The global fashion magazine April 15, 2024 
Out now: Lucire issue 48, with free shipping for UK and US


Twitter ratios of the rich, famous or arrogant


May 2, 2009/1.28

Image from[Cross-posted] If a presence is de rigueur in 2009, then who is using it as a tool for generating and connecting with stakeholders?
   A few weeks back, I posted my top 10 reasons for following someone on Twitter. While not everyone agreed with the 10, I dare say that the majority struck a chord. And one of the things many of us agreed on was that certain wanted the same level of worship on Twitter as they had in the offline world—and how that wasn’t exactly encouraging for some of us to become one of their followers.
   That’s fine: it’s their prerogative, but I see it as rather self-centred. ‘Come, look at me, I am Tweeting,’ doesn’t seem as accommodating—or even human—as, ‘I want to hear about you, too.’ All the ideas about modern —from Christian Gronröos and relationship marketing, to the Medinge Group’s writings about humanizing , to Stefan Engeseth’s One—are summed up in the latter quotation.
   Part of the reason for President ’s campaign’s success was his staff’s use of the service. It should be noted that since winning his election he has been an irregular Tweeter, which suggests to me a reduced desire to interact with the Twitter community, but only he really knows for sure. What is less arguable is that the President has a reasonable following-to-followers ratio: he is following 766,815 people, while 1,044,307 follow him.
   It means that if the President ever logs in to his account, he’ll see the latest updates of some of these 766,815. And if he does want a feel of the , he can do that very easily. As Barack Obama is probably the most tech-savvy American president in history, this would be a good way for him to keep his finger on the pulse—and ignore any biases in opinion polls.
   One can compare this with the other extreme: actor–producer . I recently saw that he had proclaimed himself ‘Mr Twitter,’ which is laughable, considering he doesn’t have a grasp of the service at all. Mr Kutcher follows 142 while he has 1,542,437 followers. If the is this great equalizer, one where there’s one-to-one or even one-becoming-one communication, then Kutcher fails terribly based on his ratio: he sees Twitter as a one-way service, another channel to broadcast without needing to hear back from his supporters.
   It’s his right, of course, and we all have our ways of using Twitter. I just don’t see his as being particularly fruitful for his , and I see the proclamation of ‘Mr Twitter’ particularly arrogant. That would be like my calling myself ‘Mr Branding’ just because I wrote and co-wrote a few books.
   There are in-between cases, such as actor , who maintained a very healthy ratio before he gained more followers than he could handle in a very short space of time. Cases like that are totally forgiveable, in my book. I understand, though I have not known of his account for long, that Hugh Jackman found himself in a similar boat.
   And perhaps some of us are on information overload. For my first year on Twitter after I joined in April 2007, the only people I followed were those I met in the real world, because I didn’t need another thing to follow. After a while I opened myself up to reading more from others—it helps one feel connected to the dialogue on our planet, if that’s what one wants.
   So by this reckoning, how are others’ ratios? As of this Friday (this post was written around 1.30 p.m. GMT), we are looking at the below numbers for a few people I can think of. And with the exception of a few , many in that field are doing a terrible job of listening to the people: I’m talking about Sens. and Claire McCaskill in particular. Politicians should be doing better than that.
   Gov. ’s account is still, from what I can tell, very new (started April 29, 2009), and I’m prepared to extend to her the same courtesy as I have to Stephen Fry and Hugh Jackman—for now.
   With an emphasis on American , here’s how things are stacking up in terms of Twitter ratios. Does it say much about their egos or how much they wish to interact with the public, or does the ratio cease to mean much when we talk about the very well known?

PersonTwitter handleFollowingFollowersRatio
John Edwardsjohnedwards13,65112,412109.98%
Karl RoveKarlRove43,54646,05094.56%
Congressman John Boehnerjohnboehner9,2619,84594.07%
Maria Shrivermariashriver44,26153,46382.79%
Gov. Arnold SchwarzeneggerSchwarzenegger44,26356,39778.48%
Gov. Bobby JindalBobbyJindal14,34419,05475.28%
President Barack Obamabarackobama766,8151,044,30773.43%
Britney Spearsbritneyspears377,8991,263,01729.92%
Stephen Frystephenfry55,097464,87811.85%
Mayor Gavin NewsomGavinNewsom23,809336,2947.08%
Sen. Barbara BoxerBarbara_Boxer4827,2756.63%
M. C. HammerMCHammer26,048563,7334.62%
Sen. Kay Hagankayhagan195123.71%
Sen. Chris Doddchrisdodd201,2651.58%
Jonathan RossWossy3,424235,4981.45%
Vice-President Joe Bidenjoebiden15621,1880.74%
Gov. Sarah PalinAKGovSarahPalin4511,7820.38%
Shaquille O’NealTHE_REAL_SHAQ456858,4170.05%
Perez HiltonPerezHilton199727,8950.03%
Hugh JackmanRealHughJackman33167,4850.02%
Demi Mooremrskutcher81801,8080.01%
Ashton Kutcheraplusk1421,542,3470.01%
Rumer WillisTheRue557,1020.01%
Sen. John McCainSenJohnMcCain43541,0420.01%
Lance Armstronglancearmstrong57754,0490.01%
Martha StewartMarthaStewart28519,3430.01%
Sen. Claire McCaskillclairecmc122,6190.00%
Ellen DeGeneresTheEllenShow211,264,8860.00%
Oprah WinfreyOprah11747,2660.00%
Al Gorealgore7707,4650.00%

You may also like
celebrity / culture / living / Los Angeles / Lucire / media / New York / society / tendances / trend / Web 2·0 / Zeitgeist
Filed by Jack Yan

6 thoughts on ‘Twitter ratios of the rich, famous or arrogant

  1. Pingback: Jack Yan 甄爵恩
  2. Pingback: Lucire
  3. Pingback: Jack Yan 甄爵恩
  4. I so agree, Amy! Politicians especially, since they are meant to listen to and represent their constituents. Thank you for popping by here (and see you on Twitter!)!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *