Originally posted as a guest post on Danny Brown’s The Human Side of Media and the Social Side of Marketing blog.

Would anyone be really upset if LinkedIn’s .com destination up and disappeared tomorrow?

It’s safe to assume that recruiters scouring the site for new talent and current shareholders would be pretty peeved, even if the stock (LNKD) is trading at half price from the IPO. But how would the lack of an online destination really impact everyday users?

Users that are tethered to their mobile phones and enamored by the promise of applications, innovation and integration?

Of the top 10 most trafficked social networking sites, LinkedIn is a bit of an anomaly. Its success is not dependent on status updates, games or rich media content, but on connecting individuals around professional interests and capabilities.

Even with 135 million registered users, LinkedIn has (not surprisingly) had difficulty keeping the attention of its user base – with members spending an average of only8 minutes per visit (source: Google DoubleClick Ad Planner).

Compare that to the new social media darling, Pinterest.com. Traffic to Pinterest has grown a whopping 40% in the last 6 months – and its 13 Million users are spending an average time spent of 15 minutes and 40 seconds on the site – nearly double time spent on LinkedIn.com.

With numbers like these you can’t help but wonder how LinkedIn will compete for mindshare when interest-based social networks are cropping up everywhere and stealing bigger pieces of the consumer engagement pie?

If I was Reid Hoffman, I’d A) – be a lot wealthier, and B) – try a new approach that liberated LinkedIn from its .com chains, and focus more on applications and integration.

From a pure functionality standpoint, the standalone LinkedIn.com destination doesn’t offer anything that can’t be found or easily deployed within Facebook or Google+.  However, as a brand, LinkedIn has established a lot of credibility with business professionals around the world and has become the de facto standard in online CVs.

But there is only so long LinkedIn can maintain that credibility without innovating to better meet user needs – because it’s only a matter of time before someone does “LinkedIn” better.

Opportunities and Competitive Challenges

Facebook’s Open Graph applications present an interesting opportunity and risk for LinkedIn.

Of the initial 80+ applications within the Timeline Apps catalogue, Monster Worldwide managed to squeeze in the LinkedIn competitor Branch Out.  Although the application struggled initially, the feature set is nearly identical to what is offered by LinkedIn, and deeper alignment with Facebook could gain significantly more interest.

Considering Facebook’s 800+ million global user base and the staggering amount of time users spend on the social network per visit on average (23 minutes and 20 seconds), Monster’s move to integrate Branch Out deeper into the Facebook ecosystem presents significant risk to LinkedIn’s externally-focused strategy.

To date, LinkedIn has focused more attention on bringing users from Twitter, Facebook and Google+ deeper into its social network.  Users have linked accounts to share their activity in these more populated destinations rather than participate within the LinkedIn destination itself (we’ll see what happens when users realize the Tweets application is no longer supported as of January 31, 2012).

The result has been a redundancy in content and value.  While some of the LinkedIn Groups are thriving, many times it’s still not enough to warrant a separate destination as participation is infrequent and the feature is not dramatically differentiated from circles in Google+ or Facebook Groups.

LinkedIn has traditionally held the user base close to their vest and been strict about third party application development and sharing information. However, the opportunity to bring down some of those walls, innovate and integrate is now. While Branch Out may not be a true competitor in the long run, it’s only a matter of time before someone approaches the professional audience and delivers a more seamless experience with a unique feature set.

With such a powerful brand presence, LinkedIn has the opportunity to own the professional dialogue and connectivity across social networks, and not just on LinkedIn.com.

Time for LinkedIn to Re-Engage

As it’s become such a trusted resource in finding, evaluating and hiring employees, the LinkedIn “Seal of Approval” carries weight and should be amplified to encourage more connections, more conversation and more action.  It’s not a new concept, LinkedIn tried back in 2010 to deploy an application in Facebook, but it failed miserably (9,000 likes compared to 398,347 for Branch Out).  Why LinkedIn chose not to continue its integration with Facebook is a bit of a mystery, but it’s time to re-engage.

The development of a robust application could dramatically increase interaction and time spent among LinkedIn’s core user base.  It also creates an opportunity to gather more data about members and enhance their targeted advertising around interests and behaviors.

If the core functionality of LinkedIn was more portable, then the role of the LinkedIn.com destination moves away from being a standard social network that requires daily participation, to a distributed presence that can more easily integrate with highly trafficked and engaging social networks and eventually, permeate corporate websites.

Just think about how LinkedIn community engagement would change if it was effectively integrated with Facebook, where 81% of users log in at least weekly (in comparison to the 14% of users that log in to LinkedIn)? (Source: Mintel “Use of leading social networks, June 2011”)

In my opinion, LinkedIn as a social network is too valuable and useful to disappear entirely, but without some strategic adjustments, it faces the biggest challenge from competitors and entrepreneurs.  Segregating itself from others and facilitating fringe connections with Twitter and others is a missed opportunity.

That said, if there was one social network to watch over the next two years, I’d place my bets on LinkedIn, if it strives to innovate and integrate.  Otherwise, LinkedIn could become the MySpace of professional social networking.

Today marks the official blackout of many popular online destinations in protest of the proposed SOPA and PIPA bills.  By now, most people have probably seen the blacked out Google Doodle and finally taken the initiative to understand what the fuss is all about (if you haven’t yet, feel free to sign the petition to kill the bills).  It would be naive of me to represent myself as fully understanding the repercussions of the bills being considered, but the dialogue is certainly familiar.  Who’s to blame?

Industries, like music and film, are supporting SOPA and PIPA to prevent the piracy of their content.  There’s no question that illegal acquisition of the content created by these organizations has an impact on the revenue and future growth for the industry as a whole.  This impacts jobs, innovation, expansion and more.  It will also impact the quality of content they can produce which is certainly not something any movie buff or music lover wants to hear.  Unfortunately, it’s a potential reality.

To prevent against piracy and unauthorized use of their content, these industries have chosen the historical route of sponsoring and supporting government regulation.  When people can’t be “controlled” the next logical step is to hold the manufacturer, provider or in this case technology responsible.  Someone has to bear the burden of protection, because we are not capable of making our own decisions… or the right decisions.

It’s significantly easier to punish the provider or the manufacturer and blame them for the choices made by their customers or users.  However, if people are using the products and services not as the manufacturer intended, where does the responsibility lie?

We are again faced with a scenario that has potential repercussions that could permeate our culture in ways we never imagined.  We’ve been here before with the Firearms and Tobacco Industries.  Yet, those issues impact quality of life, not corporate bottom lines.  However, I am still given the choice to own a gun or smoke.  It is my responsibility to understand the implication of these products and their potential.  My free will on usage cannot be controlled, but the implication of my actions are mine and mine alone.

The answer to pirated content is not an easy one, but turning to government regulation is an act of desperation that allows a few bad apples to spoil the whole bunch.  Basic freedoms, like speech, should not be limited for financial reasons.  While I don’t want to go as far as requesting that the entire publishing industry, “adapt or die,” a better solution needs to be identified.

We, all of us, have the ability to maintain a free and open Internet and must not let the anonymity of the web cloud our judgement.  It is our responsibility to know the difference between right and wrong.  Just because I have the right to bear arms, does not mean I should use them in cases where it is not absolutely necessary.  Similarly, just because I have the ability to illegally acquire and share content from other sources, doesn’t mean I should do it.

People are natural innovators and no creation will ever be perfect right out of the gate.  While the growth and power of the Internet is astonishing, the impact it will have on our culture is yet to be imagined.  Stifling that creativity at such a crucial moment is a step backward.

We are now more aware, more connected, more empowered to make a difference.  To drive the economy.  Solve culture issues.  Share expertise.  Sacrificing this connected world in favor of a few bucks for the latest blockbuster is not worth it.  Don’t blame Wikipedia, YouTube, WordPress, Reddit, and the countless others for facilitating the exchange of knowledge.  Blame those who abuse the potential impact a free and open Internet provides.

I agonized over this post.  Trying desperately to find exactly the right words to convey just how powerful perfecting the Art of the Possible can be.  I wrote the intro paragraph at least ten times and deleted every word because it felt forced.  The frightening thing is that this post actually started to feel – dare I say it – impossible.

There were so many ways to associate the Art of the Possible with marketing, social media and business that I found myself consistently falling down the rabbit hole and over-engineering what’s truly a simple concept.  This isn’t the first time it’s happened and I am sure I am not alone in feeling overwhelmed by the possibilities of a post.

It all started when a client referenced the Art of the Possible on a recent conference call.  While the basis of the conversation can’t be shared here, it was an inspiring dialogue around how we limit our thinking to what we know and what we’ve experienced.  After all, most of the decisions we make are based on our experiences and what we can see.  Even when we think we are being innovative, we are more likely innovating on what we know.  What exists.

Practicing the Art of the Possible is not a simple task.  It requires you to leave words like “won’t” and “can’t” at the door on your way in.  You must tear down the barriers around you and forget about budgets, timing and resources for the time being.  The Art is the idea, not the execution.

Impossible is easy.  The word alone can stop an idea before it’s had time to sink in.  We don’t question impossible enough.  Every great idea and innovation in history could have been stopped had people adhered to the simple response of “that’s impossible.”  Instead, they saw impossible as a challenge.  A chance to change perception and carve a new path.

We’ve given too much power to the impossible and not enough power to the Art of the Possible.  Impossible has become an excuse for laziness or an escape from our fears.  If we walked away from every challenge, every roadblock, every naysayer and believed in the impossible we’d fail to evolve, learn and grow.  What if medical researchers decided a cure for Cancer was simply impossible and stopped working?

You can choose to practice the Art of the Possible and believe that any idea can become a reality if you work at it.  Or, you can choose to be an impossible and stay on the safe side of only what you know.  That’s your choice.  However, the possible is exciting and what we dreamed of as children.  Flying cars are possible.  Flying people are possible, too.  Living on the moon?  Sure… it’s possible.

Me… I’ll start by sticking with a blog post even when it seems impossible.

Typically, I avoid prediction posts for the simple fact that the social marketing and social business space changes so dramatically almost every day.  Human behavior is hard to predict and the way we leverage tools and communicate with each other is always evolving.  However, after reading a few 2012 Social Media Prediction posts already, I can’t help but share my thoughts as they are a bit different from some of the other recognizable names in social.

So, without further ado, here are my 5 Social Media Predictions for 2012.

1) C-Suite as Content

Several prediction posts reference the C-Suite as Journalists or Content Creators.  While it sounds excellent, it’s still wishful thinking.  After spending the last year training and developing strategies with some of the top C-Suite Executives in the world, there is still major concern over the time commitment and fear of the “potential” missteps.  Additionally, not all C-Suite executives should be freely participating in social media.

A more suitable expectation for 2012 is that the C-Suite will become part of the content.  As more organizations evolve into Social Businesses, executives will recognize that their participation, opinion and voice is one of the most valuable contributions to the digital discussion.  While some may adopt style’s similar to Brian Dunn at Best Buy or Richard Branson at Virgin, most will empower an internal team to create a more rounded social strategy that leverages their time and thought leadership in a manageable way.

2) Gamification Overload

Several in the industry are hot on gamification and badges, but ill-conceived initiatives are flooding consumers with useless icons in an effort to increase public advocacy.  Ford Motors, typically a leader in social media initiatives, pulled together a nice experience with a variety of badges in 2011 and even asked customers for advice on creating new badges.  However, the badges have no value or purpose.  As a Ford owner, I can’t think of one reason to “get a badge”… and I love my Taurus.

Badges and gamification build off the desire to be an “insider” or the best a certain activities.  They play off the competitive nature in all of us, but over time, having the most “badges,” being atop the leader-board or having the most Klout in Basket Weaving get’s old.  Take Foursquare for example – they’ve recently upped the badge ante, but the badges add no real value to the user.  It’s more about being the mayor in an effort to get free or discounted items.  Even then, most users will give up on trying to be mayor if they face competition from someone more committed to achieving that status.

Gamficiation will still be a major player in 2012, but if the value proposition isn’t amplified or differentiated, expect an initial burst of activity and then a steady decline into badge fatigue.

3) A Return to Inside/Out Social Media

If 2011 was the year of “Social Business Theory,” than 2012 is the year of practical execution.  Several large organizations have turned their focus to internal activities recognizing that old policies and programs were not nurtured effectively.  As a result, employee social media activity was siloed and disjointed.

Moving forward, an increased effort will be placed on training, enabling and coordinating employee social media activity.  More business leaders are recognizing that every employee has a voice and is engaged in the conversation in their own way.  Focus will turn to finding internal advocates and building programs that enhance their work rather than impede it.

If social media is all about relationships and conversations, we must recognize that our employees are the other necessary party in that activity.  Otherwise, customers are talking only to each other, or a small team of social media practitioners that will quickly become overloaded (if they are not already) and decrease the value they are able to offer.

4) External Collaboration Grows Up

Over the past 6 or 7 years, expectations have remained, “if you build it, they will come.”  By now, most should have realized that this is not the case.  Passionate customers and advocates want to be a part of something.  For many, it’s about being included, appreciated and heard.  While we can give them a platform to share their thoughts, it’s simply not enough.

Some of the best stories in social media success come from the movements created in 2011.  The way that people come together around a common cause (Occupy, Middle East, etc.).    It’s not easy to create a movement.  Someone has to take the lead and be the voice to rally the others.  While creating a movement around a brand or a product is certainly a more difficult challenge, it is possible if the right people are at the table.

In 2012, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the advocate.  It’s not simply a “pay for content” approach, it’s an absorption into the cause.  This will be incredibly challenging for many marketers and agencies as it moves them further away from the campaign mindset and focuses more on the long term, day-to-day engagement.

5) Social Media Guru’s Get Exposed

This may be a bit of wishful thinking, but with the increasing credibility and long term potential of social media, it’s hard not to believe that companies are becoming more savvy at identifying the pretenders.  In 2012, actions will speak louder than words.  The talk has reached a deafening pitch, but many of those talking have little experience in actually deploying social programs or building social businesses.

In 2011, it was impossible not to encounter a “Guru” around every corner.  Many of whom were selling their brand of social media training or strategy with less than 1 year experience if any at all.  While it may have made sense to take the risk in years past, 2012 will see a greater emphasis on proven results and long term execution.

Large organizations will demand quality metrics and substantial knowledge about how social programs impact the business.  The need for one partner that can handle strategy, execution and measurement will help eliminate the need for many of the talking heads.  Proving your credentials will be necessary and that has nothing to do with Klout scores.

In conclusion

2012 will be as exciting as 2011 and the years that preceded.  More mistakes will be made and exceptional executions will appear in every industry blog.  Twitter and Facebook will change again and a few LBS companies will be acquired.  It’s the reason we do what we do.  The ever changing landscape that keeps us on our toes and thirsting for just the right mix of engagement with customers and achieving business results.

Whether my 2012 predictions for social media are right or not doesn’t matter.  The only thing I know for sure is that I’ll be back here in December 2012 with another post of predictions and feeling just as optimistic as I do right now.

The LinkedIn Recommendation/Endorsement baffles me.  I can think of no other digital interaction that requires as much thought and creates genuine concern and trepidation.  What is it about asking for (or receiving a request for) recommendations that make us twitch?

The psychological response to the LinkedIn Recommendation is very different than a Friend Request or connection.  It’s simple to accept a request from your old high school flame and then alter your privacy settings to keep them secluded from your everyday musings on Facebook.  They never have to know that they are on your limited profile list and that you’ve blocked their updates in your feed.  Or, you could just outright decline the friend request and never give that person another thought.  Sure, they might call you nasty names and wonder what they ever did to you, but they’ll get over it… eventually.

The LinkedIn Recommendation is something completely different.  It’s one of the few ways that people can publicly endorse your credibility as a professional.  It’s a personal validation.  It’s a lasting declaration of support, and it shouldn’t be taken lightly.

I receive requests rather frequently from former colleagues asking for recommendations.  When these requests come through, I ask three simple questions:

1) Why did this person select me as someone to provide a recommendation?

2) What information do I have that can be included in the recommendation that will help them achieve their goal?

3) Will this individual respect my honest recommendation?

I’m very selective about the people I recommend.  In part because I want to make sure that I’m not a “Recommendation Engine” that people turn to for a positive review regardless of the quality of their work, but also because my review is now public and a reflection of who I am.  If I just pump out mediocre endorsements, what does that say about me and my commitment to my peers?

In many cases, I decline the request to provide a recommendation because I do not feel that I have enough information or simply because I do not feel that endorsing said individual is a wise move for my personal brand.  If I wouldn’t refer you for a job at Digital Influence Group, I will not endorse you on LinkedIn and have that be a source of consideration for hiring managers I am unaffiliated with.

Here’s the challenge and what causes that concern and trepidation.  If I decline to endorse you, I have only two options to inform you:

1) Respond to your request and explain why I am opting out (which could damage the relationship – Keep in mind, just because I may not endorse you professionally, doesn’t mean I don’t like you personally)

2) Completely ignore your request

Most people choose option 2 and that’s unfortunate, but you can’t blame the requestee for not participating.  The fact is, you as the requester made a mistake.  You asked the wrong person for the recommendation and put them in a very difficult position.  That person had to sit there and ponder their choices; none of which are appealing.  It’s a can’t win situation.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the answer here.  I often make the same mistake and send out requests to folks that go unanswered (and, no, I am not looking for a job.  I ask for recommendations from people because it is valuable for clients I work with to hear endorsements from previous clients.)

I also struggle with the reciprocal recommendation.  It’s like saying “I Love You” to your significant other the first time.  Did they say it back just because I said it first, or did they really mean it?

What’s your theory on LinkedIn Recommendations?  How do you handle them and what advice would you share for those staring at the request with concern?

Three weeks ago, my wife and I welcomed our first child, Elsa, to the world.  She joined us on 11/11/11 and since that moment, she has obviously had a profound impact on my life.  During these first few weeks, I’ve watched her tirelessly in an effort to understand her needs and wants.  While she surveys her surroundings trying to make sense of the world around her, I hover anxiously wondering what every sound, grimace or jerk might mean.  Does that cry mean she’s in pain or is it just gas… or both?

It doesn’t take long to realize that infants really only need a few things:

1) Attention/Love

2) Food

3) To be changed

4) Comfortable temperature

5) Gas relief

It’s not overly complicated, but if you don’t respond, the impending wails will certainly make life uncomfortable for everyone involved.  I could certainly over complicate things and try to give her toys, dance around like Elmo, keep moving her around, etc. but what’s the point.  She’s actually very clear about what she wants.

These same principles hold true for social media.  Your customers probably only need/want a few things from you, but because you have so many different objectives, you try to create a social presence that meets the needs of your business before the needs of your customer.  It doesn’t take long before your social strategy is slightly schizophrenic and those customers you are trying to reach tune you out.  Additionally, if you don’t pick up on those subtle signals your customers are sending you, you could be trying to force a diaper change when really all they wanted was a little gas relief.

How you deliver that relief can change and you can have a variety of different methods that work best for your different customers, but the end game should be the same.  Whether you prop them over your shoulder or sit them in your lap, the end game should be to make them happy, comfortable and willing to trust you again.

Once you’ve established your routine, the occasional hysterical fits that fall outside the norm are easier to spot.  You may not be able to quiet the wailing, but sometimes it’s best to let them just cry it out.  When all else fails, you can always try dancing around like Elmo.

Right after my last post on Klout, I wandered over to Twitter and joined a vibrant conversation with a few folks who I believe to be top influencers with serious clout.  While I was still enthusiastic about the changes Klout was making, I hadn’t given any thought to how these changes would impact actual “scores.”  Why?  Because I don’t care about the Klout score.

What excited me about the Klout changes was that it could actually be something I could leverage with clients to reach “influencers” around specific topics.  The idea that a user could create their own topic about a brand and become recognized for those activities is certainly appealing.  What’s not exciting about the changes is that they dramatically changed the scores of loyal users and people who had worked diligently to keep their Klout scores high.

During the conversation with David Armano, Ian Gertler, Marcus Nelson and others (Jeremiah Owyang and Robert Scoble were casualties of the #kloutapocalypse), it became clear that the changes made to Klout we’re done without consideration of the core user.  While most agreed that the Klout score has and will continue to lack the needed context to be valuable, the change to whatever algorithm Klout uses created a negative experience.  One that removed the little credibility and value Klout had.

So why did Klout change the score?

Because no one else cares.

Klout was utilized and evangelized by marketers and the social media enthusiasts, but the regular person could care less about Klout and would never even consider themselves influential enough to have a score.  From a sheer economics standpoint, Klout’s future was limited.  However, adjust the algorithm to give more weight to Facebook and other tools used by the general public and maybe a broader audience will begin to realize their value and potential influence.

By making these changes, Klout increases the pool of people that may be interested in the product and can hopefully bring in folks looking for free stuff based on their level of influence (free stuff = Perks).  When more people come in and see the potential for free stuff, they may just talk more about brands in hopes that they too can get something free if they only talk about that brand a bit more on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.

Not a bad tactic if you ask me.  Now, with every topic available under the sun entered by users, you can have Klout in anything.  Klout can in turn take that data to brands and say, the people who love and influence your brand the most are right here.  Use our Perks program and you can build a relationship with them and get them to keep talking about you.  It all makes the timing of the Wall Street Journal piece seem a little more calculated.

Klout needs numbers.  It doesn’t need just the marketer or the social media enthusiast.  It needs grandma.  It needs your neighbors.  Otherwise, we’ll all eventually tune out.  Unfortunately, the change in the algorithm makes no sense and what was once a game is now incredibly ridiculous.  How can someone in my network who is only on Facebook and has only 100 friends have a Klout score 10 points lower than I do?

My advice, dump the “Klout Score” and tell it like it is.  Quantify the amount of times an individual talks about a product or a brand and allow the brand to provide offers and messaging to those folks to keep them talking.  Klout would be better off and could avoid the mysterious algorithm debate and everyone would still be able to get free stuff.  It’s not about being “The Standard of Influence” measurement score, it’s about enabling the people who talk the most, to easily be heard by the people they are talking about.  that’s not influence.  It’s noise.

Amazing.  On one hand there is something amazingly valuable about Klout.  On the other, there’s a bit of fluff that just creates trouble.  Be one or the other Klout.

Oh… and after almost 50 tweets with all of those fine folks with large followings… my Klout score went up 1 Point.

If you want to read more, here are two great posts by another legitimate influencer, Danny Brown:

A Klout Upside the Head

Is Klout Using our Family to Violate our Privacy?

I’ve been a Klout basher for years, but with good reason. I felt it was a poor indicator of Influence and that it was more of a game than an actual tool of value.  However, the recent changes and the pending changes coming in November have me singing a bit of a different tune.  While I still question the algorithm and scoring, Klout has made enormous strides in providing a more comprehensive system for measuring influence that may not be perfect, but is certainly headed in the right direction.

The Klout team has always had a road-map for their product and it was only a matter of time before the pieces started to come together.  The first change that took a solid step forward was clearly the launch of the +K feature.  While this is still a bit of a “popularity contest,” it’s a start at putting the definition of an influencer in the hands of the people being influenced.  It’s by no means perfect as it can easily be gamed and they are often doled out freely (It seems like I get 10 new +K’s a day – I don’t think that many people are truly worthy) but the concept is right and something that marketers should pay a bit more attention to.

Add in the Klout Perks Program and things get even more valuable.  Now, Klout has successfully developed a way to bring brands and influencers together.  While it’s still a limited offering and many brands offer crappy perks, the concept again is a major step in the right direction.  I’ve only claimed a few perks, but as these offerings become more compelling, it could be a major incentive for people to be more active, gain more Klout and get free stuff.

None of this is new to most marketers, but what really has me excited is the revamped topic pages and the ability to add topics to Klout which will be launching in November.  Klout was smart to empower the users to add topics.  Instead of trying to build this out on its own, let the users define all possible topics and start being experts in areas they feel are important.  This could significantly endear current users to the product as more people will be able to become a top influencer in niche topics like underwater basket weaving.

As a marketer, adding your products and brand to Klout will certainly make it easier to quickly identify users who are talking about you and those experts who are earning +K.  From here, you can add Perks that allow you to reward these folks specifically to keep them engaged and participating.  All of a sudden, the incremental changes are coming together and regardless of algorithm, should keep people coming back and working hard to keep their scores in respective topics high.

Is Klout really “the Standard of Influence?”  Probably not yet, but it’s getting there.  This Wall Street Journal coverage certainly can’t hurt either.  Keep it up Klout… you’ve got me interested and certainly have me excited.

All things are not created equal, but in the measurement world, it’s hard to believe that statement.  If you’re in marketing, you’ve probably been faced with the challenge of “measuring success” and “proving return on investment.”  The natural reaction is to leverage what we know and utilize industry standards.  What do we do when those standards don’t apply?

Unfortunately, we’ve all been a little lazy lately and have failed to keep up with the pace of innovation.  While legacy metrics still play a role, the industry as a whole has struggled to effectively define success in a social media world.  There is comfort in the “old metrics” and this familiarity stiffles creativity.  We’re in need of an evolution, but one that provides the same sense of security of those that are trusted.  (Regardless of how ineffective the old metrics may be at defining success across integrated marketing activities.)

In talking with a few industry peers, it became clear that all marketing activities are being held to the same standard when the situation is inherently different.  Here’s a few scenerios you may have heard recently:

Hub Mentality

BUSINESS OWNER: “Our corporate site averages 500,000 unique visitors a month.  Why isn’t our blog/community seeing the same traffic?”

MARKETER: ”Well, the corporate site is geared toward sales and attracts consumers currently considering a purchase.  The blog is focused on thought leadership and awarness to attract interest from those higher in the funnel.”

BUSINESS OWNER: “We need more eyeballs on the blog in order to continue to supporting this initiative.”

MARKETER: “What did you have in mind?”

BUSINESS OWNER: “We should sell stuff there.”

MARKETER: “OK.  But it could upset the 50,000 subscribers we have actively reading and commenting.”

Quantity over Engagement

BUSINESS OWNER: “We’re really successful on Facebook.  We have 250,000 fans!”

MARKETER: “That’s great!  How many are engaging with the page?”

BUSINESS OWNER: “Each post get’s a few comments and likes!  It’s great!”

MARKETER: (after looking at the data) “You’re averaging about 75 comments and 600 likes a month.  That’s about .27% of your network.”

BUSINESS OWNER: (Still excited) ”I know!  That’s almost as good as the average click through rate of our banner ads!”

MARKETER: “The goal of the banner ads is to drive traffic.  What’s the goal of the Facebook page?”

BUSINESS OWNER: “Engage with consumers.”

Campaign vs. Community

BUSINESS OWNER: “We posted a few videos on YouTube and we’re up to 80,000 views!:”

MARKETER: “That’s amazing!  When did you post them?”

BUSINESS OWNER: “Late August.”

MARKETER: “That’s Impressive.”

BUSINESS OWNER: “2009.”

MARKETER: “Oh.  How many videos have you posted since?”

BUSINESS OWNER: “None.  The campaign was only for 3 videos.”

Unfortunately, these scenerios are all too common and without change and support, they may not change within your organization.  One of the most important things you can do is define the metrics early in the process.  Gain support for your activity early on and be clear that measuring social media is not the same as measuring the corporate website.  It’s ongoing process where the situation changes from post to post.  The goals of your community are very different than the prospective consumer visiting your website.

They aren’t there to buy.  They go to your corporate website for that.  Knowing why they are there and paying close attention to behaviors will enable you to dial up or down your activities to be effective.  The benefit of social media is the ease of adjustment.  With a few minor tweaks, you can change the interaction

The debate about “Who owns social media” has been raging for years, but is it possible that the real owner doesn’t exist within your organization… yet?

Many top businesses are investing heavily in Community Managers and Social Business Managers.  Others are leaning heavily on agency partners to maintain the brands presence.  Some have even created a Social Task Force to manage initiatives across capabilities.  Any of these can be fine solutions, but do they meet the full needs of your audience and are you measuring the actions of these groups based on their true value?

For now, these initiatives are working, but for global organizations, the meteoric rise of the connected consumer will continue well into the future as most countries have a less than 50% population penetration in Internet usage and the growth trajectory is through the roof.  Can the needs of the consumer be met from within the confines of Marketing and PR or is it time to develop a new capability within the organization with a different set of defined success metrics?

While the answer may not be clear (yet), the flexible nature of social media is something that shouldn’t be confined to just one capability within the organization.  That’s essentially the foundation behind a Social Business.  However, the construct of a social business and how to operationalize is still a major challenge to the vast majority.

Social Media is here to stay and will only grow and evolve as the consumer becomes even more powerful in the conversation and more influential among peers.  To truly manage the spectrum of activities, it may be time to consider the development of a Social Operations capability that looks at the impact of this change across the Enterprise.  Not just listening and responding, but understanding how to facilitate the appropriate touch points across the organization and what the associated impact will be.

The Social Operations Team would be responsible for Enterprise Social Planning (ESP) and driving efficiencies among resources to maximize the relationship with customers.  Instead of siloed social tactics occurring across all capabilities with individual key performance indicators, what is the collective impact of social participation?

Could the formation of such a team prevent the apples-to-oranges comparisons between traditional advertising and digital advertising?  Would the value of social participation be more widely understood if viewed across the enterprise?

If the primary objective of social media is to connect with consumers, then success should be defined in the ways social activities impact that relationship.  That recent social media program may not have driven the potential views of a 30 second spot, but we’ve seen an increase in brand sentiment and decreased inbound call center inquiries by 10%.  Additionally, we saw a 5% increase in job applicants.

Over the past few years, we’ve heard anecdotes similar to those mentioned above, but the infrastructure of many Enterprise businesses do not always allow for increased investment in programs as the added benefits had more of an impact on other capabilities than the investing capability.

Should we consolidate and optimize?  Or should we define success at a business level rather than a capability level?  How do you feel about a Social Operations team?  Do you think Enterprise Social Planning is on the horizon, or is it already here?

Lot’s of questions, but not many answers (yet).