The cynic in me says they're trying every last ditch effort to market in every possible niche they can find.

I don't get Twitter at all. Most of it is just plain wittering without any wit. AND I don't have any time to add yet another technology strand to the blogging and blog reading I already do!

I'll stick with just blogs for now - much more satisfying.

Stuart, I'm with VP - I just find twitter uninteresting. I only joined to keep up-to-date when Blotanical was having a bad day(s). Yet people keep following me - why, I have never left a "twitter"! Now you say that it is being used as a marketing tool! It is only useful to me when it contains quality information.

Best wishes Sylvia (England)

I received a 'follow' from Miracle-gro the other day. I don't really think corporations should Twitter. No where does it say who is tweeting.

My suggestion to business. If your going to twitter, or blog give it a personal feel by having a person we can identify with put it together, and maintain it.

I find it a bit creepy being "followed" by big business.

Yow, the things big business will do to stay current! Now I'm going to have nightmares about Monsanto on Twitter...

I unfollow promotors all the time, whether it's an individual selling something, a well known commercial company, or even a blogger using twitter to promote their blog. If someone combines their blog entries along with regular tweets, I probably won't unfollow them though.

It's interesting isn't it. I get tired of bloggers who only use it to show of their new posts. They don't converse with other Twitterers but think that we're all just waiting for their next article to read. Very annoying.

Hi Stuart,
I'm a little surprised that you would raise this question since I have always considered you a "free thinker" capable of seeing the multi facets of a situation.

I have to come to Joe Lamp'l and Marie Iannotti's defense. I know Joe personally as a peer "garden communicator" and I interact with Marie regularly through blogging.

They are both committed to excellence in reporting and sharing information about our gardening world. I think it is a great idea for them to follow Miracle Gro and even, Monsanto, if they choose to!

Joe and Marie are professional garden industry professionals and passionate environmentalists- as I am, and we need to know our industry inside-out!

Being knowledgeable about "controversial" businesses should not be considered a negative thing. I expect them to know what these companies sell and teach if they are to present a more "natural alternative and approach" to gardening to the masses.

This is a free country, thank God and "following" someone or a brand on Twitter should not be a litmus test for integrity, nor does it represent "support."

We need to be careful to not whip out the "scarlet letter" and question people's commitment to responsible environmental stewardship just because of who they follow on Twitter. Hey, Jesus hung out with the flotsam of his society but it was no bad reflection on him.

We should clarify that a Twitter "follow" can be established for a variety of reasons. Yes, support can be one of them, but my curious nature compels me to want to follow people and brands that I don't necessarily agree with, but want to stay current with what they are doing.

The gardening world is going through a big change, as is our society in general.

Big companies are 'people too" (think of all our fellow Americans who are employed by them).

I believe these companies will be compelled to transition to organic products if the demand is strong enough from consumers. The market will dictate and the power for change is in our hands until we give it away at the cash register.

Let's give these big companies the opportunity to "redeem" themselves if they are so inclined. If they don't produce products we want, they will not survive anyway.

Joe and Marie are entitled to follow whoever they want and still be fabulous gardeners.

Shirley Bovshow

Shirley,

I appreciate your comments and agree with most of your arguments.

However, your comment "I believe these companies will be compelled to transition to organic products if the demand is strong enough from consumers." would be similar to expecting that banks will reduce fees and work for their customers just because we would prefer it that way.

These organisations are in the business of making money and they will always follow the path of least resistance to achieve that. If they don't have to change, they won't and I can guarantee that it will be their shareholders who dictate their future pathway rather than a few people who want a greener world.

One only has to look at the chemical aisle in their local nursery to see that these companies have only pandered to consumers on a very superficial level.

My concern is that newbie gardeners will consider companies such as Scott's as an organic provider based on others that support them. Hence the post.

I'm not questioning Joe's or Marie's integrity but I am pinpointing their status and power to influence. It would be like asking David Suzuki to support Japanese Whaling!

If Joe and Marie are using their Twitter follow of Miracle-Gro to glean information about this company then I think they will be sorely disappointed. Instead, they should be foraging through company reports, press statements and the plethora of other data that exists in the public domain. Their Twitter follow will only lead to supporting and giving street credibility to this company.

My final point is these companies are not "people". They may employ them but they are an entity designed through a corporate boardroom. I think Trey said it best when he stated, "No where does it say who is tweeting.

My suggestion to business. If your going to twitter, or blog give it a personal feel by having a person we can identify with put it together, and maintain it." Who is this Miracle-Gro Twitter that we're signing up to follow?

I don't think following someone on Twitter means that they condone everything the person/company does. Wanting to see what Miracle Grow says on Twitter doesn't mean that a gardener has suddenly decided that chemical fertilizers are wonderful.

What's that saying - Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

There are people I follow on Twitter that I don't personally agree with everything they say (I have to ignore a lot of the political stuff that seems to creep up), but I still follow.

As writers, especially for a broad topic such as gardening, there is so much to keep track of. We may not have time many days to go search Miracle Gro or Monsanto to see if they happen to have any new products or news that we may want to alert/warn/etc our readers about...but if you see a tweet go by, it could alert you that there's something you DO need to go check out.

If you want some laughs (and teeth gnashing), go check out Monsanto's blog. My goodness it's crazy there.

Stuart, thanks for raising an interesting topic. I think by now it's been established that just because someone follows another person(or brand) on Twitter, that should not be considered any endorsement of them or it, as in the case of my following Miracle-Gro.

In this case, I'm more curious as to what they are tweeting about. Shirley Bovshow's comment earlier said it beautifully as to my position with all of this. As a full-time gardening communicator,with a national reach, I do recognize my opportunity to inform and influence many gardeners of all levels. But in order to be in-the-know, I am soaking up as much information from as many sources as I physically have time. That includes internal company reports, one-on-one conversations with top executives, including Scotts Miracle-Gro, and anything else for that matter including Twitter.

As a fan of Twitter, I find it to be a valuable tool, yet I know when to take a tweet with a grain of salt too. Yet to not follow a company such as SMG, I miss an opportunity to know what they are tweeting about as well, be that good, bad or indifferent. Ironically, I didn't know they were out there until I saw they were following me. Yet I consider it important to at least be aware of what they are tweeting about as it may spur some healthy conversation, just as your blog post has done here.

So I hope that no one assumes that a follow by me or anyone else equates to an automatic endorsement of who or what they stand for, yet I can see how one might (incorrectly) interpret it that way. I subscribe to SMG's eNewsletter, host their annual webinar for the Garden Writers Association in SMG's corporate office and interview their executives as a way of learning as much as I can about who they are and what they do. Accordingly, I've established some strong relationships, made a few friends and most importantly, I've learned a lot about their efforts to take bigger steps towards sustainability. Along the way, I've built a stronger bridge to share my beliefs and values in a constructive and receptive way. I'd like to think of myself as an ambassador to them for "environmental stewardship".

Are they making significant changes because that's the direction the market is going, or rather because they want to sell against their core products? Of course it's the former, but thank goodness they have the R&D money and brain trust to accelerate the development and distribution of new eco-friendlier products faster than any other company in this industry.

Although we can't change the past, I am happy that they are able to put more sustainable products in every store in America and beyond in the blink of an eye, and then spend millions marketing it to consumers. But in the spirit of capitalism, Miracle-Gro and synthetic Turf Builder aren't going away anytime soon here in the U.S. Yet, in Canada, they've launched a corn-gluten based natural Turf Builder. Hopefully more of the same as well as other new products will eventually overtake their existing core products here and abroad.

But that's not their job to decide. Their synthetic-based products work well. So I'm sure they're probably hanging on to this old saying as long as possible; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But as we've already seen in Canada, pressure from national and local government, as well as its citizens have started to turn the tide there as to the products SMG can stock the shelves with. The result are more sustainable products for lawn and garden across the board.

And you're right, that didn't happen because SMG decided they wanted to replace their core products. It happened because a few voices became many and laws were changed for the sake of environmental sustainability and the health of biodiversity, ecosystems, and our families and pets.

So I see it as my job, and yours, and anyone else who cares enough about making a difference for the good of the planet, while recognizing the reality of what and who we are dealing with. It is a long process and there is much work to do. But the momentum is building and we all stand to benefit. Even long-time organic and natural product provider Espoma, although a much smaller company, has invested millions recently to reformulate their products to make them even more environmentally friendly. We have the research to back that up and tangible results by companies like SMG and Espoma that are making changes.

Like it or not, SMG is by far, the largest company in the world that promotes all the good of gardening and inspires millions of people around the world to participate in planting and growing beautiful spaces. The products used to make that happen are where we all have a greater responsibility to educate and inform and especially as a product provider, that responsibility is not only incumbent upon them, it's simply the right thing to do. Am I a fan of the products they've made and sold to get here. I am not. Although we can't change the past, we can influence the future as we are starting to do. Even the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Knowledge is power. What we choose to do with it can be good or bad...even if it comes from a tweet!

Thanks again for raising an interesting observation and for the opportunity to provide comment.
Joe Lamp'l

Hi Stuart. Thanks for starting this discussion. Ironically, I got on Twitter to hear what other gardeners were talking about. I’ve always been a bit of a lurker. I confess, it didn’t cross my mind that someone would read into who I chose to follow. You raise a good point.

But I have to concur with Joe’s and Shirley’s sentiments. I too have dealt with the folks at SMG, although not as closely as Joe. My feeling is that the more gardeners interact with the decision makers at these large companies, the more likely they will realize there is a huge market for safe, sustainable products. Yes, they are in business to make money, but there’s no crime in that. If we can help guide them toward better products, it’s a win-win. What better way to win over organic skeptics than to offer them an option with a brand they trust? Perhaps I am being naive, but hey, small steps.

Marie Iannotti