It's odd that people would be expected to click through to follow just based on # of followers.
Why is this so odd? This is a fundamental aspect of human behavior. The # of twitter followers is in indication (not perfectly I might add) of the viability of credibility. This is no different than case stories, customer references, etc. which are all the cornerstones of successfully marketing entities.
Without knowing how many people saw and didn't follow, or followed and then stopped following - without the information that pushes the hypothesis back in the other direction - numbers alone are... well, they're not entirely meaningless - you can take some guesses - but they're not particularly useful.
Like -
If a superstar can get 30k people to follow them, it means less than some random artist getting all the 30k people who know about them to follow them. Because in the latter case you can guess that the weight pushing the hypothesis in the other direction's going to be quite small.
In semantic terms what you're really relying on in the former case to reduce the seize of the contrary hypothesis is the assumption that society is more or less uniform with respect to its interests along the relevant axis - which I find highly questionable.
Then think of where these stickers are going to turn up -you'd expect people to have better first hand evidence available.
So, I find it a bit odd. I'd have assumed it'd get discounted into irrelevance and people would just make up their own minds based on their knowledge of the person.
Why is this so odd? This is a fundamental aspect of human behavior. The # of twitter followers is in indication (not perfectly I might add) of the viability of credibility. This is no different than case stories, customer references, etc. which are all the cornerstones of successfully marketing entities.