Auto Direct Messages on Twitter. A rant.

There is something inherently contradictory about the auto-generated welcome messages sent out to new followers by some Twitter-accounts. 

A typical one may go like this:

Thanks for following me! I am an educator, a consultant and an activist. I am also the founder of the Democracy School, a theater director and an artist. I speak English and German.

 

And then a link to a homepage.

Being annoyed, but also somewhat curious, I have tried several times to reply approximately like this:

Aaaaah then tell a genre researcher this. Custom messages to new followers annoy me horribly, I have even unfollowed people on that account. I like your twitter-account and I am not going to unfollow over this. But as a researcher I do wonder: What is the social or communicative purpose of the custom message, and what does it achieve. Would you enlighten me with your reflections on this.

 

2. apr.Sendt

As a reply to this inquiry, I get nothing. Zilch, nada, rien, an utter and complete blank.

I think the worst auto-welcome, I ever got, was this one from a reasonably established comedian:

FYI I'm pretty Shameless. If you haven't used Uber yet, we both get a $20 credit if you use code [...] or download Uber from here

 

And then some Uber-code. 

Well, did I follow you to assist with your Uber-bill? I don´t think so. I am quite a staunch supporter of the orderly Danish work market, and thus highly skeptical of a thing like Uber. My reply:

Thanks for the offer. In Denmark, however, Uber's activities are - rightfully I believe - seen as a right wing attack on the worker's rights safeguards protecting the salary and working conditions of ordinary citizens in Denmark. So, I am not taking you up on your offer. I hope for your understanding, and I can see how things might look different from an American perspective with so many fewer safeguards in place.

 

15. nov. 2016Sendt

This, too, went unanswered. I cannot imagine why.

Here is a genre use I simply don´t get. Or at least I don´t get the handling of it. 

I get it, if an account holder is too big or too important to reply to direct messsages. That's fair. I follow J.K. Rowlings on Twitter, but I don´t expect her to reply to a direct message from me. However, she doesn´t send out direct messages either. 

What offends me is, I think, a violation of the basic norms of the letter as a genre. The direct messages-function in Twitter is clearly personal; it is hidden from view, allows for much more extended communications than the 140-character long public tweets, and letters requires active effort to send to people. (Even if that effort is establishing an auto-message.) It is a variation on a mailbox or a chat-function. As such, it invites personal interchange. 

Now, as other genres the letter attributes certain roles to the participants. If you initiate a communication by sending a letter, you are inviting a certain uptake: a reply. And you are, in turn, expected to read it and answer back, should the situation, or your co-correspondent, so require. As the original sender you are, thus, in one sense an applicant asking for the receiver to participate in an exchange. 

So, the violation is that the sender of the direct message ignores the uptake, s/he has invited, and treats the communication as a one-way street. This implies a quite different hierachy: 

The sender is an interesting person, thus allowed to send messages to strangers with only the flimsiest invitation (a click to follow on Twitter). The receiver, however, is nothing of the sort. S/he is so insignificant that even given the obvious invitation to reply inherent in the letter, taking up this invitation in an actual reply does not merit the attention of the sender who, thus, diminshes the receiver to the point of complete insignificance. 

This convoluted hierachy is actually accentuated by the genre's norms, as the supposed equality of communication in the letter, highlights the lack of equality in the actual use of the genre. 

This is obviously failed communication, and a poor use of the genre. All it communicates is condencension: I am interesting, you are not. By consequence, instead of making a favorable impression, this is what you actually get:

However:

I did get one automated welcome message that I liked. A parody account, @QueenCerseiReal, mixing current US politics with a Game of Thrones-world, sent me an auto welcome in character:

Thank you for working with me to Make Westeros Great Again! Retweet and share to help boost the signal and drown out the lying maesters with their FAKE NEWS. #MWGA

 

To me that was part of the act, and for once I perceived it as a nice way to greet me. Thus, I did not dishonor it by returning my somewhat insolent inquiry. What's more, when the person behind the account, whom I still don´t know, found me ranting on Twitter over the messages s/he inquired personally in a direct message whether the auto message had been out of line.

I denied this, but I also took the renewed letter as an invitation to ask about the use of the automated messages and got a very thoughtful reply. Here in a series of direct messages with my short replies omitted:

These aren't technical terms but I think of it as hard and soft engagement - hard engagement in that it's one more click from your account to mine, meaning my stuff is theoretically more likely to show up in your feed because you opened the message and, possibly, responded.

 

So my tweets might be more likely to show up in the "while you were out" etc.

 

Soft engagement in that it's a direct appeal, in character and on message, so if you found me through a recommendation you're more likely to take an actual look at my profile/posting history

 

So with my podcast auto DM, there is a direct call to action - "here is a podcast, here is how to find it"

 

With this it's "in case you followed this when you were drunk, here is a reminder that it exists"

 

Unsurprisingly, the person who answers, even initiates further communication, is also the person who proves capable of reflection. And, as mentioned, this was a parody account, not even somebody marketing themselves.

Thus, the genre had an actual role to play. It just took a role player to know how to play the game of genre well enough to get an actual communication and leave a good impression.

The post was inspired by this article, as well as some twitter exchanges - and a lot of annoyance.