On February 26, 2009, Kat Tancock blogged for Masthead online about how online magazines should use Twitter (http://www.mastheadonline.com/blogs/?blogId=228#comments_section). Her article talks about how some magazines are using Twitter as an RSS feed, only posting links to their site instead of engaging with the community. She debates a point made by Melanie McBride (the very instructor for this course). McBride states that “While an RSS only feed is FAR from ideal it may function as a temporary means for publications to share their content in a new space while figuring out a strategy for more personalised feed management.” Tancock disagrees and says that magazines should only use Twitter if they have the time to make the personal connections; if you don’t then find other ways interact with the community.
I myself have only recently discovered the world of online magazines and Twitter. While I consider myself computer savvy I do not necessarily consider myself web savvy. I have used all of the usual sites; I have a facebook account, a myspace account (although I will admit that I have never really used it) and I have email addresses with both hotmail and gmail. I had heard of Twitter before, but I have only had an account for about a month. While I do not usually post any updates or links through my Twitter, I do check it regularly. Why? Because I like knowing what is going on out there with the people and organizations I am following.
Since I mostly use Twitter to get information, this debate over how magazines and other organizations should use Twitter really grabbed my attention and made me think. How should Twitter really be used? Honestly, I believe both sides have very good points.
Tancock says that online magazines should use Twitter to interact with the readers instead of just acting like an RSS feed. While I don’t generally chat on Twitter, one of the things I like best about the network is that I know that I have the opportunity to interact with places like The New York Times or Spacing Magazine if I want to. It makes the magazine more human and approachable, which does make me more interested in what they have to say.
McBride argues that if a company doesn’t have the time or the manpower to interact with the network that posting RSS links at least gets them out there. This I agree with on a certain level. I do like to log on and see what is out there, and I do tend to click on quite a few links. Links provide so much more information than a post of 140 characters or less can.
My conclusion? Magazines should have both, or none at all. I myself don’t want to continuously read conversations between two parties, but do want to know that conversation is possible if there is something I want to say or need to know. On the other hand, I don’t want links loading my feed from one source 20 times a day, but I do want to know what is going on and where I can go to get the appropriate information and the complete story.
Melanie McBride has posted a poll to see what everyone else thinks. It seems to me that I’m not alone in my opinions.
What do you think? Click the link above to vote, or post a comment below.
Filed under: Uncategorized
