There are a couple of keys to social media success that we talk about a lot here. Consistency. Engagement. Relevance.

But none has such tragicomic effects when it’s ignored as Authenticity — and it’s amazing how many smart people try to fake it.

Take for instance, the recent case of Fast Company, the Website and magazine that “help a new breed of leader work smarter and more effectively” by “uncovering best and ‘next’ practices”.

Fast Company has enjoyed a pretty good reputation among people where the spheres of business, entrepreneurship and technology intersect. The magazine was born amid the dotcom boom of the late 90s and has lived to tell the tale.

But last Monday, they launched something called the Influence Project, an attempt, in their words to “find the most influential person online”. Which sounds — and actually could be — great.

But within hours, FC was being called out for running a link-baiting pyramid scheme — running a scam — by exactly the kind of influencers they were trying to reach and leverage.

The crux of the problem was the way the project was structured. Would-be influencers were asked to register for the project and then they were given a link to send to their friends and colleagues to click on. And, well… that’s it.

Powerful influencers felt that they were being asked to pimp out their reputations in order to drive traffic and boost search rankings for FC — they felt that FC wasn’t being transparent about what their goals were and they felt that if they were going to be asked to use their influence it should be towards something more meaningful than this trivial thing.

They felt that Fast Company was being inauthentic about their goals for the project and was asking them to compromise their own authenticity. And the word spread like wildfire.

The stunt has generated buzz for FC and they have some notable defenders, like Guy Kawasaki,  but the consensus among most influencers is well summed up by Oliver Blanchard commenting on the Conversation Agent blog:

I dug Fast Company a lot more back in the day. I still like it now, a lot, but I don’t love it like I used to. Great writing is one thing, but relevance comes from understanding the subjects you write about (or turn into projects) thoroughly. Fast Company’s relevance just took another hit with this, and that makes me sad.

It makes me sad, too.

Over on the In Over Your Head blog, they’re asking, “is Twitter useless for building followers?” The core of the “yes” argument seems to be:

For me, the most effective way to get followed on Twitter is actually not to be on Twitter at all, but instead to be somewhere in person (conference etc.) and show your Twitter handle onscreen. But the point is that if you point your audience from Twitter to a blog, they might subscribe, and from a blog, they might follow you on Twitter. But getting RT’ed is doesn’t build audience if it doesn’t go to your content.

I have 2 responses to this:

1) it only partly reflects our experience here at Fruition. We find the surest way to build followers AND get retweets is to tweet a lot. On days when we tweet 3 or more times a day, we get way more Twitter love all around. It makes sense – say relevant things often enough and people will pay attention and start repeating what you say.

2) Who gives a crap? If presenting at conferences or linking to your own blog content from your tweets builds a bigger following for you faster (and building a bigger following is important to you) do THOSE things. Focus on the things that get results and don’t put energy into things that don’t.

Implicit in the argument is that having more Twitter followers has value. I agree. And if you need to tweak your tactics to get those followers, why not do that?