Mark claims his position is that of offering a reality check. Anecdotally, he's right. The demographics of the profession are such that 40+ year olds generally are not going to be overly interested in shiny new tech toys. That is true across many technologies so nothing new there. But is Mark's apparent acceptance of the status quo right?

The profession is under intense scrutiny at many levels. As I have said elsewhere and for different reasons, it is at risk of being rendered obsolete. An artefact of a bygone age. Yet that isn't how it needs be. Sure, there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about a micro-messaging tool popular among the Silicon Valley bubble types. But if that was all there was to it then I'd probably agree with Mark's assertion. After all, there are numerous technologies I've picked up and dropped in a 30+ year career.

Marks' argument falls down at multiple levels. First, while he provides reasons why Twitter will not fly in the profession, he doesn't offer any explanation for his view. I'll counter with specifics:

But, will being on Twitter help them avoid client losses? No.

What if a client is Twittering that they need a new accountant? I've seen it in the past. What about using tools to automate Twittering of blog post headlines? I do it all the time. It's about the attention economy. That's what delivers value. And value delivery prevents losses.

Will it help them to provide pro-active advice to clients? Unlikely

Duh? People who are Tweeting are constantly giving advice on all manner of topics. My current favourite example is Francine McKenna. She recently Tweeted an upcoming webinar for Compliance Week that will cover audit issues related to the financial crisis. As a professional, I'm definitely having some of that, especially as the delivery tool provides a one click add to my calendar. I would not have known about that without Twitter as Compliance Week is not on my immediate radar.

Will it help them with their HR issues (to get rid of under performers and to improve the quality of new recruits)?  Unlikely.

Another duh? Jason Calacanis Tweeted that he's looking for a conference producer, pointing to his requirements post at his weblog. He'll get a TON of responses and I'm betting he'll find a rock star candidate with little difficulty.

Will it help them to secure more profitable clients of the type they seek?  No faster than any other marketing activity and it’s even less area specific than blogging.

We're back to reputation and authority. Demonstrate that you know how to converse, point up third party resources, show a willingness to engage and suddenly you become human, identifiable. Growing a reputation is key to attracting the clients you want for your practice. Or to put it in terms others might recognize, Dell has reportedly made an additional $1 million directly from Twitter. If they can, so can you. I have.

Will it help them to make more money or to increase their profits? No.

See above. I have.

Will it help them solve their succession issues? No

Probably not but then see what I said about talent spotting. Also, if the firm is large enough, it can consider internal versions of Twitter like Yammer and ESME as ways of surfacing internal conversations that might help in that regard.

Second, in comments, Mark talks about the US centricity and generational difference between those who are using the medium and the UK experience. That's fine as a statement of fact but it isn't an adequate reason to dismiss the medium. If anything, it reinforces the 'Aw shucks' shrug I often encounter.

The bottom line is that Twitter will not do any of the things that accountants in practice are most concerned about at the moment. And to the extent that it might do so, the time and effort required to secure such benefits are disproportionate to the hoped for benefits. As such I cannot advocate the idea that they should explore Twitter as a business tool.

If you want instant gratification then you're going to be in for a nasty shock. There is no such thing in business unless you're one of the 0.01% who are incredibly lucky. If on the other hand you are prepared to put the required effort into understanding new media and its potential, add in a soupcon of imagination coupled to a willingness to learn then the potential is enormous.

That is not an inconsiderable undertaking and Mark is correct to suggest that such effort may seem disproportionate to the value created. All investments are the like that. When you build a new factory, you don't expect to see value when the foundations are laid but only when the machines that are housed there are sending goods out the back door. The same holds true for investments in the dissemination of information.

Third, I see Mark's thinking as limited to the short term. I'd argue that the current economic climate suggests an imperative to change in order to accommodate a different long term future. This deserves a full post in its own right but suffice to say that we are facing a future where the velocity of change is accelerating such that the 'old' rules of adoption are being swept aside.  

Fourth: I don't see how Mark's argument fits notions of value. We've not begun to scratch the surface of value creation with these tools. We're just at the beginning of an emerging story that has years to run. I've attempted to demonstrate a few but we' need many more. The question is whether professionals want to be in early instead of lagging behind.

Michael Izza wants the ICAEW to be recognized as a thought leader. It cannot possibly assume that position if it merely bumbles along with the status quo as its beacon.

Fifth: there is an internal inconsistency in Mark's argument. He says:

I use it to promote my business activities, blog posts and seminars. I use it to keep in touch with people, to learn from others and to find interesting people with whom to connect.

Twitter has a number of potential business benefits to me. But none that I think would justify me spending time on Twitter if I were still in practice.

Yet at least some of his arguments for NOT using Twitter professionally are exactly aligned to top of mind marketing questions that professionals wrestle on a daily basis. Is Mark seriously suggesting that the two can somehow be seen as discretely separate? Is there some branch of accounting marketing that is mysteriously separate from general marketing principles? These media, like all media should be seen as part of an integrated marketing strategy (if that's how you choose to view Twitter.) They complement as is being demonstrated daily by the likes of SouthWest Airlines, Dell, Cap Gemini, Accenture and others.

But rather than continue to rail at Mark who is representing what he sees in the 80-90% of the accounting bell curve, I'd like to recall the story I wrote 16th December where I talked about crowdsourcing a solution for an upcoming project. I needed to find a tool and my network responded both quickly and with direct relevance. Immediate ROI. I didn't talk about the post-result outcome.

My client was gobsmacked because it provides direct and obvious proof of time saving, ie more value delivery. And while Gary Turner playfully suggested that 'One Tweet doth not an industry make,' imagine that idea articulated inside a firm of say 100 people where the question goes out: "I have a client who is struggling with (name your problem here.) I'm unsure how to help. Any pointers?" Better still, check out Rob Watson's insightful comments about how Twitter as it is generally articulated is really just a rework of a highly successful idea DEC was using many years ago.

This generation's job - and in that I include all those active as part of this generation - must surely be to learn from the past. In the current economic climate, I'd argue now is the time when professionals can view new technology as a way of not only adding value but redefining their business models to be more closely aligned to client needs.

In the end however a tool is just a tool. Unless you can make business sense of its use and potential then it won't work. Ever.