Jackson Family Buys 25,000 Twitter Followers for "Media Campaign"

Just in - "someone in the family" just bought 25,000 followers for Twitter for "an account relating to Michael Jackson".

What is this for??
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20090810-michael-jackson-bought-twitter-followers-from-australian-company.html

Why they need to BUY followers ??



An Australian social media company that sells "packs" of Twitter
followers to corporate clients says it has dealt with the family of
Michael Jackson in relation to a media campaign for the deceased pop
star.

uSocial chief executive Leon Hill said in a statement the company had
not dealt with Jackson himself, but had been in contact with an unnamed
family member regarding the purchase of 25,000 followers.
"I can't admit that we dealt with Michael Jackson directly, though
we were in touch with someone in his family recently who tasked us with
conducting a Twitter campaign on an account relating to him," said
uSocial.net CEO Leon Hill. "It was exciting to say the very least to
conduct work with such a big name."
"For obvious reasons we'll be dealing with his family from here on
in, though it would have been great to conduct services for Michael
Jackson in a different time, under different circumstances."

wow !! i wonder why.

DawneVee wrote:Wow..that's weird...

Rofl i never heard of such a thing buying followers

Why would the Jackson Family buy 25,000 Twitter Followers in MJ's name?

What sense does this make? I bet they did this for MJ's sake!

MJ wants to communicate with his fans wherever he is!

What do you all think?

I'm trying to understand how someone can be "bought" as a follower. Anyone know how this works?

SeeingClues wrote:I'm trying to understand how someone can be "bought" as a follower. Anyone know how this works?

Nope anyone hear have twitter? as far as i know u can follow anyone u want, so i dont get what they are paying for

SeeingClues wrote:I'm trying to understand how someone can be "bought" as a follower. Anyone know how this works?

No I never heard or read anything about buying followers Very weird
And +++ it's like they really don't want us think they made a deal with Michael..uh ? Why they need to tell if he's "dead"

SmoothCriminal wrote:

SeeingClues wrote:I'm trying to understand how someone can be "bought" as a follower. Anyone know how this works?

Nope anyone hear have twitter? as far as i know u can follow anyone u want, so i dont get what they are paying for

I have a Twitter and really, never heard about that

Human_nature wrote:

SmoothCriminal wrote:

SeeingClues wrote:I'm trying to understand how someone can be "bought" as a follower. Anyone know how this works?

Nope anyone hear have twitter? as far as i know u can follow anyone u want, so i dont get what they are paying for

I have a Twitter and really, never heard about that

Lol this is just weird

It's just a marketing campaign and I guess all huge companies do it.
Please remember: Music is BUSINESS

http://usocial.net/twitter_marketing/


quote:

"for every 1,000 followers, you'll should earn around $100 from them per
month. Have 10,000? That's a further $1,000 per month for you or your
company."

SmoothCriminal wrote:

DawneVee wrote:Wow..that's weird...

Rofl i never heard of such a thing buying followers

That's like Twitter slavery.

SmoothCriminal wrote:

DawneVee wrote:Wow..that's weird...

Rofl i never heard of such a thing buying followers

but you've heard about a thing called "guerilla marketing" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_marketing ) I guess. That's what's behind all this

Silence wrote:It's just a marketing campaign and I guess all huge companies do it.
Please remember: Music is BUSINESS

http://usocial.net/twitter_marketing/


quote:

"for every 1,000 followers, you'll should earn around $100 from them per
month. Have 10,000? That's a further $1,000 per month for you or your
company."

Thanks for clearing that up

Silence wrote:

SmoothCriminal wrote:

DawneVee wrote:Wow..that's weird...

Rofl i never heard of such a thing buying followers

but you've heard about a thing called "guerilla marketing" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_marketing ) I guess. That's what's behind all this

yes, but I never thought about that..after all..I'm just a "little Twitter" LOL

Silence wrote:

SmoothCriminal wrote:

DawneVee wrote:Wow..that's weird...

Rofl i never heard of such a thing buying followers

but you've heard about a thing called "guerilla marketing" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_marketing ) I guess. That's what's behind all this

Yah i guess it would seem so

did this page always exist? The first post is from 7/7:
http://twitter.com/MichaelJackson

It has over 29K followers...

How weird is this?!

Seeing clues, yes the page does exist but it only goes back to July 7th and has 3 tweets on it.

You know I had someone on Twitter called "Michael Jackson Ringtones" start following me the other day. It's an odd odd place!!!

SeeingClues wrote:did this page always exist? The first post is from 7/7:
http://twitter.com/MichaelJackson

It has over 29K followers...

hmm, that all makes sense:

The biggest jackson-relatzed twitter account is http://twitter.com/MJJNews so far ( 57.000 followers ) which is done by a fan.


of course an official mj twitter account needs more followers than her...

Ok maybe I dumb so someone please set me straight, but WHY would Michael need a Twitter page if he was "dead"?

Rachel wrote:Ok maybe I dumb so someone please set me straight, but WHY would Michael need a Twitter page if he was "dead"?

to promote new releases

(even Elvis has one... http://twitter.com/GracelandNews)

by the way the elvis account gives you an example what the mj account may include

it says it's the "official" one so this I would think would be the one the family bought the 25K followers for..

Silence wrote:

Rachel wrote:Ok maybe I dumb so someone please set me straight, but WHY would Michael need a Twitter page if he was "dead"?

to promote new releases

(even Elvis has one... http://twitter.com/GracelandNews)

by the way the elvis account gives you an example what the mj account may include

Thanks for explaining

but Elvis's wasn't in the name "Elvis Presley" but rather Graceland News.
I'm actually surprised that no one previously tried to set up an account under the name "Michael Jackson" unless he had previously reserved it but never did anything with it...

SeeingClues wrote:but Elvis's wasn't in the name "Elvis Presley" but rather Graceland News.
I'm actually surprised that no one previously tried to set up an account under the name "Michael Jackson" unless he had previously reserved it but never did anything with it...

but it says "the official Elvis Presley Twitter page". I think it's official and if you see the links you see that it's used to promote new releases and stuff like that.

Yeah, I'm surprised too and I'm surprised that those accounts have so few followers while ashton kutcher has a million or so

Silence wrote:

SeeingClues wrote:but Elvis's wasn't in the name "Elvis Presley" but rather Graceland News.
I'm actually surprised that no one previously tried to set up an account under the name "Michael Jackson" unless he had previously reserved it but never did anything with it...

but it says "the official Elvis Presley Twitter page". I think it's official and if you see the links you see that it's used to promote new releases and stuff like that.

Yeah, I'm surprised too and I'm surprised that those accounts have so few followers while ashton kutcher has a million or so

lmao Ashton kutcher is a twitter hoare

SmoothCriminal wrote:

Silence wrote:

SeeingClues wrote:but Elvis's wasn't in the name "Elvis Presley" but rather Graceland News.
I'm actually surprised that no one previously tried to set up an account under the name "Michael Jackson" unless he had previously reserved it but never did anything with it...

but it says "the official Elvis Presley Twitter page". I think it's official and if you see the links you see that it's used to promote new releases and stuff like that.

Yeah, I'm surprised too and I'm surprised that those accounts have so few followers while ashton kutcher has a million or so

lmao Ashton kutcher is a twitter hoare

Maybe MJ is the new Punk'd host *lol*

Silence wrote:

SmoothCriminal wrote:

Silence wrote:

SeeingClues wrote:but Elvis's wasn't in the name "Elvis Presley" but rather Graceland News.
I'm actually surprised that no one previously tried to set up an account under the name "Michael Jackson" unless he had previously reserved it but never did anything with it...

but it says "the official Elvis Presley Twitter page". I think it's official and if you see the links you see that it's used to promote new releases and stuff like that.

Yeah, I'm surprised too and I'm surprised that those accounts have so few followers while ashton kutcher has a million or so

lmao Ashton kutcher is a twitter hoare

Maybe MJ is the new Punk'd host *lol*

Lol that would be so awesome michael saying u just got punk'D

WORLD


u just got punk'D

"I can't admit that we dealt with Michael Jackson directly, though we
were in touch with someone in his family recently who tasked us with
conducting a Twitter campaign on an account relating to him,"

Anyone else find this weird! (Maybe I am looking to much into it) How can they not know/admit whether they were dealing directly w/Michael. When did the sell took place? Because if it did after June 25th than these people should know they couldn't have been possibly dealing w/Michael!(Unless they are just getting back from an outer space trip! and are not aware Michael supposedly "died") Seems like more clues and a way to keep people talking about Michael and the Jacksons (Publicity for MJ's return maybe?)

Banessa wrote:"I can't admit that we dealt with Michael Jackson directly, though we
were in touch with someone in his family recently who tasked us with
conducting a Twitter campaign on an account relating to him,"

Anyone else find this weird! (Maybe I am looking to much into it) How can they not know/admit whether they were dealing directly w/Michael. When did the sell took place? Because if it did after June 25th than these people should know they couldn't have been possibly dealing w/Michael!(Unless they are just getting back from an outer space trip! and are not aware Michael supposedly "died") Seems like more clues and a way to keep people talking about Michael and the Jacksons (Publicity for MJ's return maybe?)

hmm, but they also write

"it would have been great to conduct services for Michael Jackson in a different time, under different circumstances"

@ Silence This is giving me such a headache! lol Is it me or they are just contradicting themselves in the article? Why state the first and then go on to state

"it would have been great to conduct services for Michael Jackson in a different time, under different circumstances"

It's not making much sense to me anymore! I think my brain is not functioning properly and is on slow gear lol

Banessa wrote:@ Silence This is giving me such a headache! lol Is it me or they are just contradicting themselves in the article? Why state the first and then go on to state

"it would have been great to conduct services for Michael Jackson in a different time, under different circumstances"

It's not making much sense to me anymore! I think my brain is not functioning properly and is on slow gear lol

no, you are right.
it's kinda contradicting. but maybe some trainee wrote that stuff, these new media companies mostly have VERY young people working there

The article is wierd But I think that they are just trying to promote their product? Remember the off shore banking thing from the other forum? Why would the need to buy fans for MJ?