Human Language is not just a Social Media Thing

I don’t know how I slipped into it, why I started thinking this way, but I lost one of the key principles of social media, speaking in a human voice. Somehow I started thinking and telling clients that the human voice thing can be left for the blog, Twitter, Facebook, etc, the rest of your website and marketing material can be marketing crap. (Ok, I didn’t use the word crap) As part of the Destination Marketing book club I'm leading everyone in the office through the “Cluetrain Manifesto” and while reading it for the first time in years,  I realized I went off track somewhere. It especially hit me in reading chapter three “Talk is Cheap” by Rick Levine. The below excerpt is what made it painfully clear.

Hart Scientific, Inc. (www.hartscientific.com) posted a convenient comparison of conversational versus traditional writing on their Web site. They have two versions of their Y2K compliance page. You can tell them apart:

Noncompliance issues could arise if Hart Scientific manufactured products are combined with other manufacturer’s products. Hart cannot test all possible system configurations in which Hart manufactured products could be incorporated. Our products currently test as being compliant and will continue to operate correctly after January 1, 2000. However, customers must test integrated systems to see if components work with Hart Scientific manufactured products. Hart makes no representation or warranty concerning non-Hart manufactured products.

And...

If you’re using our equipment with someone else’s gear, who the hell knows what’s going to happen. We sure don’t, so how can we promise you something specific, or even vague for that matter? We can’t, so we won’t. However, we love our customers and like always we’ll do whatever is reasonable to solve whatever problems come up, if there are any.

Which one would you rather read? Which one connects you to the brand, and gives you a sense of working with people, instead of a corporation?

I used to preach this and then lost it, and I think social media is to blame partly. It’s easy to put social media in a silo. For some reason in all the talk about Twitter, Blogs, Facebook, etc. I forgot that the principles that work with those social tools, work with all forms of media.

Heck I even warned against thinking social media are tools in a blog post  “Social Media, Philosophy, Tools, or Both?” Maybe I should take my own advice!

Well people get off track. I was there, but now I’m back. It’s not going to be an easy battle, but that has never stopped me before.

I encourage you to join me (if you aren’t there already) and to not relegate human voices to a blog, Twitter, or Facebook. Lets push companies and ourselves in talking with a natural voice in all mediums of communication.

Who  wants to read, listen, or even do business with a bunch of marketing crap anyway?

Social Media, Philosophy, Tools, or Both?

When I talk with people about social media, I talk about it more as a philosophy than a tool.  So what is it?

Is social media anything that uses social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.? Or is it a company or personal philosophy about having and valuing two way conversations with people? Or is it both?

My contention is that social media is a set of tools that should be used to implement a communications philosophy. The problem is that if your communication philosophy or strategy is flawed, the tools will not help you and may harm you.

As I sit here and watch Top Gear, it makes me think of an analogy. Implementing social media without the right philosophy is like driving and F1 car without the proper training. You have the best tools in the world, but without the proper strategy and training, you're either gonna sit their trying to figure out how to start it, or you won't be able to control the power and you may kill yourself.

So instead of talking about tools, lets talk about the philosophy. Let's figure out ways to show companies the value of two way communications with both customers and employees. Make them crave and desire those conversations. Once that is accomplished they will seek out the tools on their own.

Social media tools will come and go. If we concentrate on teaching how to use Facebook and Twitter, and those go the way of Friendster what are we accomplishing in the long term? Plus can you really get someone to use these tools correctly, if they don't buy into the premise behind them in the first place?

Goal number one needs to be to get the philosophy understood and bought into. Goal number two should be to teach them how to use the tools to implement their communication strategy.

I've seen enough Skittles.com social media implementations, these tools are better than that.

Communication 2.0 needs to come before Web 2.0.

Kevin

Should We Launch Online Campaigns via Traditional Media?

Does Jack in the Box have the right formula?

Ever since Jack in The Box “Hang in there Jack” launched, I've wondered if launching an online social network, or viral campaign via TV is efficient. (Ok, truthfully I missed the spot all together when watching the Super Bowl, but that doesn't help prove my point.)

I know several successful online “viral” campaigns have launched via TV, but it's time to move on to a different strategy. BMW was very successful with their BMW films campaign, but it's a much different time now, and I don't know if that was “viral” in the first place. (I hate how viral is used in reference to online campaigns, so I feel better when I put it in quotes.  Don't ask me why.)

Why not launch the campaign online first, and use social media to promote it? This is not only cheaper, but increases the chances influencers online will adopt the campaign as their own and help promote it. Using mass media to promote something online is almost shunned by this group, and it will be hard to get their acceptance once you do.

Another benefit to launching online is that the company or agency behind the program can test the campaign and see if it works before spending millions of dollars promoting it with traditional media. You could even refine the campaign to see what works before launching it on a larger scale.

Best case scenario would be if the campaign went “viral” without mass media at all. You could reach millions of people for a fraction of the cost of a Super Bowl ad, and you would get a sense of ownership from those participating, that you don't get using mass media.

One of the reasons something goes “viral” is that it seems special to the viewer. So special or unique that those who see it want to share it with their friends.

If a campaign launches during the Super Bowl, how special is it? Do you think, “wow I bet my friends have not seen this and would enjoy it”? Probably not.

Maybe I'm wrong. By the looks of the numbers to the site, the Twitter account, Facebook group etc. Jack in the Box seems to be getting a lot of participation. I think that has more to do with the fact that they are one of the first to have a truly integrated social media campaign, not because of a brilliant execution strategy.

What do you think?

What can I edit in a Twitter Re-Tweet?

 

What's the deal with the Twitter Re-Tweet (RT)? Talking about getting more RT's seems to be all the rage lately, but what rules are their around the RT? 

What room do we have to edit a RT?  Can I merely RT the link with credit and then post my own comments around that?  Or do I need to keep the original tweet as close to the original as possible and then try to add my comments at the end if possible? Switching as many of the you's to U, and two's to 2, etc.

Shouldn't we as Twitters be able to simply RT the link and post our own comments? If we can, how would we show this? Take the below example of something I RT'd the other night.

"RT @mitchjoel: By the looks of this, Social Media is just getting started. Where do u think it's going? Add ur side here: http://is.gd/ijlm"

Can I change this to,..

"RT @mitchjoel http://is.gd/ijlm ;(The changing demo of social media and what's gonna happen next?)"

Or am I not giving the originator of the Tweet his proper credit? Or maybe, because I added new content to the tweet do I even need to give credit to the original tweeter at all for the link?

What if I read the post by Mitch, but then saw his tweet afterwards?  Do I need to RT him, or can I simply do my own Tweet?  Same question can be asked for other content on Twitter as well.  Before I post a link should I scan everyone I subscribe to in order to see if they have already Tweeted the link?

Please free me from this Twitter RT jail, and let me know what you think.

Why Social Media?

Ever since I started relaunching Social Media Club Seattle, my friends and co-workers keep asking me, why social media?  Ok, so sometimes that question comes after the what is social media question?  But at any rate, not everyone gets why I would want to be involved in a group about social media.

They see social media as a way to connect to friends, but what else could it do, and why would an advertising guy be interested?

Well, I am interested, (ok a little obsessed) with social media, because I have seen the power it has. I have seen social media transform the reputation of brands, raise thousands of dollars for a good cause, and change the marketing direction of large companies in a matter of days.

Comcast, a brand with a horrible reputation among tech geeks needed to improve their customer service reputation.  What did they do?  They turned to social media, and it's well documented in this NY Times Article

So by monitoring online conversations, and participating in online networks such as Twitter with @comcastcares, Comcast has started to change their brands image.  They have turned a community of people who were actively disparaging the brand online 2 years ago, into brand fanatics that actively promote Comcast.  I follow around 300 people on Twitter, and I can barely go a week without one of them raving about @comcastcares. That kind of word of mouth outreach does a lot to help a reputation of a company. This is something traditional advertising could not accomplish, especially not this fast, or so inexpensively.

The main reason @comcastcares was a success was people view their online connections positively. We are looking to learn and share with those we are connected with online, so we are less skeptical about what they are telling us. That can not be said about what we see on TV, hear on the radio, or see in a banner ad.

Zappos CEO gets it.  He buys into social media and blogs and tweets. This has led to a culture at Zappos that is focused around the customer.  What other CEO of a company with over $1 billion in sales would respond to random bloggers on Twitter, or respond to others blog post? Here are two great articles about Zappos, one from Adweek, and one from ReadWriteWeb.

Do a search for Zappos and you’ll see the results. It seems almost every blogger has interviewed Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh.  What amazing PR, and a way to make a one to one connection with their customers. These aren’t just any customers promoting Zappos either, they are influencers that will then communicate this message to many others online and off.

You may be saying sure social media can increase brand awareness and perception, but how do we place a value on it? The best example I have of the potential is a recent plea for help from David Armano. His plea for $5,000 for a family in need was taken to heart by his followers. Within 12 hours of his original post he already had raised over double what he was hoping. A truly amazing and heart warming story of the power of a network and relationships.

There are many questions we can ask about this example, and things that must be quantified, but I have two that come to mind first as a marketer. How was David able to “influence” his online following to give? Or more importantly, what has David given his followers that they feel the need to give back?

I could go on with stories like this, both positive and negative. I could talk about the influence of a small Twitter group over a huge brand like J&J, in the Motrin Mom fiasco. Or talk about how H&R Block used social media and a fake persona to connect with consumers.

It seems everyday there is another case study or example of the power of social media. That alone is exciting, but the reason I am involved is the unknown of social media. How do we quantify why some social media marketing campaings work, and some don't? What are the best practices of social media, or the best implementation for a given brand? That is why I have connected both online and offline to others exploring these same questions.

Social media is growing and changing faster than anyone can keep up. We are at the infancy of something will change not only the way companies interact with consumers, but also the way they do business internally.

I have encouraged many of my friends to start participating in the social media space, and its great to see their excitement once the light switches on and they see the potential. It's hard to quantify what that potential is in a blog post like this, but trust me, spend a month participating in the conversation online and you'll see it too.

Who should control Social Media? PR, Marketing, Customer Service?

For some reason the question of where to place of social media on a company org chart is a thing of much debate. I have read post about how it should be in PR and I have also read people blog that it should be in customer service. I haven't seen any post about it going under marketing, but then again, using social media for marketing is something that is done, but no one likes to talk about.

Let's step back and reevaluate this for a moment however, why are we trying to fit the square peg that is social media, into a round whole that is PR, marketing, and customer service? Sure social media can be used to accomplish all three, but aren't we constraining the benefits if we put aPR, marketing, or customer service in charge of it?

Or even worse, some larger companies put all three departments in charge of it. I was at a panel discussion the other week, and heard about how Microsoft does this. They have social media people in all three groups. They have enough money to start a separate social media department. Why don't they?

How do companies benefit from having one person/department monitor and interact with people in a customer service realm, and then a different person/department on the PR side? How are meaningful relationships going to be made when the people doing these interactions only have them when discussing certain topics?

Sure some companies don't have the funds to develop their own social media department with a C level exec etc., but they do need to give control to someone.

This person may report to a Marketing or PR Exec, but this social media guru must have control and knowledge of all three areas online. If not relationships will not be made, and certain areas of opportunities in social media will be missed.

Only by seeing all the opportunities in social media, and taking part in all of them, will social media then benefit companies in the way they are hoping.

Traditional Media don't be Scared!

Why is it that traditional media and new media just can't get along? Why is it that I go to countless presentations by TV and Radio stations and all they ever try to do is justify their existence? It's always about reach! They say “you can't get reach like this anywhere else” (who are they kidding?). Or they try to sell their personal connection with their audience. I love when they say their website, has more dedicated followers that trust them and is more valuable than a typical website.

Seriously? When was the last time you felt a personal connection to a traditional media's website more than say a social website?

Traditional media is not dead by any stretch of the imagination, nor will it be anytime soon, but with this type of talk they are sure digging their grave rather fast. Why aren't they figuring out ways to develop deeper relationships and connections with their audience?

It's because they are scared of loosing audience to other sites and using other formats they do not control. Sure they have all added blogs, but why won't they reach out to their audience and connect in a more meaningful way? Why not have Facebook groups, Twitter profiles etc.?

No one wants to read a blog that talks about the same things they do on the air. They read a blog to find out what their DJ or news Anchorman is really like. Or at the very least to get a behind the scenes look at what is going on at the station.

I listen to the Hot AC radio station here in Seattle, (only in the morning mind you, it wakes me up) with an ideal Facebook demo, and they do not even have a Facebook Group that I can find. Their morning Jocks have Facebook profiles but they are private. (I would try to friend them, but don't want that showing up on my profile!)

TV is the same way. I have a friend who is a Weatherman, and I have been trying to convince him to join Twitter. He could be the Weatherman for Twitter, and connect with his audience on a deeper way, but as of yet he has not done it.

Why do these traditional media formats avoid these social platforms? It's all about controlling the audience. They still think they have control like they did 20 years ago, and sadly refuse to wake-up to the idea that they are now just a small part of people lives.

Only by embracing other media formats, and loosing control will they truly develop a deep relationship with their audiences. Once that relationship is established they will then have something more valuable then reach, they will have insight and a connection on a personal level.

In traditional media?  Let me know what you think.

Kevin Urie

Social Media Burnout? Will we see social media Karo-jisatsu?

How long until a big time social media enthusiast burns out and leaves the medium all together?  Or ever worse, how long until someone that is on Twitter 7 days a week 18 hrs a day, finally has enough and either goes insane, or does the unthinkable because of the over work?

Getting online everyday, blogging, checking your Tweets, replying to Facebook invites etc. can be overwhelming.  I even find that simply Tweets or Facebook updates can just be a little too much for me on certain days.

You can love the space all you want, but at some point people need breaks.  We need to breakup our lives in order to give us balance.  Otherwise I see too many of us in the social media space becoming much like Japan's Karo-jisatsu workers.

I am sure these Karo-jisatsu loved there job as well, and were trying to simply provide for their families and help others, but we must make sure everything is in balance.

All too often I find myself with my laptop in the family room as my wife and kids are doing something else.  Of course I justify it by saying I need to work harder, and stay on top of this stuff especially during these down economic times, but is it worth it? Probably not.

Finding that balance is different for everyone, but we all must try and be understating with others as they find their balance.  So next time you see 3 blog post, and 30 tweets on a Saturday or Sunday from your favorite social media guru, make sure to throw up a prayer to help the guy out.

At the very least be understanding if he does not get back to your ping immediately.

Are you hiding behind social media?

Something I deal with every time I write on this blog or even tweet, is my tendency to hide.   Am I truly being me, or am I pretending to be the person I want the online community to think I am?

I am currently reading the book “The Silence of Adam”.  It is a Christian book that talks about how men should really act.  I came across the quote below, and it made me think about social media, how I learn, and my fears.

“Men are easily threatened. And whenever a man is threatened, when he becomes uncomfortable in places within himself that he does not understand, he naturally retreats into an arena of comfort or competence, or he dominates someone or something in order to feel powerful.  Men refuse to feel the paralyzing and humbling horror of uncertainty, a horror that could drive them to trust, a horror that could release in them the power to deeply give themselves in relationships. As a results most men feel close to no one........”

What is holding you back?  Are your fears or uncertainties holding you back form achieving your potential?  Are they holding you back from truly taking a place in social media and joining the conversation, and giving people insight on who you are?

Social media can seem like a vulnerable place.  Putting yourself out there for many to see, and possibly disagree with you.  Yet only once you do that, do you truly find your place, and do you start to develop real relationships.

The Election, Customized Messages, and Connections

I'm taking a break from my Apple rant today, to talk about what everyone else is talking about today, the election.

This years election is fascinating, the internet and especially social media has allowed people to connect with their candidates like never before.  It started with the amazing connection many people felt with the old man out of Texas, Ron Paul, and then transitioned to other candidates.

Social media has allowed voters to feel a personal connection to their candidates, and has allowed the candidates to customize their message to reach specific demographics.

Obama did not personally connect with people online, but instead he encouraged his supporters to connect together and form a strong online community.  He allowed voters to find other people like themselves that were voting for Obama, and talk and develop an online connection. 9 out of 10 people I follow on Twitter have been telling me to vote for Obama and reasons why.  I have never met most of these people, but I trust them with other advice, why would I not trust them with political advice?  Especially when their reasons for voting for Obama are targeted to the online geek demographic I fit into?

Obama is capitalizing on, online word of mouth.  He has even segmented his supporters into groups.  Look at his website, under the people header.  There anyone can find a group to associate with, whether it is a Christian group, Arab Group, Latin American group, etc.  Instead of trying to be one brand for everyone, Obama has segmented his brand and tweaked it for each of these groups.

He is very generic with his mass media message and somewhat unclear, but then when targeting these small groups he has customized his message to appeal to them.  This would have been impossible to do with traditional media.

Each group of supporters has made the Obama brand their own.  Geeks love him for one thing and that is what he talks about to them, and Labor loves him for other reasons and he talks to them about that.

In some ways Obama has let his supporters take over the Obama Brand. They have made it their own, and have developed a strong connection with their views of who Obama is.

Could this backlash once he is President, and he has to make decisions that alienate groups of his followers? Probably, but I am sure he will once again engage the community, and talk to them online in a personal direct manner that appeals to their interest to minimizes the backlash.

It is an amazing strategy, and something political advisors will be studying for years to com