Mark Lee is an extreme example of “connecting” with your fans. Everywhere he is on the web he offers “access.” He’s published an e-mail address (oft-times considered a “no-no” for all the filling of the mailbox it usually creates), responds to blog comments, accepts every friend request on Facebook, follows everyone who follows him on Twitter (which of course leads to the equivalent filling of the DM inbox), and even before that was actively @replying. Heck he’s even created a “community” site that he’s demanding interaction in. He is the epitome of stepping down from the pedestal, but I don’t think he’s doing it as much out of a sense of responsibility as much as he actually enjoys interacting in these ways (I think his latest blog is proof). Either that or he’s just plain crazy.

Let’s look at a counter-example: Bart Millard. He “scores low” because he doesn’t follow his fans. Neither does he @reply. But it’s clear from his Tweets that he does read the @replies. But beyond Twitter he is offering “more” to his fans. He’s the one who is actually doing “virtual meet and greets” with his fans, livecasting concerts and “chatting” with fans before and after. But that’s all (effectively) through his site.

Twitter is a cool way to interact, and those who interact more are cool for doing it. I just think that a public figure needs to decide how much time they are willing to devote to Twitter and let that gauge how they interact. There is a step to make to jump from simply reading @replies (and perhaps broadcasting general responses) to @replying directly to them. I’m sure once you start, then people @reply even more, looking to get an @reply back. Then there’s simply the statement I remember reading from CC’s Juan DeVevo that said something about worrying about “getting into conversations.” Obviously once you’ve gone beyond @replies and actually start following followers, you’re not only making your feed a mess you’re opening up your DM box to getting really full really quick (something I never quite understood myself, but I guess I’m not that kind of a “fan.”).

Bottom line (my gosh did I blather on this long? sorry): online fan interaction does not need to be limited to 140 characters. I think most fans who lived in a time before the Internet (where any “free” interaction was limited to snail mail and the occasional autograph) appreciate any bone tossed to us, and in fact reading the Tweets tend to remind us that they don’t “belong” to us, that they have other responsibilities besides their music and that we actually should be grateful.

I think what Mark describes is exactly what’s happening on Twitter for the most part. So, in that sense I think he’s right. I just don’t agree necessarily with the “do whatever works for you” part.

That’s exactly what happens and probably what will continue to happen for the most part. But I just thought it might be cool if those in the public eye adopted a more “openness to their fans” approach. Mark has obviously done that.

I would call selfish the approach, “It’s the experience they want that they are getting from it.” What about what the fan wants? This, in my opinion, should be first and foremost in the mind of a public figure.

The coolest thing about Twitter to me is that you get whatever kind of experience from it that you want. So you have some people on there having back and forth conversations of @ replies, some people sharing links, and other people literally telling you “what they are doing”. I don’t think there’s really a right or wrong way to use it – do whatever works for you.

I can’t think of a better response. The fact that you’d like to see certain artists follow more people is irrelevant. It’s the experience they want that they are getting from it. Again, that’s the beauty of Twitter I suppose.

Not looking forward to those posts where everyone disagrees with me and calls me an idiot.