I’m not going to steal Sharlyn’s words – read her piece – but she talks extensively about the ways in which the organisation might be seen with a few soft edges; something of a human face.  In essence, to interact with fellow Twitterers, not just tell them things.  What she doesn’t do is set rules, just outcomes.

Various sources (here  for instance) offer a total revenue of $US61Bn for Dell in 2008.  The same source suggests that the tweets from @DellOutlet earned the company $1M in sales in the 18 months to the end of 2008 and another $1M in the first half of 2009, based in the main part on partial discounts (e.g. 20% off a printer as part of a larger order).

Can someone explain how this can possibly be significant?  

With over 600,000 followers and a typical order of somewhere between $500 and $1,000, that suggests a grant total of something around 2,500 sales – or one follower in 240 taking up the offer.

Now, one in 240 isn’t so bad, but how many of those would have purchased anyway?  I’d suggest most – all Dell did was give away profit to enhance their Twitter value.  Bringing us back to the “numbers men” again!  Maybe the marketing gain was worth it.  Who can tell.

But what of the opposite view?  How can a company tap into the conversation?  Know what is being said about them?