As pointed out so eloquently in Brian Solis’ blog post, perhaps it is true that Ashton Kutcher @aplusk reaching 1 million followers signifies a change in the power distribution between corporate media channels and individuals.
This said, it may be that the only individuals who can transcend the power and influence of corporate media are celebrities. Andrew Keen says, in this video interview with Tech Crunch, that a social media as a platform will create great imbalances of influence. Everyone can join the conversation but a “popular” few will have a disproportionate amount of power.
So as this event signifies a milestone of relevance for social media, it simultaneously signifies the imbalance of power inherent within.
The challenge for “us” as as a social media tribe is to monitor those with great social media power and let them know whether or not we are pleased or displeased with how they are using their power. With Twitter we “vote” by choosing to follow. The beauty of this is that our vote can be taken away or recast at anytime. Collectively, we can group together to exert our influence.
I propose a test of our power: For a single day we chose to unfollow Ashton Kutcher. The next day everyone can follow back, but for that one day we say to Ashton, and others with disproportionate influence, that they only have influence because we choose to put our trust in them to use their influence responsibly.
So Monday 4/20/2009 is Unfollow Ashton Kutcher Day #ufapluskday – you can exert your power and unfollow Ashton here
Our Goal: Bring Ashton’s follower count down below 1 million by the end of day on Monday.
Feel free to follow Ashton back on Tuesday, but wait until Monday to Unfollow!
For the record, I have nothing against Ashton! I think his efforts are mostly noble and good, regardless of the fact that this is a brilliant publicity move on his behalf. In fact, If Ashton were to pledge another 10,000 mosquito nets to be the first to reach 2,000,000 followers, I would work to help him achieve that. This is not about Ashton Kutcher, this is to test to see if the inherent power imbalances between a “popular” few and the masses make twitter just another media channel or something much greater.
Success in this effort would be good for everyone, including Ashton. He seems to believe in the relevance of social media and this is an effort to demonstrate the relevance of social media. Ashton will get his true followers back very quickly, and people would see how social media can be used by people with relatively little power, to influence the powerful.
For Twitter, if effective, it would show that Twitter narrows the power imbalance between those with popularity and those without and thus is truly a game changing platform.
Update Sat April 18: It appears that Twitter has is still preventing people from unfollowing @aplusk. It would be a shame if this was still in effect Monday as it would render this experiment invalid.
unfollowing aplusk accomplishes what, exactly? haven’t we humans ALWAYS let the popular, charismatic folks be our leaders? reagan, lincoln, obama, george washington, oprah, etc., etc., etc.
just because someone is demonstrating how to do this via a new communication channel doesn’t change the basic dynamic of who we choose to follow.
“the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Yes, the difference is with social media we can more easily group together quickly and efficiently and hold those we “grant” power accountable. Or that is what I am trying to demonstrate/test
It challenges me to think that there’s a perception that having a lot of followers conveys “power”. This power is granted by those who choose to follow in perhaps the most democratic means possible.
Frankly, the popularity of these brands, whether they be people or companies (some of them are little different) on Twitter is merely a reflection of their popularity elsewhere. It’s just that now those who had so much popularity only moments ago, are but tiny little fish in this great big sea now that the sharks are choosing to swim in it. These folks ALREADY have a disproportionate amount of power. People aren’t following ME around with a camera crew to see what soft drink is hip or what shoes to wear… are they following YOU? Didn’t think so…
Why should we care if Ashton has 2 million followers or 70 million? How many people watched him on That’s 70′s show? Read “People” magazine about his stealing Bruce Willis’ wife? Laughed as they watched him “Punk” all of his closest celebrity “frenemies”? Are watching his new cartoon show? And of those, how many own computers, and of those… now choose to use Twitter and follow him and his entertaining antics?
Your answer is probably the same as mine… “who cares”. Leave him be. If he’s poisoning the well for you because Twitter is now for sad and lonely mainstream people instead of just for sad and lonely geeks… find another well to drink from.
- Rawk on!
- Daiv
I think you bring up some excellent point but I disagree for one main reason…..viral.
yes, any person having a large # of followers will create an unfair balance of power if we were to compare to the # of people the original message is sent to. But the viral capabilities of any message are inherently present, no matter whom the sender is. I’m also willing to bet that if we were to compare the impact ratio of retweets to # of followers, we’d find the amounts to be rather similar no matter how many people are following you.
of course all of this also needs to rely on the premise that the tweeter is providing good content. if the content is shit, well then the response will be shit as well.
Daniel, Great point and you are correct – the viral potential of a message is inherent to the substance of the message, it is just inordinately easier for someone with greater number of followers to release that inherent potential by broadcasting it to their millions of followers.
That is why this is a test. Ashton has 1,000,000 followers and I have 1200 I want to test to see if I can get my message viral and have a measurable impact. He has already shown how easy it is for him to get his messages to go viral. I also want to test if as a group we can use our influence collectively. Can you help?
Sorry, but I don’t see it happening. Feels kinda like the facebook groups that urge you to not buy petrol/gas on a certain day to lower the price. I million people are invited and 3 pitch up, 7 of them being the original organisers.
Mindless sheep following a celeb don’t exactly count as people giving up their power… I’ll wager money that a _large_ proportion don’t even know what twitter is – they were just told by someone/a billboard/whatever to sign up and follow Aston. Hell, housemoms who don’t even know what a pc is will be following him now, thanks to Oprah, et al.
Blah blah, sorry, I’ll shut up now. Bedtime for me.
I don’t think you can unfollow @aplusk yet. Twitter blocked that capability in an attempt to prevent actions just like this…Here’s how to do it. http://tinyurl.com/c5egeg
Thanks for the link, I will add that to the post
[...] minutes ago Why we Should Unfollow Ashton Kutcher on Monday http://andrewmueller.wordpress.com/2009/... (via @andrewmueller) [...]
I just unfollowed and refollowed him with no issue via the web. I don’t know why you’re all having such issues. I use Firefox for this and have no problem at all when everyone else is saying they have issues. Maybe I just got a magic touch but … don’t see a problem.
I do think we go in a cluster mentality though. Humans are basically sheep that follow a leader. Unless we decide to be the leader we’re a part of some flock somehow. Either we choose them or they take that lead role but it is a basic activity of humanity to NEED a leader or BE a leader. That doesn’t mean they’re good leaders and we can always choose another flock.
I think his intentions are good. He raised a lot of netting for this worthy cause and I hope the donations keep coming. Why not up the ante for the next stage? There are many worthwhile persons/groups in the world that need the funding that people like Kucher, Moore, Oprah, Diddy and others can donate with no pain in their wallets. Let them set the example for the other leaders and high earners.
As for this project … I think he’d probably be in with it just to reinforce his own assertion that there IS change of control of media now. Count me in. Interesting experiment.
Unfollow on Monday, follow back on the next day. What for? This is childish and complete waste of time.
I’d follow who I wish to follow. Same thing with what triggers me to unfollow an individual, celebrity or common user like me – I’d unfollow you if you aggravate me too much or if you don’t contribute to the conversation.
[...] What 1 Million Twitter Followers Really Means and why we Should Unfollow Ashton Kutcher on Monday «… Celebrities and Twitter – How will this affect things? [...]
I get exactly why this is important. The parts are just as important as the whole. You’re reminding the system that they only exist because of the people that put them there. Through unfortunate experience, I realize that some celebrities on Twitter feel entitled …. to what ….?
I agree w/ Daiv. Just my 2 cents =) @AndreaTannouri the @HolisticMom
And the reason for this is what, exactly?
To show “power”? To say “If we don’t like the way you ‘lead’ us we will show you real change”?
When did Twitter (or anything in social media) become akin to a political battlefield?
This phrase sums up everything about this post perfectly:
“The challenge for “us” as as a social media tribe is to monitor those with great social media power and let them know whether or not we are pleased or displeased with how they are using their power.”
When you have something as simple as “Don’t Follow in the First Place” or “Unfollow if it’s not working out”, there’s no such thing as “great social media power”. Was there ever?
And people wonder why social media doesn’t get taken seriously enough…
“The challenge for “us” as as a social media tribe is to monitor those with great social media power and let them know whether or not we are pleased or displeased with how they are using their power. With Twitter we “vote” by choosing to follow.”
Do you actually think these celebrities care whether Twitter users are pleased or displeased by their presence? Ashton Kutcher doesn’t make money off having a presence on Twitter. He makes money making TV shows. In fact, I’d argue that he’s using his social media influence for good – raising awareness for charity.
Perhaps a more productive use of one’s time would be to develop one’s own network and stop worrying so much about a power struggle that doesn’t really exist except in people’s heads.
Twitter Mob is on the Case!
I love these ‘tempests in the teapot,
Dire consequences dooms days.
It’s what makes Twitter so engrossing
There’s always a good fight breaking out in the stands!
Hello Danny,
Thanks for your comment, I can appreciate your points. Please take a look at my reply to Sue.
If this were altogether true, Oprah wouldn’t be up to 375,645 followers in 5 days. Some people are sheep. The fact is, though, that unless Oprah were to take Twitter seriously (which she doesn’t/won’t, or she would have joined a LOT sooner), she’d have an impact. Her sheeplike followers will not take it seriously either, so we’ll see those numbers drop off sooner than later.
I think Twitter (and all other social media) is what the user makes of it. Why are we so jealous of celebrities? Because they have a platform??? If you want one, create it. It’s an equal-opportunity universe.
Hello Sue, thanks for your comment. I will answer you and Danny together.
Yes, Celebrities do care if their followers are pleased, but that is not the point. The point is to bring awareness to the power imbalances inherent in social media. -”as this event signifies a milestone of relevance for social media, it simultaneously signifies the imbalance of power inherent within”.
Celebrities are brands and to understand this whole ordeal we must define brand. I like @martyneumeiers definition of brand, “the customers gut feeling about a product, service or company. Celebrities are both a product and a company. Ashton used twitter as a platform for brand management, as he should, and did so very effectively. Until now corporate media controlled almost all influence of a celebrities brand; Ashton demonstrated that he can take matters of branding into his own hands. This is great but at the same time he may have a disproportionate amount of influence on social media chanels similar to the influence differential in corporate media.
As for the the mosquito nets and bringing awareness to the horrors of Malaria, BRAVO. I cannot commend him more! a beautiful thing to do and a highly effective move for his brand. But that is said and done, now there are more issues to raise, things to talk about, and inequities to understand.
It is doubtful that we will even come close to the goal of reducing Ashtons follower count to below 1 million, but if we raise awareness to the issues of power imbalances across all media channels we have succeeded.
The reality is..for as many people that will elect to “unfollow” Ashton, there will be probably 4-5 times as many people that WILL follow him no matter what..just to be in opposition. He is a celebrity and people tend to be mesmerized by celebrities and their status. Haven’t you noticed that although the likes of Oprah, Sherri Shephard, Ashton, and many others who have a presence on Twitter do not respond to the person who is considered a “non-celebrity.” I have responded to Sherri Shephard of The View on several occasions while she was online and have been totally ignored. What the celebs seem to have forgotten is..it is the people who have made them famous by paying attention in the first place….Truth be told..even if a celeb is on Twitter they are in a different echelon of life and behave that way…
Um, amen completely and totally to your explanation to Sue and Danny. And the choir is giving a hallelujah.
When I first heard of this goal of Kutcher reaching one million followers I thought it just smacked of him stroking his ego.
And that’s exactly what it’s doing — making him realize how important he is in his own mind and in the minds of his followers.
Not a big fan.
I think this is all very silly. If the goal of social media was to ensure that everyone had an equal voice then the platform would have limitations and reward people like a pyramid marketing scheme. I’ll call it Twitway. We’ll only allow you to have 100 followers and you better weed out the bad ones. Only choose those who will Retweet you often. Now you have to monitor them to ensure that they are retweeting to retweeters
But then again, someone will just create a script to retweet all the tweets, rendering the whole ponzi-like scheme useless 
Thanks for commenting, Actually I have no feelings either way about Ashton Kutcher. It is the issue that I care about. I am sure that Ashton Kutcher had numerous reasons for doing what he did and Ego is likely one.
BTW, why was twitter preventing people from unfollowing @aplusk? Twitter must explain this unusual behavior. I am beginning to think that this might have been a well planned contest aimed at ensuring that all three parties (CNN, Twitter, Kutcher) getting something out of it.
@Andrew Mueller: Do you have a link to the post/page where Twitter says it was a technical issue?
To the best of my understanding Twitter says it was a technical issue caused by too many people following too quickly. I could be wrong. Regardless, it seems that it was fixed by Monday.
I appreciate what you are saying Andrew. I’m sure that Kutcher’s brand is well orchestrated no matter where he appears.
As for the imbalance of power – if you don’t want his influence it’s as simple as an unfollow. I’ve never followed the guy and am not impacted in the least by his ego or his brand.
In that sense, I believe I ultimately hold the power.
Thanks for an engaging discussion!
Sorry Clement I do not have a link to twitter talking about why, all I know is what I heard on twitter and through other blogs.