I started Twittering during Sundance two years ago, at the urging of Lance Weiler. I was good and frequent, up until a couple months ago, when I just fell off the wagon. I've come back to regular Twitter habits, especially during events like SXSW (where Twitter officially launched in 2007). Anyway, my point is this: it's me, actually Twittering those random updates about what I'm doing on a regular basis. Celebrities, however, are too busy to Twitter as much as they should. Lots of press (too much?) has been made recently about all the celebrities who use Twitter non-stop. But if celebrities are forced to use ghostwriters to pen their autobiographies, wouldn't some need ghost Twitterers as well? That's what Noam Cohen explores for this interesting article in the The New York Times:
Many online commentators are appalled at the practice of enlisting ghost Twitterers, but Joseph Nejman, a former consultant to Britney Spears who helped conceive her Web strategy, said there was a more than a whiff of hypocrisy among critics.
“It’s O.K. to tweet for a brand,” he said, remarking how common it is for companies to have Twitter accounts, “but not O.K. for a celebrity. But the truth is, they are a brand. What they are to the public is not always what they are behind the curtain. If the manager knows that better than the star, then they should do it.”
In the last couple of months, the Britney Spears Twitter stream has become a model of transparency. Where the feed once seemed that it was all written personally by Ms. Spears — even the blatantly promotional items about a new album — lately it can read like a group blog, with some posts signed “Britney,” some signed by “Adam Leber, manager” and others by “Lauren.” That would be Lauren Kozak, social-media director of britneyspears.com. (Ms. Spears’s management team declined to be interviewed for this article.)