Archive for Facebook
FYI to anyone who doesn’t know why I didn’t have them in the Wine Life Links – I was using a service to manage the links which disappeared (I’m a silly early adopter). So the updates I’ve made over the last 6 months or so got lost. If you don’t see your site there just send contact me on via Twitter (see “Where Else Am I” in the sidebar) or via the OpenWine Consortium messaging.
November 19, 2008 at 7:02 am · Filed under Uncategorized and tagged: Blog, Critical mass, Facebook, Industry Analysis, latter point, Marketing, modes, Online Communities, OpenWine Consortium, Public relations, social media, Social network, software companies, Twitter, Word of mouth
Social media is creating quite a long tail of industries – lots of software companies, consultants, new modes of public relations, etc, etc. Some of them focused on getting you into using social media, which is great, and many of them aspiring to help you “use” social media for your business. The latter point is what I find interesting.
I’ve spoken on the topic of social media before (with assistance from the self-proclaimed “Bonafide Marketing Genius” Marta Kagan – FYI, I’m glad she has the confidence in herself to tag herself that way b/c she’s one of the few I would actually agree with) and I think the biggest point from my talk and others that I’ve seen (like Marta’s deck) is that this all is an excercise in sociology. There are so many technologies that one could use, so many things that you could do, but in the end what is happening to the web is just another means of connecting, interacting, and getting to know people; not unlike joining a social club (like a sports team, a cultural center, or whatever). In fact, just as you have “different circles of friends” offline (work friends, drinking buddies, sports friends), you’ll develop the same thing online and your community will drive you to the tools.
That’s where the idea “use social media” sticks in my craw a little bit.
I’ve had this blog since 2004 and I’ve interacted with many many people thanks to it. It’s mainly an outlet for my thoughts, creativity, and passion (wine, technology, and marketing) and I’ve made a serious number of friends in the wine industry because of it. My goal was to do exactly that, get to know people in the wine industry. One of the major things its taught me though is that the only way to truly understand what this “social media” thing is all about is to get out and do it. BUT – do it with a genuine desire and understand that its a means to reach out to a community (blog in particular). Its not a sales tool and its not a PR tool for social media any more then going to a conference is a PR tool for you. What I mean is you can go to a conference, chat with people, network, find people that you can stay connected with. If you contribute to the conference (effectively contributing to the ‘community’ that the conference is bringing together) then you can get noticed and in that sense you get some good word-of-mouth publicity.
But here is how to think of “use social media” (Ugh!). Its a sociological, human based filter. Its not a broadcast engine like the “information super highway” or the “series of tubes”. Doesn’t matter what tool/site you use, first and foremost your community has to be on that site and/or using that tool. There is always a “critical mass” that needs to be achieved before the tool gets useful. Kind of like a party, its not really fun until there are a bunch of people you know there.
Once your community is there, interacting, chatting, whatever then the dynamics of what happens is facinating. Things start to get “useful” and the human filter is formed. It becomes a situation where the community is as close as a bunch of office mates even though they are all over the world. I literally consider the community I interact with on Twitter my “virtual office mates” and I genuinely like interacting with them. The reason is that you can contribute (chat, answer questions, and otherwise participate) just like you would any other office. In the case of Twitter, it becomes just like a hallway conversation in an office. You can ignore it for a while, pop your head in with a little bit of nothing to say, put out some information or useful tool to the community, or you can put out a serious question to the group and get some solid answers. Pretty much how you would for any office with cubilcles and hallways.
The best part of all this is that when the community reaches critical mass of people in a certain technology/tool who genuinely like to talk about a particular topic, forming an open community, thats when the best things come out. If you contribute something to that community that is truly useful, it will get passed on to everyone very quickly. People will decide if what you said is interesting, show their friends and, if its applicable, their friends may pass on the information to their other “open communities”. The network effect takes over and your information has just become “viral” (i.e. it will spread not only in the current ‘circle of friends’ but to other ‘circles of friends’). More importantly, the human filter took over and since that useful piece of information you generated is actually VERY useful, it will get passed on for a while (or very funny, or very interesting in some other way – the latest on Twitter was a streaming video of puppies, not useful, just very Zen).
So if you find an open community or want to know where there is critical mass already for a community you want to learn about (for instance – the wine community is embracing Twitter and Social Networks) on one of these tools the best way to “use social media” (I hate the term because it makes me feel like “use your friends”, but I guess there isn’t a better way to say it) is to contribute in significant ways. Add to the community but more importantly be YOURSELF. If people like you, they like you. If they don’t, guess what…they don’t. There isn’t alot of advice that can be given there that your parents should’ve taught you before Kindergarten. Thats the funny truth of this “social media” craze. The fundamental sociological point is that this is making friends. Because even if you contribute something that spreads from network to network like wildfire, when those people check you out and “follow you” on Twitter, or Facebook, or whatever, then they start to get to know you in a more personal way then anyone over 25 ever thought possible. If you’re obviously contributing to promote your business it will come across. If you genuinely approach this medium (regardless of technology) as “getting to know people” in the way you’ve always done then you’ll not only have that “viral hit” you won’t be an online “one hit wonder”, you’ll have friends who can help you when you’re down, connect you to others, help you build business, get emotionally invested in your brand…. i.e. you’ll be a part of a community and how you do that is something your Mom and Dad shoulda taught you.
FYI – if you’re doing it for a business/brand it doesn’t matter – if people don’t like your personality, they won’t like your brand. These things have a way of piercing the corporate PR veil. Want an example? Supposedly Cisco “gets” blogging. Read their blogs and you tell me what you think….
Related articles by Zemanta
- Gartner Says Fortune 100 Not Up to Speed on Social Media
- Motrin learns about Twitter
- Flash flood: Mom bloggers and Motrin
- Twitter is a Conversation Hub, But It’s Only One of Many
- Al Gore on the Social Revolution for Change
- Should You Jump Into Social Networks to Promote Your Business?
July 23, 2008 at 11:23 am · Filed under Uncategorized and tagged: Advertising, Facebook, Featured, Google, News and Media, OpenWine Consortium, Ramblings, Search Engines, Searching, social media, Web 2.0, wine marketing, World Wide Web
Image via Wikipedia
So the topic came up today in the Twitter-sphere – Adwords, social networks (Facebook in particular), and their success (or lack thereof). I think its been talked about in the blogosphere or in conversations at various tech conferences but its worth repeating.
For all intents and purposes, it boils down to what Adwords was intended for and the way it works versus the evolution of the web today.
A few years back (eons in Internet time), the Internet was a super efficient way to find things – information, places, stuff to buy, etc. etc. etc. Google came along with a great way to search through HUGE amounts of data, create Google PageRank to make “authorities”, and basically try to get you results that most closely meet what you’re looking thus avoiding a huge number of porn links when searching on children’s bedtime stories.
The algorithm they devised was evolutionary (not revolutionary, one of the most overused terms in high tech) and it worked extremely well. As time went on, since the dominant behavior on the Internet was “searching”, using the information gathered and the search algorithm Google created they devised an ultra -efficient way to advertise. They already knew that you were searching (because Google is a search engine after all) and they knew what you were searching for and therefore Google could simply place paid ads next to your search result that would turn up sponsors who had stuff related to your search. This was brilliant in its simplicity because it was (and this is the key) ADDITIVE to your current behavior. VALUE ADD – simple, straight forward, and very very effective.
Google later expanded this to allow you or I to put ads on our site that would reflect something related to the information on the page upon which you placed the ads. Again, effective, but not as clearly value add because people on your site may not have necessarily been in “search mode”. They may just have been reading out of interest. But since the Internet was still basically viewed as a giant repository for information and “stuff” that you sifted through, “search mode” is what people generally were still in and it masked the few times people weren’t in “search mode”.
Now, with the advent (or rise) of social media, behaviors are changing. “Search mode” is still a dominant behavior but not what it once was. See, social media (blogs, networks, Twitter, etc. etc.) make the Internet more and more a place to “socialize”. Behavior changes from “searching for something” to “killing time” or “marketing” or “making connections”. Lets call this “hanging out” mode.
Now if you’re on a social network, you most certainly are not in a “search mode”. So then, what happens if Google indexes my Profile page and serves up an Ad related to the content there? The answer? Who the hell cares!
Why is that? Because if I’m on Facebook or OpenWine Consortium or any other social network, I’m probably not “Searching” but doing some sort of “socializing” (BS’ing, networking, hooking up, whatever) – I’m in “hang out” mode. Indexing my page and serving up ads related to keywords and content is NOT additive to the social media experience or the current behavior so this ad will be ignored. Even blogs, which are chock full of information, don’t see much return on Adwords because while they do typically report or inform they, more often then not, are sparking conversation or continuing conversation. Unless the blog is specifically reviewing something, in which case a few ads on where to buy that something may work, contextual ads are ineffective. This inefficiency in the original model was masked by the fact that predominant behavior was searching. Now with the behavior being socializing, Adwords and the searching optimization are only slightly more useful than putting up a static add.
Even Google admits that it hasn’t solved the social network advertising/monetizing behavior.
Net-net: Save your money. Buying keywords is NOT social media marketing.
Now, Google is looking to create a sort of “FriendRank”, in a recent patent application. They call it “Network Node Ad Targeting” and they intend to use a person’s social map to determine the number and quality of connections they have (and therefore their influence) and pay those influencers to allow advertisers the serve ads to their friends. Interesting, but we’ll see how it plays out. I’m sure they’ll be takers, but I’ll be awefully pissed if a friend or other contact is the source of ads I recieve! Still not a value-add unless the friend somehow has the ability to control the ads that get served and influence what goes to our friends (i.e. some sort recommendation and reputation system). Reading this patent, I don’t think it cuts it at all.
Related articles by Zemanta
Image via Wikipedia
I’m a huge fan of niche social networks. I think Facebook is nearing complete uselessness unless it is the center of you and all your friends’ social lives. Why? Too general.
On the other hand, Ning.com has taken the tact of making really good social networks easy to put up. Effectively commoditizing the social network (as it should be) and forcing there to be a real purpose for the social network. Families, Alumni groups, soccer teams, music lovers, fan pages, you name it and Ning probably has network for it.
This is actually the ideal model. Niche social networks mimic real life more closely. You don’t have 1 social group do you? You have work people, college buddies, soccer team friends, neighbors, and only sometimes so these lives intersect. So why would there be only one social network?
I created OWC as a way to redefine a trade organization. Update it. Rather than a stuffy, meet once a year/quarter and have a newsletter organization, I wanted the wine world to benefit from meeting each other 24x7x365. I wanted to have an organization that could teach and evangelize and lead by example.
What I’m learning is that there is no replacement for offline meetups. Thats not to say new connections aren’t being made and value isn’t being created. On the contrary, that is happening in a big way! What I’m saying is that even with an online community there is great benefit to getting together on a regular basis. Just being out and giving a couple of presentations over the last couple of weeks helped me put faces to names and voice to faces. Not only that, the online community benefits as well – there was a huge traffic increase since my talks and a pretty big membership serge.
So, I wouldn’t say this is a surprise but a confirmation. Social networks are a compliment to organizations, not a replacement for interaction.