Kami Huyse co-created this post’s thesis.

Is the Ashton Kutcher/Orpha Winfrey rush to dominate Twitter really a good or bad thing as so many are want to discuss? Is it the ultimate demonstration of the end of Twitter or America’s bad taste? Or is it none of the above? Or any of these topics relevant for an opt-in service, where individuals can chose who graces/pollutes their Twitter stream. The real lesson for communicators is not any of these grand media topics: Instead, it’s about fame.

Suddenly those who are clamoring to reach the pinnacle of bizarre and vain personal value — 1K, 5k, 10k or 25k followers — have been force fed an epiphany: Real fame is not created from a manicured and cultivated personal brand on Twitter. Real fame creates hundreds of thousands, even millions of “followers” in a matter of weeks. The stars have arrived and the nano-famous suddenly find themselves in the midst of an identity crisis. Isn’t it ironic that this drama occurred the week after Me 2.0 launched?

Those that decry the loss of Twitter’s innocence have a very clear option. Stop crying about the presence of real stars in social media, and start looking at what you are doing online.

On the content side, it’s a two-way medium. There are no victims from the Ashton Kutcher Twitterathon. Everyone has an option with such events. Unsubscribe. Or join the Kutcher party. Your community is as valuable or vapid as the people you follow and participate with in conversations.

More importantly from a communicators standpoint, this can be a great moment. We can finally look at this media and say, “What’s more important?” That we become as famous, even more famous than our clients and organizations who we represent? Somehow I don’t think Kutcher’s publicist has what it takes.

Or should we stop this nonsense and return to basic counselor values? It used to be that promoting clients came first, that the famous in our business we’re often the owners of businesses, true thought leaders and winners of award-worthy campaigns. Moving back to basics… Isn’t it more important that we understand the medium, how to communicate through it, and guide our organizations through the transition to two-way media and the phenomenal dynamic nature of this toolset? And if we are successful, naturally become recognized by our peers rather than seizing fame?

A Word to the Nano-Famous

A final word for the crushed nano-famous: Self esteem is created by doing esteemable things. Thus winning becomes a very subjective, personal valuation. Famous people are often winners caught in the act of doing great things (Denis Waitley, Psychology of Winning). That is to say they achieve notoriety by doing noteworthy things. Companies and people that are featured in the media have often done something unusual, hopefully for the betterment of our society.

Some keep their fame, some lose it. Some maintain it by continuing to do great things, others do it by manufacturing stunts that are deemed attention worthy by mass and now social media. Some just move on and go back to achieving their next goal.

Many times our society deems what is worthy of notoriety by pop standards. But tell me a mother (or father) who successfully raises her children, goes to graduate school and maintains a full-time job is not successful, or a winner. So what’s more important: Nano-fame with thousands of followers or achieving noteworthy, meaningful things in life, quietly, yet confidently.

P.S. If you hate me for this post, join my Facebook antifan page and write something nasty on the wall.