Go Back
13th, November
Twitter: You’re Doing It Wrong

Blue Bird Fail

Twitter is a fantastic tool to connect with audiences and build relationships, and despite the business itself having some missteps, it will continue to bring people together to discuss the latest season finale or political blunder. Celebrities, who have some of the most passionate audiences, thus have much to gain from joining this growing social platform. Fans are able to see into their favorite star’s daily life, and the world is able to see what their latest career achievement is.

And this is why it continues to perplex me when celebrities instead use Twitter as another avenue to advertise. It feels insincere, and it’s a disservice—celebrities are preventing themselves from seeing how truly loving their followers can be.

Let’s take a look at one celebrity: Maggie Siff, who plays Tara on the hit show Sons of Anarchy.

This is her Twitter:

Her header and background need some sprucing up, but that’s okay because surprisingly celebrities don’t brand their social profiles very well. But there are other traits that need revamping… Maggie, you’re doing Twitter wrong.


Her username is @MaggieSiffOnlin. Why is that? Is her website branded that way? It doesn’t seem like it because the URL in the description doesn’t lead anywhere. I understand the concept that her Twitter is her online presence, but that’s assumed and doesn’t need to be there. It’s unnecessary, and just makes her Twitter harder to find—because there’s too many characters in her username, the word “online” is cut short so it makes it harder for potential new followers to find her.


The description reads like a Wikipedia page. There’s no need to put her date of birth, especially if her age is already listed. There’s no need to write “Maggie Siff Online : Maggie Siff.” What does that serve? If she wants people to know this is her online presence, please read the “Username” section again… even though I reiterate it’s unnecessary. There’s even more redundancy with “The Bronx, New York City, New York,” given that her location is listed below this description. Put simply, it’s not personal or even professional.


Just scrolling to June garners numerous hashtags, generally all containing “#MaggieSiff.” For searchable purposes it definitely works but for her followers it just looks like spam, especially when it’s jumbled with two to three more hashtags.

Furthermore, there’s rarely any real content to her tweets. She has made an occasional thank you to her fans, but that was back in May. Even if she sends a nice gesture on a holiday, she replies to herself to thank everyone for thanking her. From then on it’s just more hashtags and photos of herself. Even her retweets need work; they seem more self-indulging when you have things like:




All her images have the words “MaggieSiffOnline” printed on them. I sound like a broken record but why is that? People are viewing her photos on Twitter, so image ownership is already apparent. Nonetheless, even if someone does save the image and uploads it elsewhere, copyright shouldn’t be something a celebrity worries about it. The images are of her, so it makes sense they’re professional photos associated with her. Not to mention that the font used to write “MaggieSiffOnline” is hard to read and looks like it was done in MS Paint.



Maggie Siff is a good actress, but her social presence definitely needs some work. Twitter is a great place to meet new people all around the globe and embracing that is the key to more dedicated followers and fruitful conversations. Katy Perry and Lady Gaga know it; even though it’s apparent that the latter has a Marketing team sending out her more technical tweets, you can still see that personal touch is there.

For anyone—especially a celebrity—understanding and harnessing your online identity helps make you into a powerful influencer, and it converts your followers into strong advocates of your work. If you’re reading this you’re most likely not a celebrity, but if you’re doing any of the blunders above: you’re also doing Twitter wrong.