Normally we reserve the blog for positive, thoughtful rhetoric about using Twitter for business. We’ve been excited watching Twitter’s explosive growth over the last year. Recent figures have 12 month growth at over 1000% - which is amazing by anyone’s standards. But with massive adoption comes users that may not be as accustomed to “interacting” with people directly - something that Twitter is designed for.

Recently Charlie Villanueva of the NBA received notoriety for tweeting during halftime of the Bucks vs. Celtics game. For Twitter geeks like us, that was a huge moment. Seriously - HE TWEETED AT HALFTIME. I immediately followed Mr. Villanueva and noticed something about his account: 5000+ followers, and he only follows 78 in return. So I did some more research:

Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) 388,300 followers, he follows 56.
Jimmy Fallon (@jimmyfallon) 359,449 followers, follows 63.
John Mayer (@johncmayer) 253,987 followers, follows 20
Julia Allison (@juliaallison) 8,534 followers, follows 39.
Shaq (@the_real_shaq) 337,000 followers, he follows 470. (Which is actually pretty good, nice job Shaq.)

I mean, Julia Allison is really only web famous (no offense Ms. Allison, I think you’re awesome) and she can’t bring herself to follow more people.

This is the issue - Twitter is not going to work if it’s used as just another broadcast media. John Mayer is hilarious and down to earth (and geeky at times) so I enjoy reading his blog and following him on Twitter. But I like Twitter because I can have numerous ongoing conversations with people all over the world. Twitter works when I reply to someone’s tweet, then they follow me, and then a connection is formed. It’s not realistic to think someone can manage 300K followers and respond to everyone, but a 20 to 300K ration is not going to give anyone a breakthrough experience.

For Twitter to work for everyone long term, and not be relegated to some short term PR fad, it has to provide reciprocal benefit. Following John Mayer’s tweets, while occasionally enjoyable, does not offer me any benefit as a John Mayer fan. However, the occasion may come where I reply to John and he replies back and I will turn into a mush pile of gooey faced man crush. (*Note, I don’t have a man crush on John Mayer, just using it for the sake of example.)

If you want to get more out of Twitter - give more back. FOLLOW PEOPLE, and you will see the incredible viral capability of Twitter unleashed. You will earn fans for life. You will embolden relationships with people who buy your cds, watch your shows, go to your basketball games.

I hope to see some positive changes folks. We’re all in this together. As Twitter grows, we grow with it.

(*Note, I actually do have a man crush on John Mayer.)

So, some of you have noticed that Cherp has been a little quiet to start 2009.  It’s true, we’ve been focused on a variety of projects and started down the path of developing our own application.  Twitter app development is too crowded today and we’ve decided to get back to our primary focus full-time - providing Twitter marketing and branding services.

We never left, we were just less vocal.  

And so many other people were making plenty of noise.  Cherp is not going to be an also-ran, and we’re not content to be another group of social media experts.  We know and love Twitter, and we still see little creativity and lots of opportunity.  In fact, we’re working on a variety of projects that will come to light soon to demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along - Twitter is the perfect tool to personify brands in the post-web 2.0 internet.

The website and blog are relaunched, and we will continue to keep them up to date and fresh as 2009 continues.  We’re also set to publish our manifesto on personification of brand.  Keep an eye on the site in the coming weeks.

Next up you’ll see us at SxSW.  Come find us for your free Cherp T-shirt.

Americans have innovated during each economic downturn in our nation’s history.  Some significant companies have spawned from the Great Depression such as Proctor and Gamble and our current movie studio system.  (There are plenty of blogs talking about this topic: Fast Company, Business Week, McKinsey.)

What we do here at Cherp is think about Twitter, and it dawned on me today that there is a perfect storm brewing that spells success for Twitter.  The economy will drive two specific activities that will help Twitter.

1. More people are going to have time on their hands and will turn to technology to help them network to find a job.  

2. Businesses will turn to new technology to find ways to acquire customers.  

Both of these will lead to greater numbers of people joining Twitter and networking, and no one else is better positioned (besides Linkedin.com, but it’s a closed network so it doesn’t foster accessibility the same way Twitter does.)  Think about it.  People refuse to give up their phones and their computers - they are essential to finding and applying for jobs, networking for interviews, marketing oneself, and in some cases, freelancing to try and pay the bills.  While they are there, it’s only natural to reach out more and more through social networks.

Additionally, companies will continue to look for new ways to market and in an economy like this they will be looking for less expensive methods than TV and Print.  Media is traditionally more expensive and requires a large distribution to provide a proper ROI.  Blogging has proven to have a phenomenal ROI for companies who do it right because it boosts SEO rankings, builds and fosters community with consumers, and provides a constant voice for the company in it’s respective market - and it does so inexpensively.  Twitter continues to show the potential to be more effective in some ways than blogging because it harnesses the viral loop methods of social networks better than blogs do.

Twitter has the momentum, it has the openness, it’s searchable, it’s easy, and the buzz just keeps growing for Twitter.

There is lots of “I told you so” going on across the web, especially the blogosphere and Twitter. The vocal opposition to Microsoft’s Jerry Seinfeld ads seem to be involved in one giant self-congratulatory pat on the back. What they proved is that Microsoft is the big, conservative, sensitive giant that they are portrayed as, and I think it’s sad. Microsoft and Crispin Porter + Bogusky were on the right track with the latest Windows/Microsoft ad campaign, despite the fact that much of the public response was confusion (or puzzlement.) Why do I think this was succeeding in spite of the fact that the public reaction wasn’t considered wildly enthusiastic?

1. People were talking about Microsoft again. And many of the people doing the talking were Mac users.

3. Microsoft wasn’t trying to “outcool” Apple, and they weren’t trying to directly respond either. They were directing their own message, and it was basically - “Hey, we’re people too.”

I referred to it as “Personification of Brand” before, and I stand behind my assessment that Microsoft could succeed by giving their brand a humanity that is lacking in big companies. There is this brand impression left over from the “Pirates of Silicon Valley” days where Microsoft was viewed as manipulative and monopolistic, whose business practices were unfair. But it’s 2008, not 1998 and now Microsoft is fighting against Google and Apple and no longer destroying the Netscapes of the world. This ad campaign wasn’t about Windows, and it shouldn’t have been. The ads were going to get people talking about Microsoft in non-negative ways, and open the door for a more personal connection to the brand again.

The smart strategy would be to butter people up by reminding them that Bill Gates is just this goofy programmer than happened to make the biggest OS in the world at the right time, and he’s human. Because the average person (at least the one who knows who Bill Gates is) probably uses Microsoft and isn’t emotionally connected because his PC is really “personal” the way Mac users PCs are “personal.” Once the brand was human again, and people were paying attention - the strategy should have been to establish how Microsoft was open to the unique needs of a lot of people, rather than the elitist attitude of Macs (and Mac users).

I recall the movie “Antitrust” with Ryan Phillipe about a young computer genius who gets wooed into joining the big Seattle software company that just happens to be eliminating upstart software companies to absorb their IP and clear the path for dominance. As ridiculous and sensational as this movie was, it was possible because of the opinion many had of Microsoft. This impression still lingers with people, although it’s diminished, and Microsoft needs to put a bullet in it once and for all. This ad campaign was on the right path, and I think it would have worked. Instead, Microsoft showed it has no confidence in it’s ability to weather a storm and take the brand in a new direction. They are in fact, a big, conservative software company that makes too many decisions by committee and should have let the creative professionals help.

Microsoft gave up, and it’s too bad because despite being a longtime Mac fanboy and anti-Windows guy, I was rooting for them.