To my genuine surprise, reportedly 71% of Lady Gaga’s twitter base is paid for.
On the one had, it looks like you reach a lot of folks. On the other, isn’t the whole point engagement? I’m thinking “paid for” twitter followers don’t do a heck of a whole lot than inflate your numbers.
For some, the numbers game is a lucrative or psychological one. Celebrities, may need to seem extremely popular to avoid becoming the subject of gossip saying their popularity is on the decline. Fine. However, if you’re Lady Gaga with way too many people adoring you (for reasons I don’t understand), you shouldn’t need any “padding” for your situation. Nonetheless, padding will always help. The more followers she has, the more records she can sell (potentially). And the more followers she has, the more willing others are willing to follow her (potentially).
When the “paid-followers” question is posed for bloggers like myself, or others that work to actual influence and engage with the public, how does paying for followers help? In a sea of people putting money toward plastic surgery (or buying followers), people who work on their personality rather than physical attributes (working on providing quality content and joining relevant conversations instead of inflating numbers) may last longer and get more out of the actual engagement that twitter allows for.
Would I ever spend money to twitter followers? I think I would have to answer that question in the same way I would answer the question would I ever spend money on plastic surgery. It may be easy for me to say because I’m not a celebrity or politician. I would rather people choose to follow me based on what I tweet about, not for how many people already follow me. It may be a slow climb to 1million followers (if Twitter is even around that long for me to get to this number), but it would be a genuine climb. In a world of phonies and spam, I’m thinking genuine work will bring genuine followers.