Politicians, Bad Tweets, and the Ratio

Meet John Cornyn, the latest victim of Twitter hubris.


by Dave Robson

Latest from the Blog

Display Advertising: Direct Buy or DSP – Which is Right for You?

Bypassing the middleman usually means a lower price for the buyer. But when it comes to display advertising, this truism ain’t, umm, true.

Google Downranks AI Content. But Google Is Paying Publishers to Create AI Content

Google, what the heck?

Overview of Quebec’s Bill 25

Quebec’s Bill 25, officially known as “An Act to improve the protection of personal information in the private sector,” will profoundly reshape the landscape of marketing and advertising within the province.

Impact on Marketing and Advertising

The Everything App Will Amount to Nothing

Elon’s cringey press release about X as the “everything app” is a case of a billionaire smelling his own farts for too long.

The Google Ads Algorithm and the (Dreaded) Learning Period

Google Ads’ advanced algorithms learn from vast datasets to predict outcomes. Tweaking campaigns may reset this process and trigger a learning period.

Last week, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) sent out a tweet inviting followers to say which of two Patton Oswalt tweets was more offensive. Some context: Patton Oswalt is a liberal comedian, fairly outspoken on Twitter, and clashes regularly with conservatives on the platform. Cornyn is a very conservative senator, perhaps best known for saying that a man marrying a man is morally equivalent to a man marrying a box turtle.

Twitter has responded without remorse, constantly tweeting examples of offensive tweets from Trump and generally making fun of John Cornyn. Note that (at the time of this writing), Cornyn’s tweet has only 164 retweets and 685 likes, but over 11,000 replies. As Esquire explained a couple of years ago, when a tweet has more than a 2:1 ratio of replies to likes, it’s on shaky ground. As the ratio grows, it becomes more and more likely that the tweet is horrible.

We’re not going to dissect why Cornyn’s tweet is terrible. This is pretty self-evident. Instead, let’s point out why, when engagement on social platforms goes wrong, it goes spectacularly wrong.

Social media engagement is great for brands because the right call to action can get users to make content for the brand. For example, clothing brands like it when their customers take pictures of themselves modelling the clothing. This activity generates a lot of content and allows smart brands to promote the very best of said content of their official feeds. ASOS does this. They don’t have to spend much money or time and they get a lot of content.

That’s probably what Cornyn wanted out of his tweet: inflame the Twitter mob with Patton’s old Tweets, then sit back and watch them pile on with posts of their own. Et voila, a viral campaign is born! The whole thing requires little time or money on his part. And that’s exactly what he got.

The problem with relying on the users to make your effort a success is you get very little control over what gets created. Say each Twitter user responding to Cornyn spends five minutes finding offensive Trump tweets to tweet back to Cornyn. That quickly adds up to thousands of hours Cornyn and his team simply can’t match.

As many have found, social media engagement can backfire horribly. Most people, once burned, have the good sense to back away. That’s probably the best strategy, as there’s no easy way to fix bad social media engagement. Instead, Cornyn doubled down and posted several more Tweets in the hours after the first one, making a bad situation hilariously worse.