I definitely think GWWC could be doing a better job on twitter, which you’ve mentioned above—I’m still considering whether the additional effort is worth it for us at the moment. Regardless I am updating the mix of content to include more about our top-rated charities (this will happen slowly over time).
As an interesting aside—I think people are much less interested in engaging with orgs/brands than they are with individuals. Over the past few months I’ve experimented with my own twitter account and have found that my personal account with ~1,000 followers gets a lot more engagement on effective giving related content (and even retweets of GWWC content) than our GWWC account with ~12,000 followers.
Another interesting question for you to investigate is whether it’s worth it for orgs to ask their staff to be active on social media rather than investing resources in branded accounts.
Thanks for pointing that out. I also get a sense that people are getting more traction than brands in EA twitter. Before my initial social media study I followed very few EA orgs on Twitter and I wasn’t getting exposed to new ones, whereas prominent individuals were popping up.
Perhaps orgs should be trying that out. I expect some friction—people who already use social media in a personal capacity may want to keep it separate from their job, while others are consciously off the platforms and actively against spending time on them. Maybe people could just get secondary, job-aligned accounts.
I’m definitely a fan on Twitter of mixing being a prominent org spokesperson with also having a very independent and personal voice. I’m curious how that comes across.
Thanks Stan for including GWWC in your analysis!
I definitely think GWWC could be doing a better job on twitter, which you’ve mentioned above—I’m still considering whether the additional effort is worth it for us at the moment. Regardless I am updating the mix of content to include more about our top-rated charities (this will happen slowly over time).
As an interesting aside—I think people are much less interested in engaging with orgs/brands than they are with individuals. Over the past few months I’ve experimented with my own twitter account and have found that my personal account with ~1,000 followers gets a lot more engagement on effective giving related content (and even retweets of GWWC content) than our GWWC account with ~12,000 followers.
Another interesting question for you to investigate is whether it’s worth it for orgs to ask their staff to be active on social media rather than investing resources in branded accounts.
Thanks for pointing that out. I also get a sense that people are getting more traction than brands in EA twitter. Before my initial social media study I followed very few EA orgs on Twitter and I wasn’t getting exposed to new ones, whereas prominent individuals were popping up.
Perhaps orgs should be trying that out. I expect some friction—people who already use social media in a personal capacity may want to keep it separate from their job, while others are consciously off the platforms and actively against spending time on them. Maybe people could just get secondary, job-aligned accounts.
I’m definitely a fan on Twitter of mixing being a prominent org spokesperson with also having a very independent and personal voice. I’m curious how that comes across.