But this post isn't about rehashing that rather well made point, it's about another interesting incident I found. This morning, I read this article on CNN's website- Ashton Kutcher challenges CNN to Twitter popularity contest.
Now let me be the first to say I laughed at this. Kutcher telling Larry King that if he beats CNN to 1 million Twitter followers he will ding-dong-ditch Ted Turner's house is hilarious. Larry King's response was equally funny, telling Kutcher "CNN will bury you."
Now all kidding aside, it's pretty clear to me that neither Ashton nor CNN understands exactly how Twitter works. If this was a friend race on Myspace, it would make a little more sense. But Twitter is about conversation, not followers. It's not some social cult networking site where whoever recruits the most followers wins.
This kind of thing, especially on this grand and public scale, makes people focus their attention on numbers of followers, not on making actual connections. As I was writing this post, someone retweeted this: TWITTER WAR DECLARED: @someecards (361,733) vs @MarthaStewart (364,507) to 500k. follow someecards and retweet.
I hope that these popularity contests aren't a sign of a new trend to come. Creating buzz about something is good, but creating buzz for buzz's sake leads to a whole lot of nothin.
There is however a redeeming point in Ashton Kutcher's challenge. His original sentiment that a single person can, in today's media, have a voice as big as an entire news station is an interesting and progressive thought. Granted that calling for a popularity contest might not have been the best way to illustrate his point, I still think his idea has merit.
So what do you think? How much value do you put on your number of followers? What do you think of Kutcher's challenge to CNN and (oh what the hell) do you think he can beat CNN?
