DISQUS

Another interesting post, Danny.
My suggestion would be that perhaps the answer to these issues isn't social media related per se. I entirely agree that platforms such as Twitter do have an obligation to remove damaging content, but perhaps these virtual outbursts are illustrative of real-world problems. Perhaps the solution involves the joint development of some type of service specifically designed to target those creating this disparaging content with the intention of identifying the reasons behind these actions. This would only work however in collaboration with ongoing efforts from the social platforms themselves I feel.

Chris
TLR

A few things sprang to mind when I was reading this post. Firstly, I entirely agree with your comments concerning the power of the small group. As you suggest, there is a very different feel between the engagements of small group and those of larger groups. There are still places for the latter engagement types in my opinion, though whether we can classify these as 'conversation' is something else. Does Ashton Kutcher 'converse' with the 1,000,000+ people following him? I don't think so. There are a lot of people that would get something from his tweets, but in my opinion, this is actually more reminiscent of the one way communications of the old media.

To be honest, i'm quite surprised that marketing guys haven't pushed harder for platforms that encourage engagements between smaller, more focused groups. Highly specific groups would allow for more appropriate targeting of ads. Admittedly, there will be significantly more of these groups as a result of smaller group engagements, but it is more likely that member purchase intentions will be predictable as a result.

TLR

Danny, it has just occurred to me that having being speaking to you for about six months now, that's the first time I have actually heard you speak! Crazy. A good little video though which covers most of the main points of Twitter. Could be a good one to point out for anyone that is new to the Twitter arena?

TLR

Hey Josh,
There's an interesting article in this week's Marketing Week (UK version at least) emphasising the importance of building your own personal brand. As you suggest, in creating and developing your own personal online space through a blog or social presence, you are simultaneously carving out a name for yourself on the Internet. Certain individuals have already done so incredibly successfully; consider for example Seth Godin. I imagine that we will be increasingly identified by the reach and authority of our networks, with this information being used to specifically target content at us.

Returning to the original topic of the post, this all seems to stem from the disintermediating capacities of the Internet itself. Middle men are no longer required. Despite ever more voluminuous amounts of information appearing online, the tools freely available to users have minimised the time required to locate desired content. Time constraints comprised the traditional logic for the ongoing presence of the intermediary. Now that time requirements have been minismised, it seems only logical that the intermediary will begin to be removed from the equation entirely. I think that all types of intermediaries will need to keep their eyes open over the coming years, ensuring that they continue to add value to the user.

TLR

I've been using BackType for ages now, originally following a recommendation from you I believe, Danny. Although I have experienced some of the small limitations discussed above by Marty in the past; a couple of missed posts, these have been very few in number, and have hardly detracted from the user experience. One of the strongest pros of the service stems from BackTypes focus upon the community; they always seem determined to enhance their service to meet the needs of the community. I think Christopher's presence in these posts emphasises their 'ear to the blogosphere' approach. A good little service.

TLR

Chris, I agree to an extent that Twitter is more than likely a fad, but then again, so are many of the tools of the social media. I honestly can't see Facebook being around in a few years time, but then that's the neature of this media type; things evolve, people move on and the cycle repeats itself. What the developers can do is ensure that they are at least able to keep on top of developments by having access to the capital required to continue growing; not necessarily in one direction, but growing none the less. Arguably this is a pattern that Google itself has followed in recent years to remain one of the world's most successful organisations.

Would Twitter be detrimentally affected by Google's ownership? I'm not sure. I agree with Tim; Gmail is a very useful email tool, whereas FeedBurner has lost credibility in recent times. Is this a result of Google's ownership, or simply one service being replaced by others that outperform it? If Google were to assume ownership of Twitter, the only concerns that I would have would gravitate around developments to the service. The beauty of the platform lies within its own simplicity. I fear that the capital available to Google may encourage them to 'enhance' the service, causing the simplicity thereof to become diluted.

TLR

Hey Danny,
It's definitely an interesting issue, and one that is becoming increasingly relevant as interest in the social media expands. As I see it, there are two sides to this argument; these being that of the community and that of the professional.

In one respect, the majority of what we know about the social media is a product of collective knowledge development therein. Questions are frequently collaboratively approached and addressed, and whilst the individual posing the question benefits from having their issues answered, the information recorded is a valuable resource for whatever comes afterwards.

On the other hand though, many of those engaged in the social media are either marketing or PR professionals for whom these platforms represent a livelihood. Any information given away freely within the social sphere has the potential to jeopardize the professional's business; though arguably such actions may help to build perceived integrity at the same time.

It's an interesting discussion and one that is likely to draw many differing perspectives.

TLR

Hey Jacob,
It has been a while since I last commented here, so I thought I would offer my thoughts on the subject! As an aside, I am still dubious of whether the social media warrants its own business unit. Whilst I agree entirely that there should be employees whose roles specifically revolve around the ongoing implementation and monitoring of the social media, I still think that these individuals should fall within the Marketing and PR department. To disassociate the messages conveyed through the social media from those messages conveyed through the more traditional media would more than likely result in messages becoming mixed. This could result in brand messages becoming confused.

With regards to your comments concerning measurement though, I couldn't agree more. It is inexcusable that firms are failing to monitor this data. Admittedly, the data is not as obvious as is the case with PPC campaigns, however it is there. I am reading a fantastic book called the Numerati at the moment. In it, Stephen Baker emphasises that each of our actions can be given a numerical value from which our actions can be both predicted and influenced. As I see it, these principles apply to both brand perceptions and word of mouth. Whilst some organisations are using this data to influence such things as our work efficiency, others should be examining the data to establish perceptions of the brand. Organisations should devise innovative, albeit transparent solutions for obtaining this data, using it to generate an insight into their customer's mindset. As I see it, this is one of the major challenges for which brands need to develop a solution.

TLR

In my opinion, the acceptability of linkbaiting depends on where your priorities lie. If linkbaiting is employed as a means of encouraging links with little concern for the quality of the content, then criticism will invariably be drawn sooner or later. On the other hand, if you are using linkbaiting in an attempt to draw attention to high quality content, then arguably it is perfectly acceptable. The acceptability of linkbaiting revolves around whether your priority is in the provision of value to your community, or simply in the careless aggregration of numbers.

As you suggest, Chris, linkbaiting is essentially the creation of content that incites a reaction from the community. As long as this is done subtly and the content remains strong, then linkbaiting as an activity doesn't seem overly questionable. I would suggest that as long as community and content remain the focus, encouraging visibility through link baiting seems like a viable option for drawing attention to content specifically designed to be developed by the community.

TLR

Hey Danny,
Again, I fear that this all boils down to the dreaded Social Media Checklist... Organisations are hearing these terms thrown around and are then adopting the instruments regardless of whether their customers are using them. Scary stuff.

Whilst it is fantastic that organisations are keen to get out there and talk with their customers, a targetted approach remains the best course of action. Creating a presence on each and every platform available is likely to leave the company too thinly spread. In such a case, the message is likely to become either diluted, or repetitive. Either outcome will reflect negatively on the organisation.

Focus your efforts and target your message where it is likely to be best heard.

TLR

For the sake of debate, I would suggest that at present there do exist occasions when the lack of a social media strategy is borderline acceptable. The goal of organisational participation in the social media is to create an ongoing dialogue with the customer. If the customer genuinely isn't involved with the social media though, it makes more sense to invest these efforts elsewhere for now.

We are living in age when the Internet (and social media for that matter) is still in it's relative infancy. Whilst current adoption rates are huge, at present they are not total. Whilst it would be naive to suggest that their exist demographic segments entirely averse to the Internet, it is undeniable that certain groups are significantly less likely to engage therein. Within those target audiences where Internet usage is already incredibly low, the number of users engaging in social media platforms is likely to be lower still. If your organisation specifically targets one such segment, then the effort involved in implementing a social media strategy could almost certainly be better spent elsewhere; for example, in targeting the channels that these customers do actively engage in.

Admittedly, this will change as Internet adoption becomes even more widespread. For now though, I do honestly believe there exist rare occasions when the creation of a social media strategy is inappropriate. Listen to your customers. If they are using the social media then a social media strategy is an absolute imperative. If on the other hand customers aren't using the social media, focus your efforts on those platforms which the customers are using; but bare in mind that a social media strategy will almost certain become an imperative sooner or later.

TLR

Interesting stuff, Danny.

It is amusing how companies still fall into these traps despite the obvious flaws thereof. It would be interesting to hear their responses were they to be asked whether their propensity to engage such emails was as high on a Monday or Friday, as on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.

Unfortunately, this would appear to be yet another example of traditional marketers attempting to drag their ‘old marketing’ mentality into the 21st Century. It is no longer appropriate to ‘dictate’ a message, principally because we now have the capacity to reject anything that doesn’t instantly capture our attention. Old marketing simply doesn’t cut it anymore.

TLR

Interesting insight, Eric.

The benefit of measureability recognizable through such efforts is likely to prove a significant influence on those keen to explore their options for online brand building. One of the more obvious benefits thereof stems from the viral capacity of social networks; branded tools and widgets can quickly spread through entire friendlists, effectively bringing the brand message to the attention of millions. Arguably this is not the case with real world celebrity endorsements.

TLR

Interesting perspective, Josh. I particularly liked your comment that quality is slowly becoming a commodity. Hopefully this view will become the norm, and we will soon reach a stage in which absolute quality is the norm; not the exception. Admittedly, this does make differentiating one's product more difficult, but hopefully that causes the products and services that are truly exceptional to rise to the top.

I also like the comments you make concerning the winning of attention. As the creation of content as a means of differentiating one's products goes mainstream in the light of increased returns, the value of an ability to direct attention will skyrocket. Those able to demonstrate such an ability are likely to remain in a position of strength. In a recent article in TechCrunch, Mike Arrington questioned Robert Scoble's 'overuse' of such platforms as FriendFeed. Stating that the content created on someone else's platform offered limited value to its creator, Arrington suggested that Scoble should abandon FF for the purpose of greater focus upon his blog. Perhaps the directing of attention through links etc represents a means of monetizing such platforms?

Essentially, we are left with two options for success; either use the instruments and resources available to our advantage by adding value to our product and service offerings, or use our connections to direct attention. Whilst the second is likely to prove significantly more difficult to establish in the long run, it is simultaneously likely to remain more sustainable. The rising numbers of blogs and social media content solutions slowly being incorporated by a more mainstream group of users will invariably ensure that the need for on-demand visibility remains high.

TLR

And let's not forget that energising the employees to willingly engage in social media initiatives can produce an extra channel for engagement with the customer. Such a channel can be implemented for almost zero cost, whilst encouraging the employee to feel passionate about their organisation.

TLR

Jason, that's an interesting analogy. Let's hope that social media adoption rates do follow the pattern which you describe above. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, firms seem particularly reluctant to recognise the potential thereof. Even though many of these platforms have been specifically designed to develop the conversation, fear of the 'new' continues to represent a major deterent to organisational implementation.

Whilst your post specifically addresses internal communications, it is also directly applicable to communications which the organisation has with external stakeholders. Essentially, I think that the problem falls upon organisational mentality. At the moment, I don't think that genuine customer satisfaction is at the foremost of organisational thinking; or at least not to the extent that it should be. If it were, then greater attention would be placed upon addressing the customer's needs in whichever forum which these customers deem necessary.

At present, even those firms which do employ some social media strategies tend to follow a platform checklist (blog, Twitter, etc). Indeed, they seem to lack the foresight to adopt emerging platforms before they become mainstream.

TLR

Hey Danny,

I actually first became aware of Mr. Monty several months back following a discussion on one the podcasts which I download. I got the impression at the time that he was very much on the ball. I find it encouraging that an organisation so often defined by the founder’s ‘you can have any colour you want, so long as it’s black’ mantra is reaching out to engage customers. If only they had adopted these principles several years back, instead of pushing their products onto the customer. Imagine how different the situation might be now.

Additionally, I think it’s great that Scott has addressed the comments made herein. It really hammers home the point that these social media enthusiasts are listening and are determined to make their presence known. Whilst we are all likely to have our own opinions of such organisation’s, the actions of those such as Monty can only improve our perceptions thereof.

TLR

@Ricardo,
It's also important to demonstrate though that the action which you say that you intend to take has been. Implementation and subsequent demonstration highlights that you value them as a customer, and that you are sincere in your word. I fear many organisations are quick to apologize and 'discuss' a solution, but slow in the implementation thereof. Failure to adequately satisfy the customer following the discussion of their concerns will produce a more detrimental outcome than would have been the case if no attempt to address the issue had been made.

TLR

Chris,
Personally, I feel that the apology is secondary to the action which you take as a direct response to the issue at fault. Whilst aggrieved customers need to have an apology following a service failure, it is the action which you then take that is of critical importance.

Let's not get too caught up in the words here, Chris. It is implementing appropriate action to guarantee as far as is possible that the problem will not reoccur in the future which will truly influence repeat customer purchase decisions. We are all human and we are all fallible. It is learning from these mistakes that allows us to grow and to develop.

TLR

Mr. Brogan,
I still have a question; where do you find the time to do all this?! Seriously though...

I think many people choose to visit your page precisely because of the interactions which you offer. I've noticed over the past few months that the conversations which develop on your page, often facilitated by the initial posts, are fantastically insightful for developing the subject. The solutions which both you and your community collaboratively develop are first class. This is often directly attributable to your 'conducive' attitude.

Keep it up, buddy.

TLR

Essentially, I agree with all the comments above highlighting the importance of retaining a clear strategy. It is important to ensure that you have some degree of direction when engaging in social media related activities; whether this be to encourage discussion or to simply encouraging conversation with your customers. I feel that it is very important that the opinions of the community are closely considered when devising such a strategy. It is completely inappropriate for an organisation to develop an engagement plan which will be rejected by the community and result in damage to the brand equity.

With regards to the marketing or PR question, my answer would be both; to a point. The social media is a conversation, and as such I think it is inappropriate to restrict its scope to a single team or function. Different situations will invariably require a different response. As the purpose thereof is essentially to encourage conversation, it is important that a number of different perspectives are sought. Although my opinion on this matter has developed somewhat over the recent months, the importance of perspectives is undeniable. The difficulty is finding someone who is able to appropriately orchestrate these various functions successfully, producing a solid social media engagement as a result.

TLR

One of the interesting developments of late is the introduction of user generated 'stories' as ads. Although this idea is nothing new, I think that many organisations have historically been somewhat reluctant to place the storytelling responsibility directly into the customer's hands. The most recent example that springs to mind is the case of Microsoft's 'I'm a pc' ads. By encouraging the submission of UGC along a general theme the customer was given the opportunity to tell their own stories. The result, whilst simple, is an incredibly powerful message. Although the Microsoft ad doesn't really explore these opportunities to its fullest potential, it is a positive first step into letting the customer create the brand as they see fit

TLR

Admittedly, blogs as a 'movement' do seem to have become somewhat swept up in the social expectations that have come to be aligned alongside them. The problem as I see it though is whether there are more bloggers that are community driven than are finance driven. As you emphasize, there is very little money in blogging itself, however the attention required to create and maintain a community is significant.

I fear that whilst many bloggers engage therein because of a real passion for blogging, the time requirements for the creation of a decent community can prove decisive in some of their decisions to accept sponsorship. As the number of bloggers who, despite being passionate require an income to appropriately support themselves whilst maintaining their blog increase, I imagine that sponsorship standards adopted will slip.

TLR

Chris,
I think that most of the animosity towards marketing products thus stems from the nature of blogs themselves. Blogs are inherently social conversations, so as soon as marketing is implemented therein, arguably a degree of the transparancy disappears. Whilst bloggers such as yourself may openly identify any sponsorship or outreach contracts, others may be less inclined to disclose such sources. This is likely to detract somewhat from the openness of the social media, don't you think?

Whilst I fully understand the marketing potential for engagement with blogs, the success thereof depends entirely on how open the blog's author is with their community. With the anonymity afforded by the Internet however, I am sceptical as to whether full disclosure will always be the case. Whilst I would hope that many a blogger would place the value of their community and their integrity over the price of a sponsorship deal, I wonder how many would adapt their principles were the right price to come along?

TLR

Danny,

You know that I am a big fan of diversity of opinion, but the comments made by Mr. Paul Seaman seem somewhat backward. Whilst he is certainly entitled to his opinions, I feel that he would find it a considerable task to defend many of his statements to the professionals that engage their efforts into defining and discussing the social media on a daily basis.

Whilst there is significant distaste towards the term 'social media', there is little denying the distinction between such platforms and the more traditional media. Whilst traditional media is charactised by the undeniably one directional capacity of its messages, the social media encourages discussion through the provision of an electronic voice. By allowing users the capacity to respond, the media has moved from static information to dynamic conversation.

Arguably, the clue is in the name...

TLR

The Lovable Rogue's Recent post...Keeping the Conversation Alive