The very concept of the geographic hashtag on social media platforms like Twitter was meant to help categorize, label, and shout-out a specific place.
In other words, it’s a helpful identifier for non-locals to seek out for local information. In high tourism areas the local hashtag helps establish community among the deluge of visitor chatter (case and point, see recently adopted and heartily used #WBGVA that I was lucky enough to witness the birth of during a NetworkWilliamsburg event for non-profits). The local hashtag is ultimately, if nothing else, a way to follow a host of region-centric conversations.
Except when it isn’t.
Since Twitter allows geo-tagging of tweets we can see quite clearly what a particular geographic region generates. And Greater Richmond generates a lot of tweets. Lots. As in, far, far more than are actually tagged by #RVA. And by a far more diverse audience, about far more topics, and about life in Richmond that isn’t completely directed by the comparatively small slice using #RVA. Obviously turning off the option means you’re tweets aren’t included-but that makes the sheer volume of those that are on even more stunning.
In short: #RVA may help categorize specific speech, but it’s to an increasingly smaller and insular audience that does not represent Twitter use in Richmond. Not by a long shot. But don’t take my word for it, see it for yourself:
See what the real time feed of those using the #RVA looks like- note the people, frequency and diversity (including age, especially): http://bit.ly/hashtagrva
Now do the same looking at ALL tweets from Richmond and 25 miles surrounding: http://bit.ly/RichmondArea
The difference is stunning. Let those pages stay open for a second and you’ll begin to really see what I mean. During one of the usually busy hours of the day for the #RVA tag, I observed the following:
The Non-#RVA Feed
- Included over forty times the traffic
- Far more diverse and featuring three times the African Americans than the #RVA feeds
- A more generationally diverse population, skewing far younger in particular times of day
- Included topics about Richmond and/or the metro area (proving that these were not simply tweets who deliberately didn’t identify with #RVA)
- Less dominated by marketers or marketing messages
Remember that the full Richmond feed also includes all of the #RVA tweets, but it is far more representative of the Richmond online community. By far.
My observations have been consistent with what I’ve seen every time I’ve compared the feeds. In fact in my University of Richmond Institute on Philanthropy class I’ve stopped using the #RVA feed as my example of getting to know your audiences because it just simply isn’t representative. One can make all kinds of judgments as to why it may not be an accurate representation, assuming it ever was, but the difference is undeniable. The general Richmond feed contains a massive variety of conversations and comments that surely won’t appeal to everyone; but assuming that the #RVA feed somehow cuts through that for any particular topical discussion (other than being deliberately “Richmond, VA” focused) is also a dangerous road, given the consistent abuse of the #RVA hashtag by auto-posts.
This is not to say there isn’t value in observing and using #RVA on Twitter. It remains a way to categorize that certainly may get you noticed within a population who follows and utilizes the hashtag. But let’s not kid ourselves about what that population is composed of. It may be that the hashtag is only useful in a much narrower context than intended. And there is no easy way to fix that issue in order to broadcast directly to only Richmond Twitter readers; but the lack of solution does not increase the importance of a self-segmented audience.
The good news is: Greater Richmond is alive and well on Twitter. Lively even. The bad news is you may not notice the depth to the liveliness only reading #RVA posts.