Having spent several years as a U.S. history teacher, the antitrust era of the 1880s and 1890s, while not exactly the most inspiring content to explore, was always interesting. Most students are taught from jr. high on that the antitrust laws comprise what the Supreme Court calls a "charter of freedom", designed to protect the core republican values regarding free enterprise in America.
It's drilled into us: monopoly = bad.
So what to do with Google? I'm not really sure where I fall on the issue, and this makes Steven Pearlstein's piece in today's WA Post interesting, and I encourage you to chew through it.
Just the other day, I was chatting with a friend who shared without qualm, I'll use anything Google. If Google's name is on it, it works. ... In a sea of technology choices and rapid-pace advancements, the Google brand just makes sense of the noise ... Added to that, Google has not only claimed the market, but it has literally rewired us in terms of how we think and approach the Internet.
So is Google's dominance potentially problematic? Like I said, I'm not totally sure where I fall on the issue yet - so I'd love to hear comments from others.
In case you hadn't noticed, Google isn't just a Web search company any longer. In addition to online advertising, it's moving into operating system and application software, mobile telephone software, e-mail, Web browsers, maps, and video aggregation. It's also in the process of assembling the world's biggest digital library of books and visual materials.
Google portrays each new line of business as a logical extension of its core mission to expand digital horizons in ways that allow people to use the Internet to improve their lives. It's a noble goal, and Google does it very well - so well, in fact, that it boasts a market value of $190.2 billion, a profit margin of 30 percent, and cash and marketable securities on its balance sheet worth $33 billion.
It's easy to see why Google would want to use well-chosen acquisitions to try to delay or prevent that next round of creative destruction. What's harder to understand is why we would let them do it.
Dave Fleet hits on the key difference between a PR-centric social media strategy and an advert-centric approach, and I think he's on to something.
Just last night, watching T.V. it struck me how many television ads were using their Facebook url as the primary, and in a few instances the only, web address. I think I even muttered something about how annoying it is to see Facebook become a crock pot of competing advertisers and sales campaigns.
After all, as we've all noted before - nobody joins Facebook for the ads. The power of Facebook - and of social engagement in general - is found in the relationship opportunities it affords.
This issue of social relationship building vs. social advertising impacts organizations of all sizes, even those not spending bucks on a full tilt Facebook ad campaign. It is an issue that impacts how your organization thinks about and uses the platform.
Recently, I shared a link on my small firm's Facebook page about the reality that while very few CEOs are active in social media, those who are tend to trend from the higher performing companies. Following that post, I had the opportunity to visit with several friends who lead organizations who said that post made them want to increase their social media activity, posts, and such. But what most of them DIDN'T say was that the article made them want to increase their social engagement! And THAT'S the real key.
Advertising is push. Social is dialogue. You can't expect social to really work if you make it a one-way street. (And allow me to suggest that just because a handful of people like something you push, or make a few comments it doesn't mean you've actually sustained a relationship with that person) ... Find out what your audience WANTS to talk about, and go there. Ask more questions, and build content that is expert and substantial to respond to those interests.
As Fleet says - push social advertising is actually a hybrid of the two approaches audiences trust least: advertising and company web sites. Make sure that your social interaction is truly driven by a healthy regard for the two-way street.
You'll build more trust, retain your fans, and grow your brand - trust me.
Last week I wrote about the biggest challenge digital communicators face. However, it’s far from the only one; in fact it’s one of many. One of the big emerging challenges right now is that, after a few years of PR agencies leading the way, we’re seeing advertising agencies throw their hats into the ring for social media in a serious way.
Ad agencies, to generalize, often come up with big ideas but they’re often based around one-way “push” messages, rather than dialogue (in fitting with the short-term quarterly campaign-based model of thinking that I’ve discussed recently). The campaigns that do solicit feedback rather than action, do so in a superficial way (contests, for example), rather than in a way that reflects genuine engagement and relationship-building (Dell IdeaStorm, MyStarbucksIdea, for example (Starbucks is an Edelman client).
hile trust in digital commun
While trust in digital communications is now up to the point of other media
a one-way approach is perhaps the least suited to building trust with companies’ stakeholders. The results show that one-way uses of social media actually marry two of the least-trusted sources of information – advertising and company sites
For social sites to be trust-worthy, we need to move beyond just creating a presence on the sites and to focus on providing useful content from credible sources and building relationships over the longer term.
Nice post running on Wild Apricot's nonprofit blog that dips into the burgeoning theory about the social web that help us begin to "come to grips with the complexities of online outreach in the fast changing online environment."
Focusing on the work of Paul Adams, senior user experience researcher at Google, the post pricks the surface of a very deep and intriguing issue about how the very nature of the web is changing. The core concept - it's not really about the platform as much as it is about the people using the platform, and their motivations for that use. Organizations that figure that out among their key audiences strike gold - well and truly.
Think about it. It's really always been about the communication. If, as Adams research suggests and there's no reason to doubt that he's not on to something here, people are spending much more time interacting with other people, and much less time consuming content from websites ... what does that mean for your organization's online strategy? Adams is spot on - it's not about where the share button goes, or about how many links we produce - it's about ensuring that our audience is educated about what we do. Cause guess what? The influence and impact of an individual interacting with a peer in a network and talking about us is far and away more beneficial to our goals (and has a higher probability of happening!)
How well have you educated your audience? Are they genuinely equipped to be "brand evangelists" for your cause? Do they know the real reasons for how you operate and, particularly for nonprofits, the more intrinsic purpose for your organization's existence? And consider this, these deeper stories about your org are going to be BEST told in interactive, two-way communication!
So. What does this mean?
1. Choose your social and web spaces wisely.
2. Select channels that allow you the maximum opportunity for real dialogue and meaningful exchange (not just one-sided spew) with your audiences.
3. Equip them. Equip them. Equip them. Not just to share links about your stuff, but to talk about you (this gets to the issue of engagement over loyalty: loyal fans talk more with you; we want engaged advocates who will talk more ABOUT me than necessarily with me)
n The Real Life Social Network v2, Paul Adams, Senior User Experience Researcher at Google, comes at social networks from a UX design perspective, but the insights here will be useful (and rather fascinating) for any of us trying to come to grips with the complexities of online outreach in the fast-changing online environment.
In The Real Life Social Network v2, Paul Adams, Senior User Experience Researcher at Google, comes at social networks from a UX design perspective, but the insights here will be useful (and rather fascinating) for any of us trying to come to grips with the complexities of online outreach in the fast-changing online environment.
People are spending much more time interacting with other people, and much less time consuming content from websites. This shift is not about any one particular social network. It’s about people connecting to each other online.
So this shift is much greater than any one social network, and much more complicated that deciding where the “share this” buttons go...
This presentation shares what Google’s User Experience team has learned about how the web is changing our real life networks; how people are connected to each other, and what that means for their behavior online; how people influence each other, and how “influence” is affected by the structure of our social networks; why “identity is a cornerstone of the social web”; and, finally, the touchy issue of online privacy and giving control of their own data to the users of social networking sites.
Adams says, it becomes clear that “we don’t have a technology problem here.”
Technologies will come and go, but the fundamental social behavior patterns of people will remain the same. A better long term strategy for business [or the non-profit sector!] is to understand people’s motivations for using new technologies, and not the technologies themselves.
I always enjoy the posts over at Social Media Globetrotter. Today he asked a great question ... what in the heck do we all mean when we say we want people to be engaged?
At my previous company, we were the recipient of this big hairy award called the Missouri Quality Award, which is based on these big hairy principles by Malcom Baldrige (Performance excellence crtieria, etc.) In THAT process, the difference between customer loyalty and customer engagement (which was the preferred place) was that ENGAGED customers advocate for you and your products.
This has really interesting implications in social spaces, right? And certainly in traditional marcom and PR interaction.
Because of the ease of share-ability of content, we can see how customers choose to talk about us to their networks. So the idea is, when they talk WITH us and purchase/consume what we offer, they are loyal. When they talk ABOUT us with their peers - then they are actually engaged. Sort of an interesting way to consider the question.
’m at the Alterian “Engaging Times” conference in Chicago which is full of interesting conversations and people. One of the things that struck me at the conference is that nobody defined or explained what “engagement” means. If someone “likes” your facebook page is that engagement? What if they leave a comment on your blog? What if they tweet with your brand? Are all of these things engagement? Does one of the above make you more engaged than another?
’m not saying there is a right or wrong way here to define engagement but I think that this all comes back to defining the objectives and success metrics for a brand/company looking to get involved in social anything. It’s meaningless for a brand to say it wants to be more engaged unless it defines engagement and says, “we want more comments, links, conversations, or whatever.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. The platforms change, and the settings are shifting, and the noise and interference is unique - but in the digital age, in the social revolution - what works is still great storytelling. This quick post by Mitch Joel is worth a read, and you'll want your iPad note pad with you to nab the list of 15 must-read books about how to storytell (which includes new and classic titles, including Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth).
How do you approach PR as a storyteller or a salesman? Be the storyteller!
The concept of transmedia and Digital Storytelling is the new Social Media.
The brands that win are the brands that tell a great story. When it comes to transmedia storytelling, the brands that win are the brands that tell many great stories and are able to connect them all together. One way to get better at telling great stories, comes from understanding the structure, form and ingredients of a great story.
Take a few moments this morning to read and be inspired by a post from Mitch Joel that asks us to consider the deeper, fundamental reality of the Internet on our total, collective human communication. URL: www.twistimage.com
I love posts like this, because I just could NOT agree more. We need to embrace good communications theory and plain old-fashioned etiquette in our fast paced email world. It's not hard, and it doesn't take much time. And the payoff is immense.
Polite and professional email behavior sets a tone for an entire organization - that might seem difficult to believe, but when you consider that email has become (for most organizations) the PRIMARY way co-workers are communicating with one another AND with your audience, the importance of quality exchange becomes essential to consider.
Take a few moments and read this brief column - and add your own egregious email errors to the list ... I really liked the point of including a salutation and closing. I would also suggest that there needs to be a sense in an organization of how often and how many people NEED to be CC:ed on things. I'd also suggest that organizations need to think about how to educate the team about when email is the best tactic, or when it's better to get up, walk across the hall and talk to or phone the individual you are conversing with.
Here are three big e-mail mistakes you're probably making. (Sorry, we can't do anything about your iguana-like kissing skills. Drag.)
Egregious e-mail error: Recklessly BCC'ing and forwarding
E-mail entry forms are not that complicated. We all understand how BCC (blind carbon copy) and Forward work. Why, then, do so many people persist in using them incorrectly -- awkwardly fumbling about in the internet ether?
Egregious e-mail error: Being a thankless jerk
But if you say thanks as soon as you get the info, you won't throw off his e-mail-checking routine. Just try to respond quickly -- if it's been more than 20 minutes, skip the gratuitous gratitude and tack the thanks on to the next e-mail volley. ("I appreciate your sending me those survey results last week. I'd like to set up a meeting to discuss...")
Egregious e-mail error: Playing fascist dictator
Show of hands: How many of you under-30s have ever received the following e-mail from a higher-up?
"???"
Now imagine sending that same e-mail to your boss: She sends a note giving you a completely unrealistic new deadline, say, and you just hit Reply and give that question mark three jabs. Ridiculous, right?
This past week, I was involved with a major event in New Orleans. 25,000 teenagers gathered (as they do every three years) as part of the National Lutheran Youth Gathering. I actually was the communications director for this awesome outfit from 20002-2008, and my husband was the emcee for the event each evening in the Louisiana Super Dome.
This was the first time the event happened with an awareness of Twitter among the adult leaders at the convention. For five days, a thriving and incredible community shared its thoughts, insights, and humor using the hashtag #LCMSNYG
It was an awesome conversation, and now that the event is over - I miss it!
I am frequently involved with Twitter chats in my industry, and I enjoy them - but my experience with #LCMSNYG really emphasized how much FUN it is to engage with a network that you really and truly are passionate about using Twitter.
Folks read the feed constantly. You wanted to consume each tweet, add your own thoughts and send it along. It was a genuine dialogue. And when you ran into fellow tweeters throughout the mass of people (most of whom you really didn't know), there was an immediate, "Hey! Cool! Super good to meet you."
The experience clarified for me the energy, style, and engagement that you want to put into your twitter conversations.
This practical blogpost from Lee Odden shared via TopRank - an online marketing blog, about the "must do" elements for solid Twitter chats is good to put alongside that enthusiasm. So as I consider how to launch a Twitter chat around my new work with purePR (http://www.pureprstrategy.com), you better believe that I am looking to do it right (as this blog post coaches), but also to harness that sense of fun, energetic connectivity that was found by those using #LCMSNYG these past 5 days.
here are many tactics companies can implement as part of a smart Twitter Marketing strategy. Growing the initial following is important as is providing the budding community you’re building with something of value to keep coming back and to spread the good word to their networks. One such tactic that offers value and brings people together is the Twitter chat.
1. Pick a great hashtag
2. Decide a format and schedule -
3. Create a web page explaining your chat -
4. Recognize #chat participants
5. Archive the #chat
Now that I’ve shared a few tips that Twitter #chat editors or moderators should consider, here are some of the best marketing and PR #chats to check out:
#blogchat – Run by @mackcollier, #blogchat is a long running chat that covers all aspects of blogging on Sunday nights from 8-9pm Central. View transcripts and other info here.
#journchat – Run by @prsaraevans, #journchat is another long running weekly conversation (Mon 7-10pm Central) between journalists, bloggers and PR people.
#pr20chat – Moderated by @PRtini and @JGoldsborough, #pr20chat is a weekly conversation (Tues 8PM EST) that focuses on public relations 2.0 topics.
#socialmedia – @Marc_Meyer & @JasonBreed moderate the #socialmedia chat, which of course, is all about social media and occurs Tuesdays at 12 pm Noon EST. Each episode is also tagged with a number, such as #sm1 #sm2 etc. View the live stream here.
#commschat – @AdamVincenzini & @EmilyCagle run this UK-based Twitter ‘communications’ chat #commschat Monday nights, 8pm (UK time) on traditional / social media, PR, journalism, blogging. See the Blog and FB page.
#measurepr – Run by @shonali, #measurepr covers measurement topics within the public relations and social media industries that kicked off on February 2, 2010, and is held bi-weekly on Tuesdays from that date, from 12-1 pm ET.
#prstudchat – Run by @dbreakenridge & @valeriesimon, the monthly #PRStudChat (I thought “stud” meant “manly” not “student” the first time I saw it) provides a platform for conversation between Public Relations Students, Educators and Professionals. See more on WTH.
#imcchat – Moderated by @bethharte & @abarcelos, #IMCChat is a chat for all of those interested in Integrated Marketing Communications and runs every Wednesday night at 8pm ET.
