This June 8 & 9th the Search Engine Strategies conference will return to Toronto. I had the pleasure of speaking at the event in 2007 and as the landscape continues to evolve, this year looks to have some great sessions on “what’s next” in search, along with the tried and true sessions about SEO & SEM. This year I’m covering SES right here on (3i). I hope to impart some of the goodness I’ll be learning over the two-days and if you have any particular sessions you’d like me to recap, let me know in the comments!

In addition to the keynote by the excellent Miss Rogue, Tara Hunt, author of The Whuffie Factor, the first day has some fantastic sessions, including:

• Is PageRank Broken? The Future of Search
• Universal and Blended Search: Comprehensive Visibility Challenges
• Optimizing for Video Search: Virgin Territory?
• SEO Then & Now: What’s the Same? What’s New? [I'll be featuring an interview with one of the panelists, Anne Kennedy, in the coming weeks on (3i). ]

Day 2 again features some terrific sessions in addition to the keynote by Emanuel Rosen, author of The Anatomy of Buzz Revisited:

• Follow the Carrot: Cool Mobile Apps
• Information Architecture, Site Performance Tuning and SEO
• Social Media: Do Big Companies Get It?
• How to Speak Geek: Working Collaboratively With Your IT Department to Get Things Done

If you are at the conference make sure to find me to say hi, or if you aren’t attending, follow along here and leave me a comment with your perspective on the hot issues being discussed!

It feels like yesterday at times when the Cluetrain Manifesto was published, but in reality it’s been 10 years since the seminal, and controversial, book was published. To mark the anniversary, Keith McArthur began the “Cluetrain Plus 10” project which has 95 bloggers covering one of the 95 Theses that make up the book.

Cluetrain, for me, helped articulate the changing landscape of customer/ company interactions as the Internet began to come of age, along with other more brand/ e-comm focused books of the time. Although I see some parts as a tad one-sided and biased in terms of forcing a point, versus the natural evolution (and constraints) of business, the manifesto I’ve chosen to write about - Companies attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their market actually cares about – rings truer than ever at this stage of the game in my view.

When companies decide to exist and build a product, one of the most natural and necessary things, for company wide alignment, is to develop a market position. All too often the way they go about it is internally, or shareholder, focused vs. allowing the focus to rest on their customer and their needs, insight, and focus.

Unfortunately it’s not surprising to sometimes find a force-fit approach lacking the fundamental questions all sustainable, successful companies in today’s market answer:

Why would anyone care?

What do they care about on a personal/ group level vs. as a “market”

Who are you really – are you part of the solution, or part of a problem?

What you do and who you are matter, especially as the world becomes increasingly wired and we become billions of loose threads interconnected 24/7. The absence of the connection - to something tangible we can relate to, be interested in, give a second thought to, and know there isn’t a hidden agenda, outside of making fair profits – means the potential loss of: trust; perceived value; a sale; a future sale; a referral; knowledge; social capital.

People still buy from companies they don’t really “connect” with (be it at a product, customer service, or emotional-brand level), but they do so grudgingly, and, on the whole, are open to other, more fulfilling, options. A company who is committed to a goal that makes sense to them as people, whatever that goal may be, in context, wins.

If you wanted to reach the people who may be interested in your product, would you want to be a company people understand & respect, or a company that’s a last resort?

Wouldn’t it be great to have your customers, and potential customers, on your side & providing you with actionable feedback, or would you prefer to be under siege & on the defensive?

The Internet offers one platform to become aware, and active, with the people who may benefit from what you have to offer them. But a strong position, in whatever regard, transcends the medium, and becomes part of the overall experience. The feedback loop in action. For this to truly work, the position has to be a real thing, not a product of a myopic “communications” view driven by expediency, lack of imagination, interest or insight, into the very “demographic” you are attempting to position for. Sometimes, when you dig deep enough, what you find will surprise, delight, and perhaps scare you. Maybe even open up a whole new opportunity you wouldn’t have considered if the “market” didn’t provide it to those who interacted with and listened to them.

How is that not the way to go in the long-term?

[photo credit: RichardLowkes via Flickr]

Social media is picking up steam in both the traditional media & in corporate boardrooms day by day. Everyone wants in on the action and wants to figure out how to use social technologies to their brands benefit. With this type of attention brings thoughts akin to “get rich quick” or mistaking a sound, over-arching, communications strategy that integrates social media, with executing social media tactics. Tactics and tools employed are not a strategy and won’t work just because someone tells you that you have to “get on Twitter”. If a consultant or agency pushes a particular tactic your way, ask them to explain why, outside of “it’s hot right now”.

When thinking of social tools there is no set formula or one-size fits all approach. What you get out of integrating these tools is dependant on the strategy you set at the outset. Twitter won’t work for every company, nor will having a blog. What will fit is what is determined based on the same principles any communications strategy or marketing plan is: knowing your product, your audience, your strengths and your weakness. Research is a must – not only what the current sentiment surrounding your brand is, but research into the established norms of the types of tools that may be right for you to use. Communities have a tricky habit of having their own way of doing things and it helps to set expectations up front before deciding, for example, that micro-blogging is the right approach to take. Not every brand can (or needs to) crowd source and not every company can afford to have constant interactions on a micro-level, in fact, sometimes the change that is most beneficial will have little to do with “getting the message out” and more to do with internalizing your customer.  

Knowing your limitations and setting realistic goals up front will help determine how social media will fit within your organization and to do that you have to understand your internal, as well as the external landscape.

Social media is not a cure all for what ails you, and not all of your customers want, or need, to have the same type of relationship with you. Blending how you interact, how you internalize, and what you can offer of value with how your marketing/ corporate message is/ can be disseminated is the path to take when planning. Don’t fall into the trap of taking a short-cut, integrate at the outset.

[photo credit: Vita Arina via Flickr]

This is a bit of a rant about something that is occuring all too frequently these days on my favourite social tool - Twitter. Yesterday an article in the Globe & Mail by Margaret Wente appeared that questioned, in her particular snarky tone of voice, the value of Twitter. You would have thought she questioned the cuteness of puppies by the vehement reaction by the Canadian Twitterverse. Update after update sought to match her snide tone and “set her straight”. It was an over-the-top reaction to a piece that in the grand scheme of things was just one persons opinion based on the plethora of mainstream media attention Twitter has been getting recently as the “next Internet phenom!!”. 

We really need to stop being so defensive. It’s a tool some of us use. It’s not for everyone after all and none of us own stocks.

Sure, it would have been nice if Wente had spent more time getting to know the tool before writing a piece about it, but let’s not forget that not every one has hours to spend figuring out the ins and outs of what is a highly charged, established community who are quite vocal when they deem you aren’t using it right. Not every one wants to either. If we cheer when Twitter makes the Wall Street Journal or The Star, are we not asking the general public to join based on what they’re reading? As with anything in life (and marketers should really know this already) people go through phases before deciding to buy (or join). Sure, we’d *like* them to take a test drive, but sometimes we have to rely on the dry specs and pretty pictures to even get on their consideration list. So Wente (who most likely has been hearing about the wonders of new media and Twitter from her colleague Mathew Ingram for months now) checked out the public stream and wasn’t impressed. Not surprising, there’s a lot of updates there about what people are having for lunch, and unless you have a group of people for whom you care about what they’re having for lunch, it really would seem silly for the lay person if we’re being honest. Of course that isn’t the *only* thing happening on Twitter, and not the reason I use it (I’ve explained before here and in an interview on CityNews recently why I use Twitter), but it takes a lot of time and energy to build that network… and maybe that isn’t time some people want to invest, or know they have to. Twitter works when it’s a conversation vs a monologue and perhaps, just perhaps, someone may have other channels they use when they want to converse. 

Let’s also add some perspective to the time investment using Twitter properly is - some people may not be able to bill clients for the hours upon hours they spend using the tool each day either, because they aren’t in marketing communications, PR, or customer service (or an entrepreneur, artist, etc.). Let’s keep that in mind when we jump all over people for not “getting” the tool.

I’m not a fan of Wente’s writing (or opinions) for the most part, but I recognize frustration with over-hype when I read it, and that’s what her piece felt like to me. I also wonder why no one called out the most glaring thing in regards to her article — she asked @biz (the guy who OWNS Twitter) for a chance to interview him the day before the piece ran. Did he care enough to defend it, or even respond? Perhaps her view of Twitter may have been different if the guy with the vested interest in getting positive coverage of his business by Canada’s largest daily paper had gotten back to her.

Twitter is for some, not for others, and it would be productive in my view to allow that there is more than one way to use the tool, or not. 

Also, that everyone is entitled to form an opinion based on what they read/ see. It’s up to the community to convince people the tool is right for them if we are going to get so defensive when they don’t “get it” and vocalize that, question it, or poke fun at it.

[photo credit: merwing via Flickr]

If you don’t know her already, her name is Vanessa Williams (aka @fridgebuzz) and she’s a leader in the tech and interactive space in Toronto. What makes Vanessa someone I admire is not only her incredible intellect and ability to code like a maniac in complex languages like Juxta, but the trail she blazed by being a leader when women programmers/ techies were a rarity. She’s commanded respect from her teams as well as from clients… all while believing in her inherent right to be treated as an equal in a male dominated field. She also took a chance with an idea she had for a startup and toiled away at her computer to make her vision a reality.

I don’t claim to know the intricacies of the work she does (I’m a strategist, not a programmer), but I do know that she always delivers results and I’ve had the pleasure of sharing many a pint on a patio and discussing the industry, technology, and the world with her. 

Vanessa is someone you should get to know.

With the constant drumbeat of the need to track feedback and respond within social networking channels online it is not surprising that marketers are drowning in the sea of “moment by moment” - with comments and issues moving in real time it’s all you can do to keep up and respond if needed (if your company is invested in the social space). Unfortunately, this type of cause and effect style of tactic doesn’t go deep enough in long-term actionable value for a brand. It’s reactionary (although extremely important), but not truly evolutionary on all levels of an organization.

The smart companies will recognize that value long-term and realizing ROI will come with integration with customer service and R&D. In the late 90s and early 00s companies spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on shiny CRM systems to track customer “relationships” - isn’t it time we set benchmarks to incorporate all the wonderful feedback we’re getting from customers (and potential customers) within the context of the larger organization? One-off responses to blog posts & following people who mention your brand on Twitter is all well and good, but shouldn’t that feedback close a loop too? 

If, for example, I wrote a post outlining my customer service issues with company X, as a customer I’d really appreciate it if I not only heard from the designated communications person in the comments, but when I called customer service there was a flag there that identified me and my issues from that post. 

That information would empower and inform the CSR and would make me feel as an individual that the company was *really* listening and incorporating my feedback. Sure, this will cost money in the short-term, but imagine the possibilities inherent in actually collecting and acting on that data systemically.  

Truly being strategic about how feedback in the digital social space is used will ultimately set brands apart from the competition and provide valuable, actionable, and measurable results. You spend millions of dollars on customer service, customer relations, communications, and product development - smart marketers will recognize the long-term benefits of layering in direct feedback as well. Incorporating a solution such as this would also enable a broader shift within the organization to truly put customers first… why not, every person at every touchpoint would actually be listening to them.

It’s not only about the communications, but what you do with them.

“Social media” is not just about one person, or even a dozen, within a company, it’s about a shift in how you interact *as a whole* with your customers.

[photo credit: enggul via Flickr]

It’s easy in marketing communications to get caught up in the ‘cleverness’ factor when developing a campaign - it’s usually quicker to get to market since it’s not usually targeted & multi-layered, it’s sexy, it can be distilled into a soundbite, and it’s, well, clever (who doesn’t like cleverness or wit?). With the downturn in the economy the pressure will start to mount to deliver quick results & many clients will opt to go with a ‘catchy’ campaign in the hopes of standing out and driving fast returns to justify their marketing budgets. It may not be a bad approach if the campaign is dead on with the strategy and insights (usually the type of campaign that *goes* viral), but too often that just isn’t the case. The problem with this type of approach is that it tries to force cultural reaction with little chance of, or planning for, long-term success.  The mistake of cultural reaction-baiting becomes amplified in the social media space, even while the potential for pick-up & viral distribution is hard to resist.

Over the long-term the brands that will succeed in our new multi-layered marketplace are the ones that think value and relevance first and ‘hook’ second. Part and parcel of trust is history… is your history one that the customer remembers for it’s intrinsic value, or as a day at the carnival (if they remember it at all)? At the outset of planning shift your mindset to think of why your product is of value to an individual, or how it can be used that adds value.

When you try to create a “viral” program what you are ultimately doing is adding further noise to your customers life. Sometimes they’ll appreciate the tune you are playing, but most times they won’t. However, when you set out to provide something valuable vs. noisy your chances of making it onto a regular playlist increase. Being “of value” doesn’t have to mean being boring, it should mean being creative *and* relevant.

[photo credit: Supercapacity on Flickr]

Social media is taking people powered organizing to a new level - the relative ease, speed, and agility with which groups of like-minded people can get together and affect change is amazing. The real life examples of this power continue to roll in and while the case studies are intoxicating, from a marketing and brand standpoint, it’s a good idea to separate the insights from the actions and ultimately to manage our expectations as marketers/ communicators.

A recent example of the power of social networks to rapidly mobilize and pull together an amazing “crowdsourced” event is the #hohoto.ca geek holiday party in Toronto which benefits the Daily Bread Food Bank. This event didn’t exist prior to a week ago and so far has raised over $8k for charity based only on Twitter communications (while the event will use other channels - Flickr, YouTube, etc. the organizing and promotion has happened almost exclusively via Twitter networks) by a group of people who got together and decided to throw a party. The money raised from ticket sales is impressive with over 100 folks signed up to attend, but the small business community has stepped up as well and sponsored the event, and the venue (Mod Club) and ticket agent (Eventbrite) have also waived their fees to help with a good cause. All in all this mobilization and the resulting support has been something to behold - check out the twitter search stream for a sampling of how active and generous the community has been!

(Other recent examples are of course the #motrinmoms recent controversy and the #mumbai tragedy, but those have been well covered, and for these purposes I’m going to focus on what brands can learn from the #hohoto example.)

However, the temptation will be to say this is another proof of concept that social media works and use this as a case study for how brands should jump on board and harness this crowdsourcing. Yes and no. While this does prove in the power of the tools to mobilize and activate individuals, it’s not something brands should *expect* to happen for them just by participating in the social web. There is a difference between passion for an IDEA and passion for a BRAND after all.

Here are a few key insights that companies can learn from #hohoto and what makes it different from outreach and participation in SocMed for a brand -

1. This event needed influential catalysts - the Mesh Conference team who are well known and liked influencers on the Toronto scene stepped in at the outset and pledged their support & promoted and “re-tweeted” the details non-stop to their network of “influencers” in the Toronto tech & communications community.
2. It’s the holiday season and geeks like any reason to get out and network in person - throw in a charity angle and you’ve got a winner of an idea.
3. Low commitment on behalf of the attendees - it’s a party after all, not providing intellectual property for the benefit of a company brand.
4. Lowered expectations surrounding the implementation - the website and promotion was a work-in-progress by a loose group of individuals. There were some snafus - the website didn’t actually list the event details when it first went up, the date changed after the launch & tickets were sold, and there were spelling mistakes, etc on the site. No harm, no foul, but if this was a “brand” event I expect the reaction would have been a tad harsh to the “launch & learn” approach.
5. The timeline for the event is tight - it’s being held on December 15th and therefore the constant stream of #hohoto hashtags and promotion is tolerated and embraced. If this were for a brand program I think we may have seen some “cease & desist” snark and comments from the Twitter community when every other tweet is about the event from personal accounts.
6. The tools are powerful and the “cool factor” of tweet streams, on-site video streaming, twitter DJ requests, etc. etc. are important to extending the reach and motivating this particular community, *but* without the two key IDEAS - holiday party networking & charity - they are just that, cool tools.

For a brand venturing or participating in the space it would be dangerous to expect the same type of response for a purely commercial endeavour. Crowdsourcing can be powerful, but it can also backfire if the right insights aren’t there at the outset. Planning matters and a good idea will still rule.

Participating and building a network honestly is the rule of the day, and ensuring that you’re tapping into the passions of individuals for something they care about will motivate people far more than any shiny tool will.

If you don’t receive the same type of response to your brand, don’t be discouraged, it’s a different experience. Your response is probably just fine for your goals… if they were realistically set to begin with.

See you at #hohoto on the 15th? :)

[photo credit: Derektor via Flickr]

This week the City of Toronto held a Summit to discuss how Web 2.0 (or the social web) can “increase civic engagement, reach all communities, and improve City services”. As the event itself was invite only a lot of participation occurred via the live webcast and in back-channels such as Twitter. I have a lot of thoughts about both the way the event worked, and how it didn’t, and will try and balance the two, while being honest & open in my feedback as I think it’s an important first step in a process that concerns all Torontonians. There have been opinions expressed that should be voiced if the City is serious about community engagement & interaction online.

First, it was a great idea - connect the decision makers, industry, internal government employees, and the public together to figure out how the social web can facilitate a better civic experience. Great idea, yes, but it unfortunately it didn’t live up to its promise, and actually the promise of Web 2.0/ social participation, the very topic of discussion.

There were some excellent speakers and panels that sought to provide some anecdotal as well as concrete examples of how government can use the tools to reach out to citizens, including the luncheon keynote by Mark Surman and the interaction with Mayor Miller, but there were also logistical & planning issues that stifled the potential and made many comment that the day was a “FAIL” (in 2.0 parlance). While 300 people tuning in via webcast is a small proof of concept, and there were passionate discussions online, with only 10 people physically in attendance during at least one session and with images of rows of empty city councillor seats seen via the webcast, the importance to the decision makers within the City seemed absent, or at the very least, under-represented (h/t Adam Froman); another misstep was starting the day with a panel on how the public wants to be engaged online without any representatives from the public on it. Great idea; poorly strategized.

What the City could have done:

• Make the day into a blend of panels and workshops with concrete examples of issues from constituents and push for mandatory councillor participation and involvement. Bring together facilitators (our city has a ton!) to moderate and brainstorm actionable solutions to real-life problems - both internal and external; tech, procedural, etc.
• Not make the day invite only. This seems a no-brainer to me, web 2.0 is about collaboration and openness and it feels counter-intuitive to close the gates to true participation at the outset, and it ends up cutting off some of the voices and ideas that are so vital to moving the premise forward.
• Solicit and prioritize issues/ ideas in advance - for the public at large and for the city - transportation? health care? waste management? events? Focus on more than just the abstract. While Google maps mashups with the TTC are great (and I totally dig them and think they’ll be a great step forward), is that the number one priority for the City or best use of resources? Is web-casting every council meeting? Maybe, but maybe not.
• Lay off the heavy moderation of the webcast and citizen participation - I asked two questions, once in the morning and once at the end of the day and neither one was released from moderation by whomever was monitoring the channel. Web 2.0 is as open and transparent as possible, not guarded, except for language and threats.
• Bring in outside voices and expertise from the grassroots level in the city who are already using the social web and to bring together a diverse group of the population to work on local issues and spur action - Toronto has a vibrant community of passionate people to draw on, why not tap into it to shorten some of the learning curve?
• Some kind of “next steps” to keep moving the discussion and planning forward and encourage participation - there are, as we saw at the event, a lot of talented individuals inside the government who could easily be the point persons to manage something like a wiki (which if the two days had included workshops or similar direct participation could have been frameworked) to solicit ideas and keep the citizens who wanted to engage and share informed of what was on the agenda (and recruit organically from their local circles - build momentum). It’s a challenge of course to coordinate in government, but “idea labs” are something that should be on the radar.
• Included members of the public who represent different community organizations and looked to other government agencies and groups using the social channels so far & invite them to participate as part of a “lessons learned so far” discussion - Foodland Ontario, City of Markham, Prince Edward County, Ottawa Public Library, etc. etc.

I don’t believe the event qualifies as a FAIL, and I think a lot of good ideas and interest was spurred during a few sessions and hopefully a lot of food for thought and take-aways for the municipal officials who participated. I truly hope the City is committed to this and will take this first event as a baby step, incorporate and learn from the feedback available to them (blog posts, twitter updates, webcast questions, etc.) and keep moving forward. It can be a big or a small challenge depending on how we all deploy our resources - as a community!

[photo credit: Olivia via Flickr]