Then Facebook announced they were eliminating the FBML application.  From the internal rumblings of the Affinitive development team, this presents huge opportunities.  However, there is at least one major consequence.

The elimination of both boxes and FBML apps means no more content on the left-hand column of the Wall tab (save for the native field below the profile image.)  Before this announcement, many brands used the left-hand column to place their moderation policies, guidelines, rules of the road and required legal language.  For some brands (a few of our clients included), that copy is required by their legal and compliance teams.

This content must now be pared down to the 255 character limit of the native field if you hope to keep it in the profile column.  That might work if it’s one line of legal, but a 200 word policy?  Think again.

For now, the easiest option is to place the content on the Info tab, which allows for significantly more text. Linked from the native field under the profile photo, the policy or legal language can still be referenced on the Wall tab.  If that's not an option, try creating an additional “Our Policy” or “Legal” tab with an application so there's a persistent navigation item referencing the required language.

Either way, if you’re a brand with a policy or legal language in the left-hand column of your Facebook page, you should discuss your options with your legal or compliance teams and find a way to adapt quickly.  Facebook is notoriously fickle, and the last thing you need is to get yourself caught in some social media red tape.

I refer to these concepts as Social Referrals and Social SEO - two related, but very different concepts that any social marketer needs to understand:

Social Referrals:

Traffic to your site via content and/or links posted on social outposts such as Facebook and Twitter by yourself and others.

Social Referrals are driven by a combination of brand-driven referrals (posting a link to your Twitter/Facebook accounts), amplified sharing (consumer retweets), and via built-in sharing tools tied to content on your site.

For many companies (especially those with constantly fresh/dynamic content such as news sites and blogs), social referral traffic has risen to probably the #2 or #3 source of referral traffic (behind organic search and any online advertising).

Types of Social Referral Content:

• Breaking News (people share this quickly because they want to be the first to 'break' this to their friends)
• Viral Content, such as a funny video or photo (sharing this via Facebook/Twitter is considered ok/non-intrusive versus through email)
• Online Coupons/Sales/Offers (what can I say, people love free/discounted stuff!)
• Interesting/Informative Stories/Blog Posts (again, this content acts as social currency for the person sharing it, making them look good/in-the-know - the reality is, many people share this sort of content without even fully-reading the article! I'm as guilty as anyone else)

Social referrals tend to have a very short shelf life, and while true, some of the major search engines are starting to index them, their "relevancy" value in the eyes of search engines diminishes quickly.

Social SEO:

Traffic to your site via search engines, based on consumer-generated content relevancy to keywords.

Social SEO is a side benefit of facilitating user-generated content on your company's website. For example, consumers aren't necessarily seeking out information on, let's say, a bottle of Redwood Creek wine. But, what if the brand has a thriving consumer community of outdoor enthusiasts who love to post/share BBQ and campfire recipes? Over time, the relevancy of that content trickles up the search engine ranks, and eventually can work it's way to the top! We refer to this valuable, relevant, organic, indexable content as "Google Juice".

Next, you've connected with this consumer based on their interest, while introducing your brand to them in the context of that interest. Not only will they find the user-generated content they discovered as relevant and informative, but they may in turn go on to become a part of your community to connect with other like-minded folks.

(note: Social SEO only truly works if you have also implemented proper search engine optimization techniques into your website, i.e., title, meta tags, <h1>/<h2> html tags, etc.)

Types of Social SEO Content

• User-Submitted reviews, recipes, photos/videos (with proper meta info)
• Forum Posts/Discussions/Knowledge Bases
• Comments
• User Profiles

The value of Social SEO builds over time, since this content acts as a permanent archive/repository. It also creates a "long-tail" of relevant content, as each piece of UGC becomes in itself an SEO landing page. This makes it easy to measure/learn  what types of content drive the most search engine referral traffic.

Measuring the Impact of Social Referrals and Social SEO

If you are not measuring (both quantitatively and qualitatively) the impact of Social Referrals and Social SEO , you are leaving out a large component of the Social ROI equation! Some examples include:

• Short term traffic bumps (Social Referrals), long term traffic growth trend (Social SEO)
• Increase in engagement metrics, time on site, etc.
• Community registrations, email signups, fan/follower acquisition
• Coupon redemption/conversion to sales/transactions
• CRM insights (do social referrals result in larger/more frequent purchases? Are community members who joined via Social SEO more active/engaged than others?)
• Insights into consumer interests/needs and where your brand is resonating/standing out (i.e., wine + campfire/BBQ recipes = brand positioning)
• Customer support savings (consumers solving own problems via locating answers provided by other consumers on your community/knowledge base)

Let's me finish by asking you a question - how did you come across this blog post? Was it via a link someone tweeted or a Google search result? Drop me a line or leave a comment below if you'd like to discuss/debate further!

I'm as excited as anyone about the social marketing potential of the 'real-time' web, particularly as it applies to the mobile/location-based space. As more and more people flock to apps such as Foursquare, Gowalla, and BriteKite to document their every movement, everyone from local businesses to global brands are taking notice and trying to put together strategies to engage and reward consumers with "badges" (virtual "social currency") and discounts/offers (tangible incentives) through these platforms (for the sake of my post, we'll assume these are mostly actual consumers and not just all of us industry folks).

But the question remains - are you engaging/rewarding the right people? Let me use an analogy to illustrate…

Growing up, I spent a good deal of time working/hanging out at my family's pizza business. Like a typical small-town local business, there were always a few interesting characters/regulars who would make it their home away from home, hanging out in the store day after day. They'd interact with other customers, tell jokes, and drink soda. Lots and lots of free soda. But they would never buy more than a slice of pizza during the course of a day.

In their minds, they were the "mayors" of the restaurant, where "everyone knew their names" and in a way they felt like they "owned" the place. But to us, they were "mascots" - nice folks, fun to have around, but of no real value to the business (and in some ways, potentially distracting to both customers and staff). They often came alone (didn't have many friends), nor did they go out of their way to promote the business. My point is, don't equate activity with influence.

So, when executing your location-based (or any consumer engagement) strategy, ask yourself - are you actually targeting "Mayors" or "Mascots"?

(Note: Even one of my company's clients, Sports Authority, recently dove head-first into the location-based marketing space by offering $10 in-store cash cards via Foursquare to the "Mayors" of each of their stores nationwide. While it has made for a great PR/industry piece, the overall impact is just a blip on the radar compared to what they have seen by providing Facebook and Twitter-exclusive offers to their hundreds of thousands of fans and followers (or millions of others through weekend circulars), and won't have solid loyalty metrics for some time. And like any other business, unless these location-based social tactics are integrated into a larger CRM/loyalty initiative, you will never know if you are in fact targeting "Mayors" or "Mascots")

In its purest form media is simply communication. In years past this included primarily newspapers, magazines and vinyl.  When the barrier to entry for media was at its highest—when you had to buy a printing press in order to spread the word—media moguls saw this as an opportunity to control the hearts and minds of the public.  At least that’s how Gail Wynad thought in Ayn Rand’s classic novel, The Fountainhead.  But look at ole Gail Wynad against our real life media baron, Rupert Murdock, it seems to be an accurate depiction.  It has been widely known for ages that “the pen is mightier than the sword”.

Now in the age of the Internet, there has been a philosophical jail-break of ideas and opinions through the ever-widening channels of social media.  Suddenly the hearts and minds are not forced into reading the daily newspaper and watching the evening news where the adage “if it bleeds it leads” is still painfully true.

Looking at the cause and effect nature of media, a massive shift also occurred.  Back in the day of printing presses, it would take many hours to broadcast the news from that day, no matter how gigantic.  That all changed with the advent of social media.  As documented by Dan Gilmor in We the Media, the day that it changed was on March 26, 2002 when Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio was answering questions during a press conference when someone in the audience, keeping track of the social stream on their mobile device, noticed that Mr. Nacchio had just sold $200 Million in shares in the company.  Contradicting what Joe was saying to the conference, this reporter raised his hand and called Joe on the carpet and asked him about the nefarious stock trade.

Media ceased to simply report events, and began to actually affect events.

Now we see that every day as Facebook brings together old friends—friends that would not have reconnected without the friend recommendation.  So, what is next?  Where is the media industry going now?  We’re like a snow globe all shook up.

Philosophically if News Corp loses its grip on us, and we are no longer force-fed the worst news the pundits can dig up, maybe we’ll start to see that the glass is half full.  If the public doesn’t have to take the incessant bad news, maybe this is a way to make the world a better place.  I have personally gone on a news fast and I feel great ever since.

I’m optimistic that although all this havoc is making it very difficult to make money in the media industry, there are many good things to come.  We don’t pick up the paper any more for front page headlines about murder, rape, political turmoil, religious warfare, cultural intolerance and greed—all because all of us have the power to generate content.  And if the concept of mind-over-matter has any glimmer of truth, just the avoidance of horrible headlines will bring more positivity to our world.  Time to stop and smell the virtual roses.

Talk about trending up!

(click to enlarge)

]]> http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/the-science-of-word-of-mouth-infographic/2010/05/14/feed/ 8 http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/is-diversity-the-key-to-influence-on-twitter/2010/04/16/ http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/social-media/is-diversity-the-key-to-influence-on-twitter/2010/04/16/#comments Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:03:02 +0000 Erica Hall http://www.socialmediaplayground.com/?p=935 The Million Follower Fallacy: Audience Size Doesn't Prove Influence on Twitter by Sarah Perez reviews a study by Meeyoung Cha, Hamed Haddadi, Fabricio Benevenuto, and Krishna P. Gummadi* that gives the research data to back up what most social media pros already know - follower counts on Twitter are  "somewhat of a meaningless metric when it comes to determining influence."

One of the most interesting points of Perez's analysis is that the most influential Twitter accounts "hold significant influence over a variety of topics, as opposed to being experts in just one area."  While many brands on Twitter speak to a particular demographic or topic area; based on this study and the popularity of celebrity Twitter users like Sean "P Diffy" Combs (who tweets everything from concert dates to bible quotes), Twitter influencers seem to be seen as experts on a wide variety of topics.  In fact the study shows that "retweeted users tended to be content aggregation services."

This information is particularity interesting when we as social media pros think about audience development on Twitter. As we look to develop audiences on Twitter when our clients are in a niche area, gaming, sports, retail etc., is it important to make sure that a brand's voice offers (or even re-tweets) authoritative information on a wide variety of subjects? Perhaps it is important that a brand's Twitter voice speaks to what is popular in and around their niche.  For instance, it could make sense for a sports blog to begins discussing a less than popular sport, or maybe they comment on the antics of celebrity athletes, or even the health care debate?

The difficulties in this theory are that it could be hard to reign in "diversifying." How much is enough? What sorts of topics should a brand discuss? How often should a brand jump on a Twitter trend?  No matter what strategy employed it is my opinion that it is always vitally important that the tweets of any particular brand always reflect back not only to the brand's core values but to the goals of that brand's Twitter outreach.  After all, the content aggregation Twitter accounts and news channels are not only speaking on a wide variety of topics but these topics are targeted to speak to a particular niche (current events, politics, sports, etc) and stay on brand message (CNN is the "news leader").

Do you think this study brings up a good point about diversifying content strategies or are niche approaches more effective? I'd love to hear your thoughts below.

Read more on the study here.

*(Study institutions included: Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS), Germany †Royal Veterinary College, University of London, United Kingdom ‡CS Dept., Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil)

I recently came across a pretty nifty widget that illustrates the exponential growth of the "social web". Similar to the famed National Debt Clock, although the chart doesn't pull in "real-time" data, the information it dynamically presents is based on a number of key social web data points from a number of sources, i.e.:

• 20 hours of video uploaded every minute onto YouTube (source YouTube blog Aug 09)
• Facebook 600k new members per day, and photos, videos per month, 700mill & 4 mill respectively (source Inside Facebook Feb 09)
• Twitter 18 million new users per year & 4 million tweets sent daily (source TechCrunch Apr 09)
• iPolicy UK – SMS messaging has a bright future (Aug 09)
• 900 000 blogs posts put up every day (source Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2008)
• YouTube daily, 96 million videos watched, $1mill bandwidth costs (source Comscore Jul 06 !)
• Second Life 250k virtual goods made daily, text messages 1250 per second (source Linden Lab release Sep 09)
• Money – $5.5 billion on virtual goods (casual & game worlds) even Facebooks gifts make $70 million annually (source Viximo Aug 09)
• Flickr has 73 million visitors a month who upload 700 million photos (source Yahoo Mar 09)
• Mobile social network subscribers – 92.5 million at the end of 2008, by end of 2013 rising to between 641.6-873.1 million or 132 mill annually (source Informa PDF)
• SMS – Over 2.3 trillion messages will be sent across major markets worldwide in 2008 (source Everysingleoneofus sms statistics)

Although not "real-time", the chart still provides some interesting visual cues - for example, note that iPhone apps are being downloaded at a faster rate than new blog posts are being posted!)

If anyone has come across any similar types of charts, please let me know in the comments area below. Thanks!

In this post, Haque discusses the relationships that are created through all of these social mediums, medias, platforms, networks, and spheres. Are they all super-thin and riddled with layers of doubt? Are they sustainable as long term connections?

His hypothesis:

I'd like to advance a hypothesis: Despite all the excitement surrounding social media, the Internet isn't connecting us as much as we think it is. It's largely home to weak, artificial connections, what I call thin relationships.

Interesting.

He continues on through his "thin relationship" rationale (some I agree with, some I don't) and then closes with:

The social isn't about beauty contests and popularity contests. They're a distortion, a caricature of the real thing. It's about trust, connection, and community. That's what there's too little of in today's mediascape, despite all the hoopla surrounding social tools. The promise of the Internet wasn't merely to inflate relationships, without adding depth, resonance, and meaning. It was to fundamentally rewire people, communities, civil society, business, and the state — through thicker, stronger, more meaningful relationships. That's where the future of media lies.

While his argument is seemingly about personal relationships forged in the social sphere and not the relationships between brands and consumers in the social space, I think the same rules of engagement and long term evolutionary objectives could apply. In fact, I believe it applies even MORE SO to brands than to people. To me, people connect online socially for varying reasons. To find other people who like to play soccer. To learn how to properly curl their hair. To find a French tutor via Craigslist. Some of these manifest themselves into deep relationships but most are thin just like they would be in real life. These types of relationships simply have a backbone in a "shared interest" or an immediate "need" which usually is more superficial and immediate than not.

However, by nature brands NEED to retain connections. They need loyalty. They need longevity. They need "thick" relationships. The future of media (and of communication) does lie (in my humble opinion) in "thick, strong, more meaningful" relationships.

They need... well... in three letters? C-R-M.

Rather than offer up any analysis or insight, I'd like to point you to the 213 (at press time) and counting comments on his blog post that I spent a good hour digging through. If you have a moment, take a peek at them. Very interesting, indeed.

[image via Wendy Bailey's blog here.]

(click the image for an easier-to-read version. Note that this a 'living' chart that I have been soliciting feedback/input on - if you have any suggestions/additions/changes, just post a comment below or at the SlideShare page!)

I've already noted how social media is not the same as Word of Mouth. And as the social landscape broadens, it's simply causing more confusion as the term "social" gets slapped on just about anything to make it sound cool and relevant.

Above is a chart I've been working on that tries to illustrate the "social" landscape in terms of tactics and goals. You should be able to take any social touchpoint/tactic/business model (brand community, Twitter profile, blogger outreach, CGM sweepstakes) and plot them on this chart.

Essentially, this chart segments the social landscape into four quadrants... as a function of:

• CRM (social CRM or sCRM)
• Marketing (social MARKETING)
• PR (social PR)
• Media (social MEDIA)

The horizontal axis represents "owned" social channels (that you own/control) versus "leased" ones (i.e., paying a company for access to their network of consumers willing to try and/or talk about your product). The "partially owned" area represents social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook where yes, you can establish a brand presence but you don't own any underlying data and are at the whim of the service provider in terms of metrics or even having your account suspended. The vertical axis represents the depth of engagement from very 1-to-1/personal to impersonal/3rd-person - i.e., "engagement" vs. "reach":

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with leveraging the social web to facilitate high-impact, quick hit consumer promotions, but at the end of the day was your goal to "reach" 1,000,000 consumers with a message about your product, or simply "acquire" a 10,000 email addresses into your company's email database? As the social landscape broadens, marketers need to ensure that their success metrics are in line with the tactics they are leveraging. And that unfortunately can't happen until you have properly educated the folks holding the pursestrings.

Recently, Chris Brogan's article "Attention as Currency and Noise" briefly delves in to the concept of attention budgeting, as he explores the value of attention.  As social marketing "pros",  we are attempting to catch the attention of our target audience in a manner that conveys trust and reaffirms our clients' brand reputation.  For a busy social media professional it can sometimes be difficult to decide how to effectively manage all of the  "one-to-many" conversations you are having online, which Brogan describes as "where the real value of social media kicks in."

As with most marketing functions, the first question to ask yourself is "what are my goals?"  Are you trying to grow fans, trying to influence key tastemakers, or trying to drive traffic to your brand's website? Once you know your goals, you can begin to plan a strategy.  Every brand and every industry will have a different set of problems and solutions.  Since social media affects different industry verticals in different ways, you need to determine an overall social media strategy that works best for each client.

Within that framework you then must decide on a client-by-client basis how much time you should spend on audience development, and on which social platforms to focus your efforts.  Mark Tosczak offers some great ideas on how to determine this for your clients, including focusing on how much content you have, how much time you have to create content, and the importance of taking time to listen, read and interact.  He offers that you should concentrate most of your attention on the "20 percent of tools/sites/strategies that are going to yield 80 percent of your results."

Once this has been done for each brand I recommend plotting out all your brands and categorizing them by: category/vertical (retail/brick and mortar, CPG, celebrity), goals (brand awareness, fan acquisition, generate UGC), social network (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc.) and then assign the amount of time per week associated with accomplishing each goal.  By placing everything in one place you can determine how much of your day and week you allow yourself to be sucked in to the world of social (which for some of us can border on addiction).

Of course, this is just one method of determining how to budget your attention.  I'd love to hear what's worked for you? Let me know in the comments below.