Separate and Not Equal: The Folly of Followers
Thanks for the shout-out Howard. We’ll have fun next week for sure.
The pattern on Twitter is no different than every other content platform. On YouTube, over 90% of the videos come from a mere 2-3% of users. On Digg, 70% of the front page is from the top 100 submitters. This pattern applies to all media that scales - print, television, internet, etc. The only difference is the democratization of access on the web. The fact that most people are consumers/lurkers shouldn’t be surprising. Everyone isn’t popular, by definition, but human nature dictates a desire to be. This is why 90% of male Parisians believe they are above average lovers - there is a disconnect between our perceptions and reality, which is really the center of this discussion. How do we get beyond the useless economics of following/followers and satisfy the wellspring of latent narcissism in everyone? Access flattens the popularity curve. I may not BE Shaq, Diddy or Howard, but I gain a level of psychic enrgy from being connected to them. The insider vs. the outsider. I don’t need to have followers to benefit from Twitter, I need only follow/select the circles of influence that give me joy.
The next “wave” on Twitter won’t be giving more people followers. Rather, it will be segregating the followers - who are the elite within Howard’s 7000 and how can he reward them more than the others. This area is ripe for innovation, and people will pay up for access and membership. Get ready for VIP treatment people, it’s coming …
Originally posted as a comment by gbattle on Howard Lindzon using Disqus.
