(1) WHY this site?
I am particularly interested in visual communication related brands/organizations.
Creative Review is a visual communication magazine (both printed and online) for graphic design, advertising, digital media, illustration, photography and all other fields of visual communication.
Creative Review represents the visual communication sector in a different way than Kodak but both brands are addressing the same audience. Therefore I found it worth to examine and compare.
(2) Screen shot
(3) Data on tweets
I examined 100 tweets posted between Jul 8 – 20, 2009. I picked random 15 links in order to review where the links are directing.
(4) “Fill In The Blank” stats
Date data downloaded : July 20, 2009
Industry sector : Visual Communication
Twitter ID : @CreativeReview
Followers : 13,333
Following : 6,368
Ratio followers/following : 2
Number posts : 818
Account created : 23 Feb 2009
First post : ?
Bio: The best in visual communication (Location: London)
Twitter : http://twitter.com/CreativeReview
Bio link : http://twitter.com/CreativeReview
Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5501668135#/group.php?gid=5501668135
MySpace : http://www.myspace.com/creativereview
LinkedIn : –
Org Blog : http://creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog
Org website home : http://creativereview.co.uk
Other : –
Creative Review is a visual communication magazine based in London. Although Twitter is not the best platform for visual communication, @CreativeReview shows that Twitter could be a communication platform “about” anything, even visual communication.
Creative Review Magazine, due to its nature, is already creating content for visual communication related fields. Therefore, it is relatively easy for Creative Review to show up in social media platforms: Feeding the readers/followers/subscribers/fans/friends with the content of the magazine.
The tweets mostly direct to interesting articles published in the magazine, but Creative Review also give place to other visual communication related resources and news links.
(A.1) Background: The custom background is well representing the identity of the organization. Good to show the related fields for the potential followers. Repeating the web address both in the background and BIO is good.
(A.2) Avatar: Although using the logo is not wrong, a team/representative avatar could be more human, more twitterlike.
(A.3) Bio: Although the background is self explanatory, it is not verbally supported at the BIO section, which is extremely important in order to be accessible via search.
(A.4) Transparency: There is no personal tone in the conversation, so it is hard to say the communication is transparent.
(B.1) Replies: Every one out of three Tweets is either a @Reply or ReTweets.
(B.2) ReTweets: Every one out of three Tweets is either a @Reply or ReTweets.
(B.3) DM requests: No
(B.4) Hashtags: Only three hashtags in 100: Creative Review doesn’t seem like creating conversation topics or following that many.
(B.5) Favorite Tweet: Although not frequently showing a conversation, some tweets show that there is a human posting some feeds on Twitter from time to time. This tweet is my favorite for two reasons: Calling with his name and mentioning that they are aware he’s been retweeting for a while.
(B.6) Summary: According to the 100 tweets posted between Jul 8 – 20, 2009, CreativeReview is mostly making a hook to its website and visual communication related other resources. The conversational activity seems much less when it is compared with automatic feeds.
(C.1) Questions unearthed during analysis
(C.2) Suggestions for improvement
D. Analytic Services (to come next week)
(E.2) Scorecard Summary