Question of the day: how did Goldman Sachs amass 3,731 Twitter followers without posting a single Tweet? You can run down the list of them all; we're wondering if they're actually pleased to be there. Is Wall Street really that inept about social media, which is, first and foremost, about public dialogue?
We wouldn't be surprised if this and other posts on the situation cause Goldman to start tweeting pretty quickly. But the situation this morning is that its Tweetfeed, with all those followers, is empty. (Oh ho, now we note that Goldman's Twitter account has a note in the space where the tweets would be: "@goldmansachs's account is protected.
("Only confirmed followers have access to @goldmansachs's Tweets and complete profile. Click the "Follow" button to send a follow request."
(Yet the account still says "zero followers." And Bank of America and Citi Bank are both tweeting on their quite public accounts. Apparently that Goldman list of 3,731 followers is part of a privileged, should we say secret, society. Is Twitter happy about that?)
Actually, its web page advises, Goldman is seeking to hire a Community Manager/Social Media Strategist "to serve as the administrator for Goldman Sachs social media communities." It had better hurry. (There's also a grammatical hitch. "Sachs" in this instance should be possessive.)
Goldman's tweetless Twitter page isn't in the category of Spirit Airlines' astounding unwillingness to refund the ticket of a Vietnam War veteran who found that he had terminal cancer after purchasing it and was told by his doctor he shouldn't fly. But these sorts of insensitive instances illustrate how many miles PR has yet to go to establish credibility — even basic competence among certain firms — in this new media age.
Goldman advises on its website's "Our Thinking" page that its people "regularly create content related to markets, securities, structured products, rates, currencies and economies around the world." They're just shy of tweeting about all that priceless content, it seems.