3 ms·
> I suspect it has the same weakness as the "follow back" strategy though. Nobody really cares about the account or connects with it or even understands what yo
by rconti 5y ago
> I suspect it has the same weakness as the "follow back" strategy though. Nobody really cares about the account or connects with it or even understands what you're trying to do. These people aren't your followers so much as they are people who like small talk and coalesced around you for a time.
But if the entire point is to get impressions so you can sell a product, or whatever, do you are if people don't particularly like you?
- kingcharles 5y agoOK, I can give you a real world example of why parent commenter's strategy is useless. I had two pages on Facebook based on a very popular movie from the 1980s. One was the actual studio's page for the movie that I was given access to (as the studio admitted they don't give a fuck about any IP that doesn't have an immediate release - e.g. Blu-ray etc - planned for it), which had over 2 million likes. When you opened a Facebook account this page was one of the list that was often presented to a new user as something they should "like". The other was a fan page I'd made which was niche, had to be actively sought out, and had 30,000 likes. I experimented with selling branded products through the accounts. The small fan page sold 10X as many products as the official page that had almost 100X more followers. tl;dr: if you want to sell shit to your followers they need to be engaged with you - just having people follow you on autopilot is going to create nothing of value.
- kevinmchugh 5y agoTwitter users with 1:1 followers: following are known to be trying to get followers and aren't actually reading posts from those users. It's all circular, a bunch of people juicing each other's follower stats. They use lists or separate accounts to read the accounts they care about. They have bad engagement on their posts