MIR’s Twitter ROI statistics

It’s not about how many followers you’ve got on Twitter (but if you’d like to buy 1,000 of them, click here), it’s about how many of them are interested in what you’ve got to say, right?

I did a little yesterday — and I’ve been doing a test with bit.ly as well — to measure the ‘return on investment’ of Twitter.

The click-through stat (along with re-tweet) is probably one of the most effective measures of the responsiveness of your followers.

As of yesterday, 597 people followed @ew4n (my personal account) and 634 followed MIReview (the site’s account).

Based on the stats I looked at yesterday over a 24 hour period, MIReview has a higher click-through percentage.

Almost exactly 40% (40.37%!) of followers clicked on MIReview’s Tweeted links.

Whereas only 33% clicked a link sent out via my ew4n personal account.

Immediately I can justify that MIReview has been, historically, an account that you follow if you would like site updates. So logically, more folk are going to click through on this account than via my personal one (which features more friends and other interested parties who might not be particularly turned on by mobile, for example).

Interesting, interesting.

On reflection there’s not that much difference. 7% difference.

But then this was just an arbitrary trial yesterday. I wonder what the results would be measured across hundreds of tweets?

, , , ,

  • http://shkspr.mobi/ TerenceEden

    7% on such a small sample size is probably well within the margin of error. However, it does show you why twitter spam is so prevalent. People click links from those they trust.

  • http://raxraxrax.com Rax Lakhani

    Twitter's one of the biggest traffic referrers to my blog. But you have to mix it up a bit on the MIR side. Not just automated links to your posts. How about a bit o' chat? That's what RSS is for. That said, I usually click through when @MIReview tweets.

    How's all this going to change next month? Are you keeping the MIReview account?

  • http://shkspr.mobi/ TerenceEden

    7% on such a small sample size is probably well within the margin of error. However, it does show you why twitter spam is so prevalent. People click links from those they trust.

  • Pingback: Michael E. Rubin()

  • Pingback: Michael E. Rubin()

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes

Real Time Web Analytics

Clicky