Investigation into persuasive language in IGN tweets

-The IGN tweets used 5 AFOREST techniques across 18 tweets (1 every 3.6 tweets)
-The IGN tweets used 4 personal pronouns across 18 tweets (1 every 4.5 tweets)
-The IGN tweets used 15 hashtags across 18 tweets (1 every 1.2 tweets)

Personal prounouns
There are 4 personal pronouns in total but they aren't all inclusive towards the audience, only 25% are when they used the inclusive "your". The other 75% they chose to use "we" but in an exclusive manner and uses the "we" in reference to themselves as an organisation.

Hastags
The amount of hashtags used is between 0-3. There was one tweet which was an anomaly since it had 3 hastags where the other tweet only had about one or two.

Organisations use influential power via twitter to generate trust for their site
Support the hypothesis
-It's all click bait - gives you enough information to get a rough idea but not enough information to give you the whole picture
-Does use persuasive techniques to draw attention to their site, such as AFOREST and hashtags
Doesn't support hypothesis
-All the tweets are very similar to one another - they all follow the same structure
-There are anomalies in the tweets and the personal pronouns vary from inclusive and exclusive

Evaluation
Conclusion
It does agree with my hypothesis to an extent but there are some features that disprove it. One example of this is the use of exclusive pronouns which were used 3/4 times when personal pronouns were used. In order to gain a wider range of results we could've used another organisation and steer away from IGNs formula. There wasn't much of a problem with the sample method as there wasn't much variety when we selected every 5th tweet. Counting was the easiest way to quantify the data as a thread as you can make decision and discuss anything in the count which is odd and why.