amp%3Bctatype%3Doverlay%26amp%3Bevent%3Dcta%26amp%3Bv%3D6jSBW0BOPqM%26amp%3Busg%3DHUSbvpR3uSVAKOUmccZltj2rWFA%3D%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22trackingUrl1%22%3Ehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fplayer_204%3Fevent%3Dcta%26amp%3Bctatype%3Doverlay%26amp%3Bdurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wfp.org%252Fdonate%252F1billion%26amp%3Bplid%3DAAR2UlGccO0DyO83%26amp%3Bv%3D6jSBW0BOPqM%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3C%2FTEMPLATE_ELEMENT%3E%3C%2FTEMPLATE_PARAMETERS%3E%3C%2FAD%3E%3C%2FADS%3E%3C%2FGSP%3E&rv.0.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FE37-D7B0Wa8%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.7.author=Agassiztrio&rv.5.view_count=8038563&rv.1.length_seconds=39&rv.3.id=lD87MfjyJVA&rv.2.id=XrnoSc5NyyQ&rv.2.length_seconds=271&t=vjVQa1PpcFN-xU5t571K8Huy_mRQeh_WIys9njohhv0%3D&fexp=900032&creator=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&allow_embed=1&rv.2.rating=4.79310344828&rv.6.title=Facing+the+Floods&ad_logging_flag=1&rv.1.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FZN0JA5bUdJ0%2Fdefault.jpg&length_seconds=69&iv_module=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Fiv_module-vfl119825.swf&rv.4.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D45-lRU0sb2s&rv.4.title=Fatuma+Goes+Back+to+School&rv.5.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FRJlPEHL85Ig%2Fdefault.jpg&watermark=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Flogo-vfl106645.swf%2Chttp%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Fhdlogo-vfl100714.swf&rv.0.title=Bond+-+Explosive&rv.3.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlD87MfjyJVA&rv.7.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuG7JQHGhcg8&rv.2.view_count=13265&rv.4.view_count=3044&ad_module=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Fad-vfl126137.swf&rv.1.view_count=5042&rv.5.title=Beyonce+Single+Ladies+Dance&rv.1.title=Hungerbytes+v.2&ctb=True&rv.3.length_seconds=83&rv.5.author=YTwatchdog&rv.2.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FXrnoSc5NyyQ%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.0.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DE37-D7B0Wa8&rv.0.view_count=466503&rv.2.title=World+Food+Programme+Logistics%3B+We+Deliver&rv.4.rating=4.92857142857&rv.3.view_count=2820&cr=US&rv.6.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F53l6_00AL30%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.7.id=uG7JQHGhcg8&rv.0.rating=4.89355895197&rv.5.id=RJlPEHL85Ig&rv.0.id=E37-D7B0Wa8&sdetail=n%3A1%2C&rv.3.title=World+Food+Day+2008&rv.0.author=universalmusicgroup&rv.3.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FlD87MfjyJVA%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.2.author=tbj1870&rv.6.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D53l6_00AL30&fmt_map=35%2F640000%2F9%2F0%2F115%2C34%2F0%2F9%2F0%2F115%2C5%2F0%2F7%2F0%2F0&hl=en&rv.5.length_seconds=104&rv.6.id=53l6_00AL30&rv.6.view_count=184514&rv.3.author=IMCworldwideDotOrg&rv.4.id=45-lRU0sb2s&video_id=6jSBW0BOPqM&rv.4.author=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&rv.7.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FuG7JQHGhcg8%2Fdefault.jpg&vq=medium&rv.7.title=A+message+from+the+World+Food+Programme&rv.1.id=ZN0JA5bUdJ0&rv.4.length_seconds=140&rv.7.view_count=1395&plid=AAR2UlGccO0DyO83&rv.5.rating=4.54176059187&rv.1.author=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&rv.1.rating=3.08333333333&iv_allow_external_links=1&rv.7.rating=5.0&rv.2.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXrnoSc5NyyQ&rv.6.rating=4.45517241379&sk=ZNyCOUWr01PA7Clgk30yTKBy3zORqltUC&playnext=0&enablejsapi=1″ height=”400″ quality=”high” width=”500″ style=”” />

Posted via email from John Ayers Posterous

10 Ways to Get Fired For Building Your Personal Brand

/ John Ayers / Leave a comment

Personal branding is a wave that has been building ever since kids got cell phones, digital cameras and an email account. Now it has taken to an entirely new level. Dan Schawbel is a thought leader who writes extensively about building your personal brand. I too have share my own comments on this important and power methodology as it relates to marketing in general and more specifically to the entertainment industry.

Before you move into building your brand… you may want to read some of Dan’s recent post.
Good insight.
Best,
John

10 Ways to Get Fired For Building Your Personal Brand

 on October 19th, 2009 at 3:30 am

  • In Career Development, Personal Branding, Reputation Management, Social Media, eBrand | 6 Comments
    • For all of you employed readers, this post is directed at you because I wouldn’t want you to become unemployed, as you build your own personal brand. Branding has become very personal these days and the relationship we have with our companies is changing very fast, so I think it’s important to focus on what you shouldn’t do at work, not just branding and career strategies.  I view web 2.0 technologies at the driving force that converges our professional and social lives.  Who you are and how you behave outside of work can impact how you’re perceived inside of work and visa versa.  The way the world works now is that you have to spend more time thinking about your actions than you did ten years ago because words spread faster and they are accessible by everyone.

    10 Ways to Get Fired For Building Your Personal Brand

    1. Friending your manager on Facebook and then complaining about your job.

    At work, people are trying to connect with colleagues on social networks, it’s a fact and part of human nature.  Sometimes, you feel that you’re friends with your co-workers and other times you may think that if you friend your boss or an executive, it may pose for a future career opportunity.  By using social networks strictly for professional use, then this is a good move, but the second (and I mean the second) you want to make it a social endeavor, that’s when the game changes.
    A recent survey by OfficeTeam indicated that 32% of executives are not comfortable at all being friended by their boss, 33% weren’t comfortable being friended by people they manage or clients.  You want to get to know a person at work before you friend them or even ask them before you do, otherwise the work environment might be awkward for you and it might open you up to a world of misfortune.  Another survey by Proofpoint suggests that you better wise up on social networks, since 8% of people have been layed off in 2009 for bad behavior, which is double from 2008.
    Both Adam Ostrow (editor-in-chief of Mashable) and I feel that is one of the funniest social media bloopers around:

    2. Putting your personal brand in front of your company’s brand.

    This is still one of the hottest and most controversial topics around, so I feel that it deserves more attention.  A lot of people tweet while at work and don’t deny it please.  The only thing is that 80% of people are tweeting about themselves, not about their company’s, a report by two college professors at Rutgers states.  Companyies, by nature, are looking to build their own brand, sometimes through the use of selectively chosen spokespeople who represent the brand and can be quoted within press articles (cited with the brand).  When you’re getting more attention than your company, you know something is wrong.  You’re not getting paid to be the Oprah of a company.  Instead, you’re being compensated based on the value you provide over time.  When you draw attention to your personal brand instead of your company’s, then your coworkers will get jealous, your manager will wonder why you aren’t getting your work done and you’ll eventually get fired.

    3. Complaining that your company blocks social networking sites.

    Company cultures are always different and have politcies (csome have social media policies for workers too).  Some block social networking sites, while others refrain because they know that people are doing work at home, so their employment contract is different.  Robert Half International found that 54% of companies prohibit use of social networking Web sites during work hours, including popular sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.  Another survey by ScanSafe, indicates that 20% more companies are blocking social networking sites and that 76% currently block them, which is much more than the Robert half survey.  Don’t complain that your company blocks these sites.  If you’re truly obsessed, why not access them from your mobile phone?  Otherwise, get fired and go somewhere else!
    Other companies realize the potential in good corporate web-citizens.  For example, eBillme offers training on how to use social networking sites to spread company information.

    4. Attracting the wrong attention to your company’s brand because of your own.

    Please don’t say that a blog disclaimer is going to disassociate your brand with your company’s because it’s not!  Brand association is powerful and cannot be undone, which means you have to be smart about what kind of attention you want to draw to yourself.  A reporter, journalist, producer or blogger can easily scrape your content and quote it in a story, without your permission.  They can also link you to your company, even if the blog topic isn’t related to your current work position.  If news breaks out because of this visibility, your company can fire you for carelessness and for harming the corporate brand.  Again, our lives are different now, so you better be safe than sorry (and that sounds like something my parents would say).

    5. Announcing your new job on Twitter when you’re still employed.

    Your colleagues are following you on Twitter, trust me.  If you’re looking for a career move right now or in the future and you want to promote it, wait till after you’ve moved from your company.  Supervisor references are always important because endorsements rule the world, so if you want to burn your previous employer by not being transparent offline, then you’re in trouble.  You can tell your friends and family, but once you announce it to the world, it’s fair game and you’ll be laid off immediately without the chance to ever return to that company.  A lot of people don’t realize that once you establish a reputation and a network at a company, it can be your safety net in the future if you desperately need a job.

    6. Thinking you’re superior to older workers because you’re tech literate.

    If you’re a millennial than you have to start figuring out how you want to position yourself at work.  Don’t think for a minute that everyone that’s older than you doesn’t understand technology.  There’s five generations in the workforce, and although millennials will be the majority in the year 2020 (HBS), older workers still have senior positions.  Instead of trying to be superior than them, which can get you fired or put you in a corner, try and be helpful by supporting their projects with your tech expertise.

    7. Wearing rags to work because it’s part of your brand.

    I’m exaggerating by saying “rags,” but the point is that dressing well will help you get promoted and wearing something inappropriate for work, can get you fired over time, if you refuse to change.  A survey by Harris Interactive and Gillette reveals that 84% of HR professionals agree that well-groomed employees climb the corporate ladder faster than those who aren’t.  They put more emphasis on attire than a handshake!  Now, I know what you’re going to say, “but Dan, what if a mohawk or face Tattoo is part of my brand”?  How are you going to get a job or be taken seriously that way though?  There are common social norms that are accepted in the workplace and how you dress and act is how you’ll be judged by everyone around you.  If you want to be so far outside of the norm, then don’t get a corporate job in the first place!

    8. Posting inappropriate photos on Facebook, forgetting that your profile is public.

    Ray Lam, a former NDP candidate for Vancouver-False Creek  was forced to resign from his job when photographs were discovered on Faceobook.  One picture showed him palming a woman’s breast and another with his pants down and two people pulling at his underwear.  I was going to post the photo here, but it’s too inappropriate for this blog (see for yourself).  There are other examples of this happening, such as a teacher being fired for her MySpace picture and a nursing home assistent taking pictures with her patients.  I have knews for you:  you don’t own your profiles on social networks.  That’s right, Facebook owns your profile and companies can pay Facebook for that information.  Always think of your profile as public!

    9. Spending more time on yourself than being productive during work hours.

    A company’s main reason for not allowing social networks at work (aside from legal ramifications for financial institutions, etc) is they feel a productivity loss.  If you’re sharing advice on your social networks at work and blogging, then where is the real business value, unless you’re in a social media specialist type role.  Companies are looking for you to bring in revenue, decrease costs or at least bring in some ROI for the expense they’re paying for you to work there.  If you can’t do that because you’re building your brand at work, then get ready for a big fat pink slip because you’re easily replaceable, now that there’s 6.3 job seekers for every job.

    10. Calling in sick, when you’re not, so that you can focus on your brand.

    32% of workers have called in sick when they were well at least once this year and 28% of employers think more employees are absent with fake excuses because of the economy, reports Careerbuilder.com.  I know you love your blog and you want to get your name out there, but dishonesty will come back to haunt you.  If you aren’t sick, then show up to work please.  You can always work on building your brand when you get home from work.  Also, when you do excellent work during regular hours, that can do wonders for your brand.

    h3h3h3h3

    Posted via email from John Ayers Posterous