**Blog Post Update**Crowd sourced editorial staff for everyone.
In February of 2009 I blogged about the fact that Twitter was becoming more and more a crowdsourced news editoral application for me. In the post I reviewed how I was using Twitter more as a way to source content and less about conversation.
Let me break it down:
- I create a Twitter account.
- Then I start to search for, and follow people with similar interests either personally or professionally. Or if you are like me, both.
- Download an application like TweetDeck that allows you to group the people you are following into categories. using Twitter lists, not unlike sections of an newspaper; News, Sports and Entertainment, Technology etc.
- In each of these sections I follow people that are either experts in their field or have a passion for athe topic of interest. Either way the posts will be relevant.
- Now what do all of these people that you are following Twitter do all day? Well they post stuff. They post links to articles in newspapers and blogs, videos, music [http://blip.fm/all] and much, much more.
- Breaking stories are now hitting Twitter first and I no longer have to wait for the old world media publishing systems latency to get the stories quickly.
- The topics that are trending and are important globally can be easily viewed right in TweetDeck’s trending cloud tag.
- Now because I have selected people based on similar interests and passions, the content that is posted, is for the most part ,very relevant to me. The Twitter base becomes my very own editorial staff picking only the best of the best and then posting it to your Twitterstream.
- Now add the NYTimes, CBC, Fox News, NPR and CNN into your Twitterstream and you have it all the topics and news covered.
Flipboard is not the first iPad app that is based on this concept and I suspect won’t be the last. The talented folks over at Teehan + Lax have a very cool looking iPad app called TweetMag that is soon to be released as well. There is now a race on and this is where I think social is really going in the next few years. I think this is bigger than geo-location apps to be honest. People really do want to know what your reading more than they want to know where you are reading.
In social media should you choose personal or corporate branding?
That is not the case for such things as packaged goods and or large service oriented companies. Those that are born brand first as is the case for the vast majority of brands and companies in the social media space must keep the brand first in the minds of it’s customers. As much as a personal touch or the collective voice maybe important elements behind the brand touching the consumer in thoughtful and memorable ways, it is important to place the brand 1st and foremost.
Look at the top brands in social media today. Jet Blue, Dell, Starbucks, Whole Foods and WestJet just to name a few. They are all very personable and have clearly communicated as a group of people behind the brand that actually do care, but they do not place themselves before the brand. When I think of Zappos I have no idea what the names of the great people that helped me with customer care issues, and if I was not an in the advertising industry I would not be able to name Tony Hsieh as the CEO. Most of the Zappos customers only know the brand by name.
So back to @bradinator vs @Blackcloudwine for a few minutes here. What are the risks of abandoning the personal brand? As @paulrickett points out that 60% of those who follow @bradinator do not follow @Blackcloudwine so at first glance one might say that is a bad choice to abandon the personal account considering how often @bradinator tweets about his Blackcloud Wine. But that would be a very simplified view of the situation. @bradinator’s personal account is very irreverent and has collected a huge following for that very reason. What if those 2030 followers could care less about wine and follow him just for his personal commentary? Then even if he could transfer his social capital over to the @Blackcloudwine account then it would be worthless. If 909 followers of @Blackcloudwine have a higher propensity to love wine and buy more wine and were attracted to that account due to the winecentric tweets in the first place then the smaller more qualified numbers are much more valuable. I will admit that I did not take the time to attempt to measure the quality of the @Blackcloudwine wine followers but I will bet that most are more interested in wine that on his other account.
Social media is just like traditional advertising when it comes to influence. It’s not the number of eyeballs that count but rather the quality and relevance of those that follow you and your posts, tweets and feeds. Just because you have a follow count of thousands upon thousands on Twitter, your blog or Facebook page does not mean that you can market just anything to your potentially unqualified followers. Hell if it was a shear numbers game then why not just head over to fiverr.com and pay the five bucks to the literally hundreds of people offering to place your message or ad in their Twitter streams of 10′s of thousands of followers. I’ll tell you why. Proof that the clickthrough rate on those unqualified posts are incredibly low. All you need to do is pay one of the social media influencers a “fiverr” and then hand them over a message with a bit.ly or ow.ly link and watch your clickthrough rate. I will bet you that you will get fewer then 10 clicks on your highly un-targeted campaign. I am not saying that big numbers of followers don’t work but they need to be qualified. Sure we may lead tribes but if I started to push Tampex branded tampons to my Twitter followers I am sure my tribe would not buy what I was selling.
Here is another reason that the personal brand in social media may not be the right way to grow your brand…scaling with grace and authenticity. We have seen what happens when a personal brand does not scale well due to the fact that there is a finite amount of you [personal brand] to go around. Usually when a personal brand takes off there is the need to automate the posts and tweets etc. That is usually done by way of hiring assistants to do the work for the personal brand…that’s not very transparent now is it and can blow up quickly. When you choose to support a branded account the ability to authentically scale the brand is much easier to do. Sure it’s through the same process of distributing the communication through others like assistants or social brand managers. The difference is that each manager can be identified as an individual behind a brand.
On an account that our agency set up for a customer we have three different people that tweet on behalf of the brand and are demarked by the “^” charachter and their initials. This clearly identifies that there is more than one person managing the account and if need be others can be added with out the feeling that there is any misrepresentation of the branded tweets.
So I ask the question again. Is it social capital suicide or just the death of another Twitter ID? Or is it just the birth of another one that may suit the brand better and in the end move more product and connect with it’s customers in a much more authentic way?
Some recent Canadian Facebook statistics
- 54% Female
- 46% Male
- Each has an average of 220 friends
- They make up 12% of the Facebook population.
- They represent 80% of all online 12 – 17 year olds†
- 77% use it more than email
- 44% use it more than cell phones
- 40% use it more than any other communication tool
- 57% add/use an application
- 41% become a fan of a page
- 62% upload/view/share a photo
- 39% RSVP to an event
- 47% share/post/watch a video
- 58% read their news feed
- 13% send a gift [that surprised me!]
- 48% Female
- 52% Male
- Each has an average of 247 friends
- They make up 29% of the Facebook population.
- They represent 93.8% of all online 18 – 24 year olds†
- 82% use it more than email
- 43% use it more than cell phones
- 45% use it more than any other communication tool
- 52% add/use an application
- 33% become a fan of a page
- 63% upload/view/share a photo
- 56% RSVP to an event
- 47%share/post/watch a video
- 67% read their news feed
- 20% send a gift
- 53% Female
- 47% Male
- Each has an average of 153 friends
- They make up 32% of the Facebook population.
- They represent 27% of all online 25 – 34 year olds†
- 79% use it more than email
- 49% use it more than cell phones
- 44% use it more than any other communication tool
- 50% add/use an application
- 31% become a fan of a page
- 59% upload/view/share a photo
- 34% RSVP to an event
- 44% share/post/watch a video
- 63% read their news feed
- 19% send a gift
- 56% Female
- 44% Male
- Each has an average of 85 friends
- 67% are parents
- They make up 16% of the Facebook population.
- They represent 78.2% of all online 35-44 year olds†
- 58% use it more than email
- 56% use it more than cell phones
- 47% use it more than any other communication tool
- 62% add/use an application
- 30% become a fan of a page
- 60% upload/view/share a photo
- 37% RSVP to an event
- 43% share/post/watch a video
- 62% read their news feed
- 26% send a gift
- 62% Female
- 38% Male
- Each has an average of 49 friends
- 75% are parents
- They make up 9% of the Facebook population.
- They represent 74.8% of all online 45-54 year olds†
- 65% use it more than email
- 60% use it more than cell phones
- 49% use it more than any other communication tool
- 55% add/use an application
- 28% become a fan of a page
- 64% upload/view/share a photo
- 29% RSVP to an event
- 50% share/post/watch a video
- 58% read their news feed
- 31% send a gift
- 59% Female
- 41% Male
- Each has an average of 51 friends
- 81% are parents
- They make up 6% of the Facebook population.
- They represent 61% of all online 55+ year olds†
- 60% use it more than email
- 69% use it more than cell phones
- 40% use it more than any other communication tool
- 51% add/use an application
- 25% become a fan of a page
- 51% upload/view/share a photo
- 30% RSVP to an event
- 46% share/post/watch a video
- 51% read their news feed
- 30% send a gift
Control your branded story headlines 140 char at a time
Want to get your story or product description out there in the lifestream of others in more controlled and branded way? I have discussed, in the past, the fact that referral traffic of social networking/media sites is rivaling that of Google and Yahoo search. It’s because of this your headline needs to be able to play nice in these applications if you don’t want the referrer to change your carefully crafted message. Just as you take the time to create key words for maximum search ability so should you take the time to ensure that your headline will fit in these often character limited sources of referral traffic.
More and more people are using javascript “Post this to blank social network ” browser buttons and site side “tweet this” functionality to quickly get the story they are interested in promoting into the user’s preferred social networking news feed or lifestream. The scripts are designed to grab the page or h1 story title automatically and use it as the base of the post or tweet. Many times when I post there is a bunch of unnecessary copy that needs to get weeded out in order to fit the space. I will use my personal blog as an example of what not to do “Jaypiddy’s Blog >> Blog Archive >> Winners for the first annual Canada Day photo contest. http://ow.ly/hN0N” See how the headline now becomes a bread-crumb trail? This is unnecessary because there is a shortened URL that the users will click and it takes up valuable space in the post. This is a built in trait of WordPress and I need to look at how to build a work-a-round. Now the user will be tempted, or forced to, edit the copy in order to make the post fit the stream. This means that there maybe the removal of your brand name, typo or personal spin put in the headlines place. Personal opinion granted can be great if the comment is flattering but if possible why not get the headline into the stream as you planned it. Another thing that looks odd when people post into lifestreams is when the post has capitalization throughout the entire headline. This make the headline feel unnatural or more obviously a branded message and will lose the sense that the headline originated with the original poster. Witting in a natural language with proper capitalization will always work better for posting into someone’s lifestream. A headline should quickly discribe your story, product or severice in less than 125 characters so that it can fit into a Twitter stream or Facebook News Feed. The reason for 125 characters maximum is that in Twitter there needs to be room for the story’s URL without the need for the headline to be truncated. This means the message flows into the stream as you intented it to.
The strategy may seem simple but with the lifestream and newsfeeds of real people being where your brand is being advertised so heavily, every step must be taken to reduce the accidental mucking of your hard earned and consistent brand message.
Social Media, Search & Viral Now Outperform Banner Ads for Traffic
In a recent Adage article, using data from the research firm Hitwise, t was reported that Facebook now accounts for more referral traffic to some sites than Google. Facebook now has a confirmed number of registered users in the range of 200 million. Social networking has grown a whopping 93 percent since 2006; the amount of time people spend communicating online has increased from 18 to 32 percent of their total online time.[1] The actions performed in Facebook are shifting as well; users spend a good portion of their time on the newly redesigned newsfeed page, where they can quickly scan for status updates and user-recommended videos, products, and articles. Similar streams in Twitter and FriendFeed are also becoming powerful recommendation engines. Further, the low click-through rate of banners on social media sites is even further below the already shockingly low industry average of .01%-.02%. These low results are primarily due to the highly focused activity performed by users on social media sites, and also explain why media placement companies have bluntly told me, “Social media does not work for online advertising.”
The numbers:
- Last fall, it was reported that 40 hours a month are spent online by the average internet user in North America.[2]
- Of those online, 75% are spending time in the social networking and social media space.[3]
- The the industry attributes a .1%-.2% click though rate on most web banners and that number drops further on social networking activity.
- Social networking has grown 93% since 2006.[1]
Now, let’s look at some of my anecdotal social media link click-through activity. According to mrtweet.com, a Twitter user recommendation site, I post an average of 42 tweets a day. 28 percent of my posts contain links; that’s about 12 links per day. I use Hootsuite to post links, as it enables me to measure the stats of those who actually click on the Hootsuite to post links, as it enables me to measure the stats of those who actually click on the links I post. Last week, I had a total of 1250 clicks[pretty graphs], either directly or through re-tweets[4], on 84 links. That gives me an average click-through rate of 7%. I have approximately 1200 followers, and there are hundreds of thousands of Twitter users with substantially more followers than me. With the growing number of Twitter users alone, recent rumours of the company’s acquisition by Google make sense. I post about half the number of links on Facebook as I do on Twitter, but can’t measure the click-throughs as Facebook currently lacks the requisite analytical tools. The total number of online social media users across the various platforms-Facebook, Twitter, Stumbleupon, Del.icio.us., etc.-provide a clear indication of where consumers spend their time, and why it’s important for companies and agencies to create content and campaigns that are viral-worthy.
So where does that leave the web banner? Should we abandon the staple that has given hope to so many web start-ups and sustained others? The answer is no; the web banner has its place in delivering brand presence and campaign messaging online. Perhaps if the web advertising industry had not hung its collective hat on CTR, this issue may not have seen so much back-peddling as there is today. The industry was so keen on proving its relevance in the web’s early days that it differentiated itself from other mediums through the highly measurable CTR. Unfortunately, what wasn’t considered were the lack of novelty and typically bad experiences users often associated with the click.
However, banners are still important in that we can track their impacts by measuring all customer impressions through comprehensive analytic tools. I believe it is all part of the mix, but the final destination of any campaign must be relevant and engaging enough to hold the attention of users, and contain content that will compel them to share it with others. Creative agencies play an important role in orchestrating compelling ad campaigns that customers can relate to, but ultimately, the method of directing viewers to those destinations is shifting from the once almighty banner ad, to the terrain of “the people’s media.”
[1] This, according to a survey conducted by Netpop, based on the 105 million U.S. broadband users.
[2] Comscore
[3] PEW Internet research, March 2009
[4] A re-tweet is when a Twitter user likes your post so much and recommends the link to their followers through the method of what is called re-tweeting.
Battle of the Brands in the Twittersphere
What happens when someone asks a question about your brand the social media space? Well, that’s a riddle that many brand, marketing and pr folks have been trying to answer for a few years now. If the question raised about your brand is by someone with a substantial amount of online clout, or has a large influence of social media sites like digg and buzzup. The conversation about your brand can lead to bigger things than you probably wouldn’t expect. Measuring the impact of a social networking conversation has on your brand is not easy and there are only a few high powered, and expensive, search tools that can do with any sort of accuracy.
Blog conversations happen over hours and days and spider off via comments and trackbacks etc. You track some them by using Google alerts and then dispatch either legal, PR or the customer service department depending on the level or kind of attention that the situation requires. For the most part brand managers are able to keep a lid on most bad conversations or attempt to leverage the good ones going out there in the socialsphere, but it is a pretty unsophisticated affair.
Now let’s add Twitter to the mix. Twitter takes the conversations that are happening in the social networking world and accelerates them to a breakneck pace. Those very same conversations are now happening at real time by a powerful network of influential bloggers and social media connectors. They can propel the brand conversation into the stratosphere within minutes. I bet this scares the pants off of most traditional brand, marketing and PR folks. In the old days [oh say last year] you could find the social networking conversation that was happening about your brand, set up a meeting with internal and external personnel needed to either quell the negative impact on your brand or fan the flames of the positive ones. Then walk out of the meeting and execute the plan over the period of a week or two.
Well those days are going quickly! Today a conversation about your brand can go from zero to .5 million in less than two minutes and last a total of 6 hours then disappear as quickly as it arrived. That is pretty hard to get a handle on for most.
Here are a couple of examples:
Let’s take the story of Chris Brogan’s question the other week. Chris posed this question: “What’s the difference, to you, between BMW and Audi? Which do you feel more strongly about and why?” For those of you who don’t know who Chris Brogan is let me give you a little background. Chris is one of the top social media experts and has a huge following of loyal readers, fans and clients like Panasonic. His current RSS feed shows 17,315 subscribers, 5000 Facebook fans [5000 is the most tht FB will let you have on any one account] and 39,144 followers on twitter. Now I am sure that there is some overlap in the numbers but you get the idea. Not only is are the number of folowers that Chris great in numbers but they are also powerful in their own connections and followers. The ripple effect is huge here. So back to the case at hand. One question from someone like Chris and you can hear the collective inhale of people that are going to weigh in on the subject.
So for around 4 or five hours on twitter there were no less than 24 thousand conversations in 140 characters or less that where all discussing the pros and cons of BMW and Audi. I am sure that both of the respective car companies are aware that this event happened by now. I have a feeling that stats in this post made it into a few Powerpoint decks. So what does that mean to the brand and what can be done with this kind of data. Well there are a few things that if I was BMW or Audi that I would have looked in the data.
- Problems with your product.
- Problems with your competitors product.
- Likes and dislikes about your the product.
- Likes and dislikes about your competitors product.
- Possible flaws or manufacturing defects that may not be big enough to report but enough to tell someone about.
- Links that people post about your product.
These are just a few of the research strategies that I would have recommended if I had be consulting to either one of these brands during this battle of the brands. Now what to do with this kind of conversational blitzkrieg? If you are ready for such an event then like any attack good or bad you roll out your own pr/marketing plan and take advantage of the situation. The first line of defence would be the corporate website. The conversation is happening online and the Google searches are probably linking to your corporate home page right? Well if the comments are positive and are specific to a curtain make of model of your cars then make sure that the web team has a prominent link or CTA to that make or model that users can easily find. It could mean more sales if you act quickly enough. If there is a negative conversation happening then hold back for a bit and see where it is going. Can your loyalty and retention team “jump” into the conversation to address concerns? The could if they were ready and actively participating on sites like Twitter. There are actually a multitude of other methods that BMW or Audi could have done to take advantage if the situation had they been ready for it. Soon this type of brand blitz will not be a once in a lifetime event. I predict these brand spikes will happen on a weekly basis and that those who learn how to harness them will come out ahead.
Here is another recent example. When Steve Jobs announces the other week that he was stepping down temporarily from Apple due to health issues, the social networks erupted with the news. In fact I had found out about the news many times over on Twitter before I heard about it from traditional news outlets. It was 24 minutes before the NY Times finally broke the story. I know that there needs to be fact checking and such but I am sure that fact could have been checked and pushed live to the NY Times home page sooner than 24 minutes. The news of Steve Jobs went to almost have a million posts in a just a few seconds. Now what if the PR and Corp Com team had not been responsible for the news and it was actually was untrue. Not responding fast enough would mean your stocks are going to take an unnecessary hit.
So the question is are your brands duking it out in the hyper-paced world of microblogging? If so what are you doing about it. From my experience with working with large brands, I suspect not much. There’s probably not enough resources on the marketing team to handle it and the agency with the account is just not equipped the know what to do. This maybe a small concern for a lot of people today today but not for long. It is my strong recommendation that marcom teams around the globe start to focus on issue like this. Companies like JetBlue and Whole Foods understand the importance and have huge beach heads in this space already. What are you doing?
****UPDATE**** Here is an update on the metrics of the converation. Mike Troiano at the Scalable Intimacy blog has further anylized the impact of such conversations with a simple yet clear estimation of the impressions made:
24,000 conversations, folks. If on average the participants in those conversations had 100 followers (Chris alone has 40 thousand followers), that’s 2.4 million impressions. There’s no doubt in my mind these impressions are higher impact than passive, anonymous media equivalents… but you know what? Screw impressions. They’re the artifice of dying media. What’s the impact of a couple million affluent, college-educated, major metro-concentrated thought leaders being exposed to each other’s positive and negative views of a brand in a 24 hour period? I’d say pretty high. Maybe I’m just new fashioned.
As you can see from the above analyisis and comments below there are more than a few of us looking at this in 2009.


