This is a really interesting topic. In responding to Robin"s question about whether it's wrong, the answer is it depends.
The issue is really "what do you want to stand for to your followers? For example, I want to "stand for" pointing my followers to quality, provocative, and thoughtful content or points of view. This means, I have to read every piece of content I tweet or RT.
I would never think of tweeting something I haven't read or that doesn't fit my assessment as quality content. Likewise, I would never use any of the automated tools like Triberr, etc. because I would be betraying the implicit commitment I've made to my followers.
Does it pay off? It seems to for me--at least I get feedback from followers who "get" and appreciate what I'm doing. Does it take time, Yes--but if I want to provide quality impactful content to my followers, aren't I obligated to take the time.
Where motives seem very transparent, those who position themselves as "quality content curators," who autotweet a chicken soup recipe, or some other nonsense. They've betrayed the "relationship," and betrayed motives around escalating the volume of noise, etc.
But using those tools, not reading the content, etc. will work for people who have a completely different engagement strategy. And that will attract followers who appreciate that.