Twitter users big and small were saddened to learn today that their followers had shrunk — to the sum total of zero. Trying to fix a bug where individuals could force any Twitter users to follow them, the company temporarily deleted all the follower count for every user.

That stark zero disturbed more than a few users who had carefully curated their follower list. But the entire event coincided with a new study out today, that shows that those with the most followers are not necessarily the most influential.

As Perez Hilton tweeted:

“We will all remember today! #TheDayTwitterExploded”

Perez has since had his nearly 2 million follows restored. But according to Meeyoung Cha at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems in Germany, that number is likely meaningless anyway. In a study called "The Million Follower Fallacy" (pdf here), Cha explains:

"Popular users who have a high indegree [number of followers] are not necessarily influential in terms of spawning retweets or mentions."

Cha looked at data from all 52 million Twitter accounts (and looked more closely at the company's 6 million "active users.) She tells Harvard Business Review:

"Our claim is that follower count is not sufficient to capture the influence of a user (i.e., the ability of an user to sway the opinions of her followers). It only shows how popular the user is (i.e., the size of her audience). But, as we showed in our paper, retweets and mentions, which measure the audience responsiveness to a user's tweets, do not correlate strongly with number of followers."

What does that mean? That celebrities with high follower counts — and marketing companies that claim they can boost follower numbers — aren't peddling much when they try to use follower numbers in place of influence.

Of course, the study still does not have the answer to the more important question of how influence should be measured on Twitter. As I've written before, having influence in the past cannot predict future influence on Twitter.

What can businesses and marketers take from the study? Focus on niche branding and engage Twitterers with original content in their area of expertise. Says Cha:

"Businesses, rather than trying to put emphasis on the follower count, could try to increase audience responsiveness in their fields...As you might have guessed, mass media played a significant role in spreading popular topics. But when it comes to non-popular or even niche topics, small businesses and opinion leaders were far more effective in engaging audience than mass media."

Image: Twitter

Meghan Keane

Published 10 May, 2010 by Meghan Keane

Based in New York, Meghan Keane is US Editor of Econsultancy. You can follow her on Twitter: @keanesian.

721 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (3)


Linda Popky

It's about quality, not quantity. Always has been, always will be.

about 8 years ago

Mike Stenger

Mike Stenger,

It's about the relationships with others, not the number. Sounds cliche but it's absolutely the truth. I've seen people with just a few thousand followers have more interaction & influence with their followers than someone with ten thousand. Linda's comment is absolutely right!

about 8 years ago

Tim Watson

Tim Watson, Email Marketing Consultant at Zettasphere

Makes sense to me. The same is already shown and accepted in email. Whilst some might chase having a large list size for email, the better look for quality. The engagement and metrics for email show a factor of ten difference between a good list and bad list. Size is not everything.

about 8 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.