uSocial to “sell” Facebook followers – but SMEs warned not to buy

Social networking service uSocial has begun selling batches of Facebook followers to businesses, but industry experts have warned SMEs that buying Twitter or Facebook followers can actually damage a company's reputation.

uSocial chief executive Leon Hill has made a name for his company by selling batches of Twitter followers to businesses in order to gain a large presence online, along with "votes" on news site Digg.com and press release distribution.

Hill says the company has now expanded its business to offer sales of friends on Facebook, saying the social networking giant offers a larger scale than Twitter.

"There's a lot more people on Facebook, 200 million as opposed to four million on Twitter, and it's a lot better to advertise on Facebook, better click through rates and that sort of thing."
"The prices are about $197 for 1,000 friends, and goes up to $1,000 for 10,000, but every order is customised."

Hill also says his uSocial business has taken off, and has even worked with large clients including the Mormon Church and the Korean Department of Tourism.

"The business has been extremely successful. When we first launched I didn't have enough staff and I had to hire more people. It's leveled out now, but we're still doing a dozen Twitter orders a day."

Hill has attracted criticism from Twitter users for abusing the "spirit" of social networking by offering users as a commodity, and has been threatened to be shut down by Twitter. But he defends the company, maintaining his service isn't spam.

"I think people have to realise that we don't spam people, all we're doing is what anybody else is doing. We target people who we think would be good with clients, send them an invitation, and in the end it's up to them. If we were sending bulk messages, then it would be spam, but it's not."

"I just say to people, you give your money to a bank because they're better at managing your money than you are. You give your money here because someone else is managing your profile better than you can do yourself."

But industry experts warn that purchasing Twitter or Facebook followers can actually be harmful to a company's reputation.

Shane Tilley, marketing manager for Sitepoint.com, agrees and says businesses need to establish themselves in social networking in a natural way.

"I think we do a good enough job of establishing ourselves in social media spaces off our own initiatives, so we don't need to go off and rent or buy followers. If you do things naturally you get a better result."

Sitepoint.com embarked on a Twitter campaign to gain new followers by selling three eBooks for the price of one. Within hours, it had gained thousands of followers, with its current count at 41,000.

"There is certainly a risk of losing your reputation when you do these things, and that is part of the reason why I've stayed well clear of them. Particularly for blue chips that have established offline based reputations as well, if a story spread they were buying followers or engaging in social media as a product, that could certainly impact their credibility.

Tilley points to a recent report from StollzNow Research that reveals 23% of Australian consumers have boycotted a company after reading a negative comment about that company on a social network.

"There is a direct correlation right there. If your credibility is attacked in that sphere, then it can have a direct impact on your business."

James Griffin, chief executive of reputation management group SR7, says businesses should stay clear of businesses that "sell" batches of followers.

"I think customers and users of social media are pretty smart. From day one, transparency and honesty have been fairly well established points of social media, and so if businesses use an illegitimate media tactic people will see it for what it is."

"I think businesses should do the hard yards and work instead of artificially inflating their numbers. In the long run, it won't help you if you do artificial things to improve your standing, and from an investment point of view you'd do better."

Griffin says while uSocial is based on a surprising idea, it goes against the ethos of what social media is about.

"If businesses want to get respect and feel they can enter online spaces safely, such as Facebook or MySpace, then they have to be able to show customers who they really are and buying followers doesn't really help that."

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

SmartCompany blogger Paul Wallbank says the idea of paying for social networking followers goes against the spirit of the networks themselves.

"I don't think buying friends works in any environment, least of all social media. I don't see how paying for a whole pile of followers is going to help you get your message out there. You're trying to connect with potential customers and partners, so why be out there targeting people who aren't interested in you?"

• Tech troubles: HP cuts 27,000 jobs while Facebook to be sued over IPO
• I have a website and now I want advertisers
• Five websites your business needs to worry about
• Does Facebook's stock reflect social media's decline?
• Microsoft launches new social network – but it's not competing with Facebook

...
written by cookieonline, September 03, 2009

Im a Social Media Marketing professional and would advise all SME's to avoid friend "farming" or name purchasing. Although it seems like a cheap, time effective acquisition of names for your data base there are much more ethical and professional ways to achieve this. Don't ruin your brands reputation for a few non targeted, in interested followers.

...
written by Walter Adamson, September 03, 2009

Oddly enough, because I posted once before agreeing with the views expressed in this article, as a commercial proposition I don't see harm in some companies using this service. There are a segment of users of Facebook and Twitter who benefit from just sheer numbers of followers who they don't know from a bar of soap e.g. rock stars, celebs, some brands. They treat the platforms as one-way broadcast channels.

I don't know exactly how uSocial works, but since on Facebook - through the API - applications can get access to huge amounts of personal information perhaps uSocial does great segmentation. For example, it's very possible that everything on your Facebook profile is made available to the developers such as uSocial by way of some API connections, and that of your friends including hometowns, favorite books, political views, networks, birthdays, number of wall posts, and even personal photos.

In this case uSocial could provide lists which are just as good a set of followers as those obtained by Facebook ads. JC Penny recently attracted 500,000 new "fans" with their Facebook ads. Are these fans any more segmented or valuable than a selected set from uSocial? I don't know the answer but I don't have a knee-jerk reaction about uSocial in this context.

Walter Adamson @g2m
Social Media Academy, Australia
http://www.socialmedia-academy.com.au

...
written by WhiteKnight, September 04, 2009

Firstly, Facebook already offer this type of service, but in a more organic way. If you have a business fan page, you can pay per member when you choose to promote your page. I fail to see why uSocial would offer this service.

Secondly, what is the quality of the user they are selling? How long will that user remain in the group before leaving? You buy 1000 and are left with 300 after a couple of months...

I can see merit in wanting to get a large audience quickly. The organic process is subsequently supercharged when people see a large group. They wont stay long if there is no value add however. uSocial should focus on providing a holistic service where they provide members and then ensure that their customers have interested and updated content to hold the user there.