• Generalise from the outset. Social media has changed everything, everywhere, for ever, and you need to get your checklist started with a bang.
• Admonish the workshy. It’s no good waiting until competitors have created four or five checklists before you get started. Those Web 1.0 attitudes won’t cut it any more. Just get started!
• Impose conflicting demands. Your checklist should support your corporate brand and tone of voice at all times. But at the same time, it should be all funny and friendly, like Bambi or something.
• Drop some jargon. If you want to create the sort of list that generates twitstops, and avoid the problems of brand teases and wiki warts, get those buzzwords in early and often. (Definitions here.)
• Set stupidly exacting targets. If one checklist boosts your rep and attracts new clients, just imagine what two or three checklists could do. Aim to write a new one every day. No, every hour!
• Neglect the practical. Don’t check how many people read your list, or whether it makes money, or whether it ultimately brings you any benefit at all. In fact, forget the whole concept of return on investment.
• Be holier than thou. Witter on sanctimoniously about ‘helping others’, ‘joining the conversation’ and ‘paying it forward’. Never admit that social media can never offer what real friends can – bitching about other friends, retelling old anecdotes and accompanying you to the pub to cover for your creeping alcoholism.
• Trash the traditional. Yep, you’re going to have to unlearn all those useless offline marketing ways… granddad.
• Post valuable content. Users really value original, carefully considered content. Not derivative rubbish you’ve posted to jump on the bandwagon. No, wait a minute…
• Don’t try to control the conversation. Because let’s face it, your utterly lame tip list is going to get some deservedly ‘mixed’ feedback. But that’s what social media is all about!

Modern marketing is a lot like a party. Work the room right and you’ll attract interest and new contacts. Fail to shine and you’ll be going home alone. Here are the ten marketing partygoers you don’t want to meet – or to become.

The egotist

The egotist holds forth interminably on his favourite topic, himself. He’s oblivious to the bored sighs of those around him, failing to notice them backing away towards the vol-au-vents.

Marketing moral: focus on the customer, not yourself.

The counsellor

The counsellor is full of unwelcome ‘why don’t you’ advice for everyone she meets – she’s the answer to a question nobody asked. Sadly, her ideas aren’t always that useful.

Marketing moral: expertise is becoming devalued in some fields (notably social media). Cultivating strong personal connections may work better than positioning yourself as an expert.

The geek

It's not a party if there aren't any vol-au-vents

The geek batters you into submission with an enthusiastic but crashingly dull monologue about his phone, computer or other gadget.

Marketing moral: don’t confuse technical features with customer benefits. Unless you’re targeting early adopters or gadget fiends, new technology does not sell itself.

The wiseguy

The wiseguy keeps the jokes coming even if they’re not appreciated, appropriate or even funny.

Marketing moral: humour doesn’t travel well and should be used with great care – are you sure you’ll get the reaction you’re hoping for?

The wallflower

The wallflower stands shyly on the sidelines even though her best friend could be introducing her to plenty of guests if asked.

Marketing moral: proactively cultivate and request referrals and testimonials; join the conversation in social media and see where it takes you.

The skinflint

The skinflint brings Liebfraumilch but drinks Moët.

Marketing moral: reciprocity is everything in modern marketing, particularly social media. You have to give something (of yourself) before you receive.

The butterfly

The butterfly is always looking around the room for someone more interesting to talk to.

Marketing moral: don’t neglect here-and-now customer needs in the quest for new connections or business, however exciting it might feel. It’s far easier to get an order from an existing customer than from a ‘cold’ lead.

The nervous hostess

The nervous hostess flits between conversations, asking everyone if they’re enjoying themselves (and the vol-au-vents).

Marketing moral: don’t over-regulate the social media conversation about your brand or content. Allowing criticism shows strength and confirms authenticity. Allow time and space for others to answer on your behalf; it will be more powerful.

The gatecrasher

The gatecrasher shouldn’t even be here at all but he never misses the chance to party, even if he doesn’t know anyone.

Marketing moral: don’t waste marketing spend on making a big splash when you really need focused exposure. Only relevant attention can be converted to sales.

The chatterbox

The chatterbox just won’t shut up!

Marketing moral: We can’t talk and listen at the same time; make time for learning and sharing as well as pushing out content. No one wants to work with a consultant or service provider who can’t listen.

So much for my list. Can you suggest more?

7am. I wake up, turn on my mobile and check in at Twitter for my daily dose of inspirational quotes, motivational thoughts and self-improvement wisdom. Very soon I’m feeling supercharged for another day of relentless material wealth-seeking, with a kooky New Age veneer. Sometimes I wish I could just sit down for a while, but no-one on Twitter seems to take it easy…

9am. I notice that, as usual, I’ve received a number of friendly direct messages from people I followed yesterday. They arrive so quickly that I sometimes wonder if the people have some sort of servant to do their Tweeting for them. Nevertheless, I dutifully reply to each one, saying that I’m looking forward to their Tweets too. Social media’s all about reciprocity!

10am. In summer, the sun comes round the house next door and shines on my monitor, so I close the blind. Sometimes the noise of the birds singing gets on my nerves too, but my double-glazing keeps it out.

11am. This is the time when I catch up with all the blog posts and articles I’ve been told to read. And there’s so much great content out there! Sometimes I’m not sure if I need to read another ‘how to’ guide for social media, but I plough on anyway. You never know, there might be something new in one of them today.

12pm. I grab some lunch. Normally, my choice is prompted by an image someone else has uploaded of what they’re eating. It saves me thinking for myself. If I can’t get hold of it – for instance, because they’re eating in an achingly trendy Soho noodle bar – I just munch a slice of bread while staring at the image on the screen. It’s just as satisfying.

1pm. The afternoon hours are my time for making money online. What? You didn’t know it was possible? Well, it is. Just go to Twitter and you’ll soon see. I’ve already signed up for hundreds of MLM schemes, affiliate marketing programmes and wealth-generation systems, and I’ve bought so many e-books I’m going to need TWO iPads, one for each eye. And I’m pretty sure that once all these systems start kicking in, I’m going to be seriously rich.

4pm. A quick trip to the shops for bread, milk and Optrex, during which I make sure to Tweet my location. I’ve been burgled three times this year, but it’s a small price to pay for everyone knowing where I am.

5pm. Time to RT a few good Tweets and answer some questions people have posted, like you’re supposed to on social media. Got to take care of your circle! Sometimes, friends call round for me about this time, but most of them have got fed up with me Tweeting on my phone during conversations, so they don’t bother.

9pm. Towards the middle of the evening, I can get a bit down in the dumps. Sometimes it just seems like everyone else on Twitter is wealthier, wittier, more interesting, more passionate about their work and more… well, social than I’ll ever be. Maybe if I had a few more followers, things would be better? But there’s no room for doubt or anxiety on Twitter – it’s just smiles and positivity all the way. So I force a , Tweet ‘goodnight’ to my Tweeples and get some sleep. Tomorrow’s going to be another long day…

As you can see, I’ve got a ‘follow me’ button in my navigation, so Twitter is one click away from every page on this site. And that means that visitors’ experience of my online presence might include a sharp variation in tone. Depending on my mood and willingness to Tweet at any particular point in time, a potential client might step from my carefully crafted corporate content to a confession of Cheddars addiction, a sarky comment on last night’s TV or (if they’re lucky) a throwaway observation about search marketing or online copywriting.

When I’m comparing my unique visitor stats to the number of leads I get through the site, this thought gives me pause. Are visitors put off by my Twitter content, or perhaps even this blog? And more broadly, does social media – even when done exactly as the gurus suggest – invariably enhance reputation?

Talking to strangers

Everyone understands that different online media require different tones (I’ve covered it in this post). For most businesses, Tweeting in the same voice as you use on your corporate site would be absolutely deadly, resulting in a desperately dry, po-faced and self-centred feed. While competitors were asking their customers what they did on Friday night, you’d be Tweeting about your dull-as-ditchwater product launch. You’d have no followers, no profile and no ROI.

Does careless talk cost reputation?

However, what works for friends and followers might look strange to newcomers. A prospect clicking through to my Twitter profile will see my last Tweet prominently displayed in 28pt type. If that Tweet is frivolous, or even offensive (a subjective judgement, after all), it surely won’t make a good impression. At the very least, the positive ‘he has a personality’ points could easily be offset by a ‘not very professional’ penalty.

I serve clients from all over the world. What would a visitor from Russia or El Salvador make of a conversation about liking cheesy biscuits, on Monday morning, from someone who presents themselves as a professional? In fact, what would a UK visitor who just didn’t know much about Twitter think of it?

For me, casual Tweets are the online equivalent of having the radio on in the background when you answer the phone. Some people just aren’t going to like it. That’s why, when I remember, I’ll try and make sure that I leave the feed with something relatively sensible or useful at the top, like a retweet from @econsultancy. Sure, it’s inauthentic, but it feels safer.

Unseen damage

I often point out to clients that a poor website can do serious harm to their reputation without them necessarily being aware of it. A site riddled with ancient content, inconsistent formatting and spelling errors won’t have the phone ringing off the hook with complaints. Instead, visitors will come, form a negative impression and leave – almost certainly without comment. If they judge by appearances – and why shouldn’t they? – you’ll simply never hear from them.

When I view some firms’ websites, I’m astonished at the substandard content they leave online for years on end, apparently oblivious to the impression it’s giving. If I work with such firms, it often transpires that they are aware of the problem, and plan to sort it out. But with no negative feedback from the prospects that got away, there’s no sense of a ‘burning platform’ to force them to act.

Reputation bomb

With that in mind, consider a Twitter feed that’s easily accessible from the home page, or actually visible on it (as it should be, according to the received wisdom). It could easily be a reputation bomb primed to explode.

If you’re an active Tweeter who combines business and pleasure in one account (as most sole traders and SMEs do), you’re Tweeting stuff you’d never dream of publishing at your main site (humour, politics, personal life etc) on an hourly basis. And if you don’t mix in some personal stuff, your feed will be too dry. Who’s to say a fantastic prospect might not click into your feed at a time when it shows something catastrophically trivial?

I’m relatively paranoid about Twitter. I aim for friendliness, humour and relevancy and set myself strict rules: no politics, no swearing, no arguing, no boasting about work, no chat about clients. (The one evening I did Tweet about politics, I lost a follower for every Tweet I posted.) But many Tweeters don’t police themselves in this way, giving their language, feelings and reactions free rein. I respect that – after all, I’ve argued before that we should market honestly and be ourselves in social media. But some Tweets are so pointed that they elicit a sharp intake of breath as you read them. Does the author really want those words online?

Broadcasting trivia

We’ve all seen the alarmist, ill-informed articles in mainstream media about the perils of Facebook, when in fact it’s easy enough to restrict access to your page (or at least it was, until the privacy options started to look like this). Twitter, as most people choose to use it, exposes your posted content far more widely.

Each Tweet lives forever at its own URL, and Google now searches Twitter in real time, more efficiently than ever before. And it might not index the Tweets you want it to. For example, my highest-ranking Tweet on a search for my name (mercifully on page 2) is this effort (presumably because of its keyword density for ‘Tom’):

Not offensive, but hardly inspiring, and undeniably trivial. On balance, probably not a URL I’d want a prospective client to see. And it could have been worse.

But it doesn’t end there. You can opt to have your Tweets syndicated to third-party sites. One such is LinkedIn, surely the most pin-striped and buttoned-down of all the networking sites. It’s a place where serious job-hunting and reputation-building is the order of the day (along, it seems, with an ever-increasing volume of discussion spam). But depending on when a potential client or employer visits, your carefully edited CV could be gatecrashed by the most hasty, drunken, offensive Tweet you’ve ever Tweeted. That’s why I haven’t, er, linked in my Twitter profile to the site.

Imaginary walls

In my experience, although most people’s Twitter accounts are unprotected, in practice they still Tweet as if their accounts were somehow private – everything is ‘between friends’ in terms of both content and tone. Others go further, treating Twitter like a confessional, or even a diary – despite having thousands of followers. Certainly, many Tweets clearly originate with the urge to unburden rather than the need to communicate.

You might regard your Twitter account as more ‘personal’ than your business content, with a clear division between the corporate and social worlds, but in reality the distinction may be largely in your head (and not in your client’s).

This can apply to other types of social-media content as well. Many of my blog posts, for example, are primarily of interest to other copywriters, marketers or media professionals, and not really aimed at general business readers (i.e. my potential customers). Sometimes, the resulting comment discussion will stray into areas, such as pricing, where an honest response isn’t something I’d really want my clients to read. So, as with Twitter, I have to think carefully about everyone who might be reading, rather than imagining there’s some kind of invisible wall between my main site and the blog. It’s important to remember that anyone could be reading anything, at any time.

What do you think? Should we worry about the reputational risk of social media, or have we entered a new, more relaxed age where saying something online is no different from saying it in the pub?

• Thanks to Sarah Turner of Turner Ink for the conversation that inspired this post.

I’m always amused by the savage beatdowns that are meted out to firms who are perceived to have failed in social media (see this page on Nestlé and Facebook for a recent example). What do people expect? At the end of the day, it’s one person doing the Tweeting or the wall-writing. They’re at work, not relaxing at home, and they’re obliged to ‘be the brand’ online. It can’t be easy. And if you push them far enough, they’re bound to snap.

Personally, I welcome it. At least we know they’re human. What’s the alternative? Everyone loves to flame the failures, but would we really be happier with a smoothly oiled PR machine, trotting out relentlessly positive, shallow responses to critical tweets, like a politician?

Although social media has a diverse user base, there’s a recognisable ‘SM personality’ that seems to predominate: young (or young at heart); generally positive; informal; chirpy (bordering on facetious); marketing and new media literate. When people berate companies for having the ‘wrong’ social media voice, they usually mean that the company in question has taken a tone that’s too far from this norm. But if your firm’s true ‘personality’ doesn’t conform, should you affect a different tone of voice to fit in?

Many firms have struggled to find their voice in social media. Some have rather stiffly adopted it as a purely ‘push’ channel, conducting a monologue rather than a dialogue. Some, like Habitat, have been hauled over the coals for underhand techniques. And some, like ASOS, are blessed with enough photogenic, web-savvy, Twitter-literate staff to give them all usernames and let them loose (see @ASOS_Amy, @ASOS_Nat and others).

A while ago, I blogged on the topic of honesty in marketing: the idea that by promoting a message that accurately reflects what the organisation is really like, we can be more congruent, more confident and (I believe) more effective in terms of reaching new customers. So why shouldn’t firms’ negative character traits come through in their social media? It may not fit the rigid stereotype of ‘engagement’, but perhaps it’s more honest in the deepest sense.

Feeling pleased with yourself? Want to tell someone? Well, Twitter always listens. But shameless self-promotion might not endear you to your followers. So use these five proven techniques to burnish your rep without burning your bridges.

• Creeting. Creeting, or ‘creepy tweeting’, means retweeting a high-profile Twitterer so you can bask in their reflected glory. So what if you didn’t really understand (or even read) that abstruse piece on A/B testing, canonical URLs or Facebook user profiling? Retweet it anyway, you’ll look incredibly clever and might get a mention from someone with 100,000 followers.
• Busyness. Want to show how indispensable you are, or how many clients you’ve got? Simply disguise your boast as a moan about workload, information overwhelm or client pressure. Don’t worry, everyone will get the message: only the talented are as busy as this.
• Proxy boasting. Sometimes others say the things we think, but can never say. So if your offspring, colleague or client has paid you a glowing but perceptive compliment, get it on Twitter. It’s reputational gold and, after all, you’re only quoting.
• Egocentic gratitude. If you’ve been RTd or #FFd by multiple Tweeters, make sure you thank them all in one monster tweet. It makes you look incredibly popular and, if you’re thanking RTers, you’ll probably drum up extra interest in your past Tweets. (And yes, I do this all the time.)
• Reflected enthusiasm. No-one really needs to know that you’re loving Alain de Botton’s latest whimsical fluff, or how much your guests adored your summer berry sabayon. But cultured interests make you look fantastic, so Tweet away. Your all-night Steven Seagal marathon, fuelled by Stella and Wotsits*, you can keep quiet about.

* US/Canada readers, please substitute ‘Coors and Cheetos’

Yesterday, I held a party on Twitter to celebrate reaching 2000 followers. Many of my fellow copywriters and creatives turned up – as well as a few gatecrashers who were in a position to Tweet about Watney’s Party Seven, vol-au-vents and ‘bifters’ (whatever they are) at 3pm on a Tuesday. Thanks to everyone who turned up.

Oh, my head. Where's the Alka-Seltzer?

It was great fun and it also gave me a chance to try out Tweetdoc, which allows you to document Twitter events (or just a set of Tweets mentioning a given topic) by capturing Twitter searches in a PDF document. The PDFs are nicely formatted, with all the participants’ avatars shown on the first page and a neat list of all the Tweets (in forward or reverse chronological order). You can view or download the PDF for #tomsparty here.

And for those who couldn’t make it, my apologies – I’ll think more carefully about the timing and give a lot more advance notice next time. But I think it’ll be a few months before I hit 3k…

In my recent post on Copify and content mills, I suggested that the current vogue for pumping out reams of low-grade content in order to generate backlinks and/or attract natural traffic could not last. In this post, I’d like to expand further on that point, focusing on the issues facing natural search right now and what the future might hold.

The elephant in the room

Thank heavens we fitted that laminate flooring

An ‘elephant in the room’ is an inconvenient but hugely significant truth that no one wants to acknowledge. For SEO right now, that elephant is the unsustainability of current search-marketing practices.

The truth is that the long-term viability of the whole search paradigm (site publishes, user searches, user finds) simply isn’t served by the things many search marketers do: article marketing, online PR and ‘SEO fodder’.

While the music plays, we’re still dancing

All these tactics do is soak up resources to deliver a temporary advantage that a competitor can easily reverse by pursuing exactly the same strategy (even using almost identical content). On the downside, they clog up the internet with spam, degrade the internet experience and make it ever harder for the ‘proper’ search experience to take place. It’s a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.

The parallels with the financial crisis are striking. Far from ‘sleepwalking into disaster’, many senior financiers were fully aware that their business practices would be damaging over the long term – but the short-term profits were just too attractive to ignore. ‘When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated,’ said Chuck Prince, Citibank CEO, in 2007. ‘But as long as the music is playing, you got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.’

Indefinite articles

Search marketers would certainly leave the dancefloor quick smart if Google’s search algorithm reduced the weight attached to content published at article and online PR sites.

It’s been a long time since Google respected paid links. Yet a link from Ezine Articles or another article site is effectively a paid link – but purchased with content rather than cash. You give Ezine some content, you get a backlink. It’s a transaction. For PR sites, submission fees for the sites that can deliver the most backlinks make the nature of the deal even more explicit.

Online directories with submission fees are doing a similar thing. But the nature of the relationship between client and site is much clearer – plus you can only have one backlink from each directory, not keep plugging away indefinitely.

Since Google respects article and PR links, it’s simply a case of putting in the hours to create adequate content and ‘spinning’ it across as many sites as you dare.

Yes, there are quality standards, but they’re not particularly exacting. The sanity check is ‘value for users’. Give me ten minutes and I’ll find you ten articles – on almost any subject – that add no value because they are corporate puff, embarrassingly basic or near-duplicates of other articles.

The other main way of ‘gaming’ Google is by creating banks of SEO fodder: big chunks of content that is nominally relevant but actually not that valuable to users. Since Google can’t gauge the human value of content (yet), it sees this as worthy content and often ranks it quite highly.

The cynicism of all this is well known by anyone with the slightest acquaintance with search marketing. Yet we’re still recommending it to our clients – because as long as Google works as it does, it gets results.

But that could change. We’re unlikely to see existing article links deprecated, but it seems inevitable that new links will be gradually downgraded until they’re weighted appropriately. SEO fodder represents a tougher challenge for Google.

Dark satanic mills

To sate the voracious content appetites of article, PR and SEO marketers, we’re now seeing the advent and growth of so-called ‘content mills’ or ‘word factories’, which offer a highly cost-effective way to obtain large quantities of (allegedly) optimised text. Clients pay by the word, and obtain ready-made web content that they can use for their SEO campaigns. I’ve covered the drawbacks for clients here so I won’t repeat myself.

This AdWeek article argues that content mills are one of the key growth areas in digital marketing for 2010. Maybe so, but it’s going to be a case of making hay while the sun shines. Competition will force low prices even lower, while a game-changing new Google algorithm that reduces the efficacy of content spam will result either in fewer customers (why bother?) or lower prices again (why overpay for weak links?).

Eating sawdust

As a result of all this, the internet is filling up with unreadable rubbish, damaging the searching and browsing experience for us all, as this post vividly argues. Even the AdWeek article referenced above acknowledges the point:

‘The question for 2010 is whether this automation and data-driven approach will lead to a flowering of useful information or more detritus clogging search results with low-grade, ad-heavy Web pages.’

That is indeed the question for 2010. And my money’s on the detritus, because web publishers do not presently see any value or profit in providing truly useful information – and search marketers are doing little to persuade them otherwise. 

Some observers (such as Carson Brackney in this post) argue that there’s a place for lower-quality writing, and that web users aren’t as fussy or demanding as self-regarding copywriters would like them to be. Often, a food analogy is used: sometimes you like steak, but other times a burger will do.

For me, this is disingenuous. SEO pages are created purely for search purposes, with no thought of providing any value to the reader. SEO content differs from ‘proper’ web content not by degree, but by nature: it’s not a cut-price equivalent, but a completely different animal. Again, honest search marketers will admit this.

Reading SEO spam is more like eating sawdust than munching a burger: it will fill you up, but there is literally no enjoyment or nutrition to be gained from it – because it was never intended for human consumption.

Who could argue, with a straight face, that anyone is going to get anything out of an article like this? And more to the point, do the search benefits for the firm involved really outweigh the reputational damage of having this sort of rubbish associated with their brand?

Semantic search

So the webwaves are choked with SEO flotsam and jetsam. Somehow, search has to get more sophisticated, to filter out the rubbish – or users will lose faith. And Google, though a mighty corporation, ultimately depends on users’ faith in the accuracy and usefulness of its results.

One option is a form of semantic search, where Google actually comprehends the meaning of content rather than simply analysing it with metrics such as keyword density. This could be applied to website content or backlinking pages. However, at present, it’s a long way off.

There are tools (such as this one for Twitter) that attempt to bring a basic level of semantic search to social media. However, as you’ll quickly discover if you give it a go, there’s more to analysing the emotions of a piece of writing than categorising particular trigger words into ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. We have a long way to go before machines understand that ‘good riddance’ is a negative sentiment and ‘killer post’ a positive one.

Social search

Another option for improving search is some kind of link-up with social media – seemingly a ready-made source of user opinion that could be used to shape search results. All Google has to do is find a way of mining the goodwill being expressed at SM sites every day. Instead of viewing backlinks as ‘votes’ on the quality of online content, it can use SM sentiment as a measure of what people think of a site or page.

Retweets are a good example of a ‘goodwill meter’. Although they could theoretically be paid for, RTs are one of the purest online votes of confidence there is. If my article gets tweeted, a human being thinks it’s valuable. Google already uses Digg links as a measure of popularity, so this seems like a natural next step.

Efficient refinery

One way of proactively digging out better results is by refining your search criteria, narrowing your focus down to filter out some of the rubbish. At present, it’s incumbent on the user themselves to try and refine their search by adding additional keywords or trying new ones.

Google knows that it has to guide users towards finer searches one way or another, but the lack of prominence it gives to its ‘related searches’ and ‘wonder wheel’ suggests that it only half-believes in them. It might have to do more in the future to develop tools that allow rapid, intuitive refining of results, including (perhaps) one-click filters to eliminate blog, article and PR postings.

Wait and see

Whatever the future brings, it’s going to be fascinating. Google’s success depends on providing useful, unspammy search results, so we can be sure that some sort of change will come. And whatever it is, it’s surely going to change the face of search marketing completely over the next five years.

Earlier today, Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) ‘gave up’ Twitter after his Tweets were described as ‘boring’ by another user (@brumplum). Apparently the criticism came at a bad time, and he felt he’d had enough. But which of us hasn’t felt this way about Twitter at one point or another?

After all, it encourages so many unhealthy mental habits. Follower envy, and the compulsive craving for more followers. A tendency to be always ‘elsewhere’ in our minds, Tweeting strangers instead of listening to – and caring for – the people in our real-world circle. But that’s just in our own heads. What about the social problems of social media?

The Twitter pummelling received by Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, was both inevitable and vociferous. Trending for several days, the stream of overwhelmingly negative comment gave the impression of thousands of individuals venting a fierce dislike of Griffin and his values.

Yet how many of those Tweeters were expressing original sentiments, and how many were – quite literally – following the trend? Twitter makes it so easy to endorse or amplify views on subjects you might never have considered that deeply before. Even if you’d never heard of Carter-Ruck or Trafigura, you could get involved in a ‘social media movement’. With just a click, you can add your voice to the braying of the mob.

Nobody was that bothered about Griffin’s treatment, since so many people detest his views. But the criticism piled upon poor @brumplum for his ‘boring’ comment was a different matter. People created lists of people they disliked, just so they could include him. It shocked @brumplum himself and embarrassed Fry, prompting both to try and lay the issue to rest.

It’s always been possible to criticise people with impunity online, but nothing puts your insult in their face quite like Twitter. And it’s so easy and quick to do. At least in Lord of the Flies, the boys had to gang up and physically push a rock to kill Piggy. Now, we just push a mouse button, all alone. And since we’ll never meet the people we’re criticising, why not make it incredibly harsh? Maybe get a few more followers that way.

We’re probably not going to stop using social media – not even Stephen Fry. But many of us might need to start thinking about where it’s taking us, or what it’s turning us into.

Positive beliefs are very important. As Henry Ford said, ‘if you think you can, or if you think you can’t, you’re right’. While optimism and belief aren’t everything we need in order to achieve, we’re unlikely to achieve much without them.

No-one who uses Twitter much can be unaware of these ideas. Maybe it’s because of the followers I’ve chosen, or the typical profile of many Twitter users (sole traders, freelancers, consultants, coaches, trainers, marketers), but positivity is very much the order of the day. Most days, my Twitter feed is crammed full of inspiring quotes, motivational sentiments and success stories.

And that’s fine. Better that than doom and gloom. But is this relentlessly upbeat worldview really representative and balanced? Is it true?

From time to time, I’ve noted that some opinions expressed on Twitter are at odds with what I know those Twitterers really think. Clearly, they felt they had to put a positive shine on their sentiments for the world at large. Why?

Into each life some rain must fall

For Buddhists, transience (or ‘impermanence’) is the defining characteristic of our experience. Nothing is permanent or fixed; everything is shifting and changing. The seasons revolve around us; the weather changes from day to day; our moods and perceptions are constantly changing. Our lives are shaped by comings and goings – people, relationships, homes, jobs and situations all come and go as we move through life.

Transience is usually the product of movement or tension between polar opposites: day and night, rising and falling, happiness and sadness, hope and fear, growth and decline, life and death. We label ‘rising’ and ‘growing’ events as ‘good’, while ‘falling’ or ‘declining’ events are ‘bad’. We have a very strong preference for the ‘good’ side, so we try to bring more ‘good’ things into our lives, or hang on to them, and avoid the ‘bad’.

However, if we’re honest, we know both sides of transience are inevitable and, in their different ways, essential. We need rain as well as sun. We can’t be growing, profiting and succeeding every minute of every day. Even death is a part of life; decline or decay prepares the way for renewal.

So we shouldn’t be afraid of acknowledging our doubts, fears and failures in our social-media lives. In my view, it would make the Twittersphere a much richer, more balanced and fulfilling place to be – one that reflects every side of us, not just the parts we think are ‘good’.