Experience: The Blog

Chip Conley and Authenticity vs. Transparency : Which is More Important?

2009-11-06T18:01:00.000-06:00

Transparency and Authenticity are both important in Social Media and in our newly Social World, but what's the difference and which is more important? The two are often used interchangeably, but authenticity is not the same as transparency. Complete transparency may be thought of as revealing every private, confidential, or personal thought or experience; complete authenticity is more about being true to your ideals and never being fake or untruthful. Chip Conley, CEO of Joie de Vivre hotels, has provided us a lens through which we may evaluate the difference between--and the differing significance of--transparency and authenticity.

You can read about Conley's dilemma on BNET, but it boils down to this--he's a rock-and-roll CEO who lives large and believes in authenticity. Some of his employees objected when he posted shirtless photos of himself to the Facebook profile the company PR firm created for him. He believes his employees are wrong to be concerned and asks "What, exactly, does it take to damage the image of the company?"

It's a great question, and the fact he asked it publicly in a blog post teaming with slights to his employees and justifications for his actions may furnish the answer he seeks. I think a case may be made that Conley has damaged his company, but not because of his Facebook photos; it's his actions after his employees voiced their concerns--actions that prioritize transparency over authenticity--that may possibly prove troublesome for Joie de Vivre.

Conley's shirtless photos were clearly authentic. But so were the concerns of employees. The collision of two contrary but authentic beliefs provided Joie de Vivre with a golden opportunity for internal dialog about the brand, the organization's Social Media policies, and authenticity. But this is not what happened, because instead of engaging employees, Conley took his concerns public in a blog post in which he admits his first reaction was, “Screw that; people who don’t like it can go work at Marriott.”

In making the concerns of his employees and his own reaction public, Conley has opted for transparency over authenticity. Airing his grievances with employees was transparent, but it would have been more authentic to discuss the matter with his employees. Remember that authenticity means keeping true to ideals, and it is clear Conley has an ideal that employee opinions matter. He is proud to have implemented a "cultural ambassador" program in which employees vote for their own representatives on matters of organizational culture. In fact, it was some of these ambassadors who expressed concerns about Conley's Facebook shots!

Conley's desire for transparency ran headlong into his commitment to authenticity, and he opted to voice his opinions and seek support from outsiders rather than demonstrate care and respect for his ambassadors' feedback. I believe he was transparent, but violated his own ideals, which was inauthentic.

This isn't the first time we've seen transparency collide with authenticity, nor is it the first reminder that authenticity always wins. Cisco rescinded a job offer because the candidate tweeted she was weighing "a fatty paycheck against... hating the work"--transparent, but not authentic to her personal and professional goals, I suspect. A PR firm Social Media consultant found himself in a very public embarrassment after tweeting that he "would die" if he had to live in his client's hometown--completely transparent, and also completely inauthentic in terms of his professional ideals.

I sometimes think we stress transparency too much in Social Media; after all, in the real world we are all different people in different situations--we behave differently when interacting with our parents, our boss, and our friends. Does that make us liars? No, we sacrifice complete transparency in order to be authentic to our ideals in different ways within different relationships. (I've had friends point out that I have a fairly blue sense of humor that never comes through on Twitter, but I feel my tweets are authentic to my professional passions, even though my guarded approach on Twitter may be less than fully transparent.)

So, my answer to Conley's question--What, exactly, does it take to damage the image of the company?--is that his photos didn't cause harm, but his overly transparent way of dealing with an internal issue may have hurt his relationships inside the organization. He failed to honor his ideals that employees--particularly the ambassadors--have opinions that matter, and in doing so he made transparency more important than authenticity.

What do you think? Was Conley authentic by venting his feelings publicly? Do you think he'd be as accepting if one of his employees chose to post internal disagreements on a blog rather than address them directly within the organization? And in a Social World, is it possible to be transparent but inauthentic?

The Principle of Transparency: A Tale of Two Employers

2009-10-28T01:24:00.001-05:00

Social Media practitioners use the word “transparency” frequently, but it seems to mean different things to different people. To me, transparency isn’t something organizations bring to their Social Media efforts but instead is a fundamental change in corporate mindset being accelerated by Social Media’s growth and adoption. It isn’t a choice made on Twitter but the way an organization may choose to live. In short, transparency is a principle, not a strategy or tactic. Some recent experiences with Fullhouse and Forrester, my current and future employers, have helped me to recognize the meaning, value, and importance of transparency.

Over the past two months, I’ve had the very good fortune to be part of the intensive recruiting process of market research firm, Forrester. As readers of Experience: The Blog know, I will start with Forrester in the San Francisco Bay area in mid-November. I feel very lucky and excited to be joining a firm I hold in high regard.

There are many reasons that I respect Forrester, but one is quite personal: the smart and respectful way their analysts responded to a blog post in which I critiqued their guidance on Sponsored Conversations (AKA Paid Blog Posts). I noted that they support Sponsored Conversations on blogs, so I jokingly offered to pay Forrester for coverage on their own Groundswell blog. Of course, I knew Forrester would never accept such an offer, but I hoped my approach might spark dialog about one of the hottest topics in Social Computing.

It certainly would have been easy enough to consider me a nuisance and opt for an opaque or translucent response, such as ignoring the post, contacting me privately, dismissing me as incorrect or uninformed, or perhaps even firing off a “cease and desist” letter to demand I discontinue quoting material from the Groundswell blog. Instead, Josh Bernoff and Sean Corcoran responded both on my blog and on the Forrester blog, and they did so in a public way, inviting response and interaction from others and engaging in open dialog.

Josh and Sean lived the transparency they recommend to their clients; they treated all voices in the debate as equal and informative, discussed rather than defended, listened, and considered. Not only did my deliberately cheeky blog post not earn their animosity, it was among the reasons they included me as a candidate for the analyst opening.

Meanwhile, as the recruiting process with Forrester grew more serious, I made the decision to be transparent with my current employer, Fullhouse. I felt I could be open about my career opportunity because the agency is a caring and transparent place. Of course, my bosses were not excited about the possibility of losing an agency leader, but they opted for support and transparency over alternatives such as showing me the door or making it difficult to take the time I needed to meet with Forrester. In the words of my boss, “Had you told me you were interviewing with the agency across the street, I’d kick your ass, but I recognize why Forrester would be such a great fit for you.”

By making transparency a part of the culture at Fullhouse, its leaders gained quite a lot: They were aware of and could plan for my departure rather than finding it a surprise; they fostered an environment of trust and respect; they reinforced why Fullhouse is such an excellent place to work; and they made my decision more difficult. Fullhouse may have lost an employee, but they continue to have a raving fan.

For Forrester and Fullhouse, transparency is a part of the culture and is represented by their care for those inside and outside the organization, their willingness to meet stakeholders halfway, the respect they demonstrate for individuals and ideas, and a commitment to live by principles that consider others’ interests, not just their own.

Tim Williams of Ignition Consulting once shared his definition of a principle, and it is one that stuck with me: “A principle isn’t a principle unless it could potentially cost you money.” Transparency can certainly cost an organization money in the short run, but a commitment to transparency will bear benefits in the end.

In an increasingly social world, brands and companies cannot build networks, earn trust, create fans, or foster influence through defensiveness, self-interest, close-mindedness, or other opaque attitudes and actions. Transparency isn’t easy, but as demonstrated by Fullhouse and Forrester, transparency is a principle that is increasingly vital in a world of frictionless communication.

Marketing is NOT Changing; Just Ask Paul Revere

2009-10-27T00:15:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

We Social Marketers love to tell others how marketing is fundamentally changing, but what if that is not only counterproductive but also inaccurate? This was the provocative hypothesis explored tonight during a 20-minute car ride I enjoyed with Jeremy Epstein of Never Stop Marketing. (Apparently, I should have driven slower in order to enjoy our fascinating conversation for longer.)

Clearly, something is happening in the marketing realm--traditional media is stagnating, media consumption habits are changing, individuals have access to tools that furnish mass-media-like power and reach, technology is permitting consumers to filter and limit marketing messages, trust in advertising is low, and peer-to-peer influence and communication is increasing. But what if all this isn't so much a change as a return to the norm?

Before studying the validity of that question, let's first explore why the words we use matter. Those of us who were early adopters of Social Computing platforms clearly love and embrace change--not only are we comfortable with it, we want and demand it--but there are those who don't welcome change as easily. (To be fair, even early adopters are famous for welcoming certain sorts of change and not others--just look at the "Big Blogger" hubbub that has erupted because of tiny changes in the FTC's guidance pertaining to sponsorship and disclosure).

In addition to the fact change is scary, takes time and effort, and involves risk, there's another problem with telling people they need to change--whether intended or not, a whiff of criticism is conveyed. People who are doing things right don't need to change; conversely, someone who needs to be told change is necessary is--by definition--doing something wrong. So, it should come as no surprise that marketing decision makers may not respond to the "world is changing" message that is often conveyed by bloggers, speakers, and social media professionals.

Of course, if the world really is changing, we shouldn't hesitate to say so simply because some don't appreciate the message. But what if the evolution occurring today isn't an advance to a bold new marketing future but instead is a correction that returns the marketing profession to something known and familiar? What if Social Computing isn't pushing marketing into the unknown but is merely giving a new twist to something very old? Might decision makers be more open to Social Media if it were packaged not as the latest fad but instead as a return to the fundamentals of relationship-based marketing?

During our discussion, Jeremy mentioned Paul Revere as an example of a successful Social Businessperson, albeit one who died 190 years before Twitter and Facebook became household words. As noted in the article, "Paul Revere the Businessman," there is far more to Revere than we learned (or perhaps remember) from history books. We remember him for a single urgent horse ride on one evening, but he lived 83 years and was a successful business owner, growing his silversmithing trade into a small empire encompassing engraving, a hardware store, a foundry, and a copper mill.

What was the secret to his success? The article notes that Revere became a Mason, actively participating as an officer and helping to open new lodges throughout Massachusetts. "His involvement in Freemasonry affected his business pursuits and livelihood" and "many of Revere’s customers during the late 1700s were Masons." Records indicate that Revere's involvement in freemasonry led to regular and ongoing business over a period of almost 40 years.

Joining a group, building a network, fostering relationships, contributing to the community, and receiving a return on that time and effort? How innovative, untested, and utterly radical!

Obviously, the point being made is that, while the tools may be different today, relationship-based marketing isn't new but as old as human commerce. In fact, if marketers want to identify the upstart medium in their field, that wouldn't be Social Media but Mass Media!

The term "Mass Media" is only 80 years old. Its growth into our popular language recognized that technology was putting brand new tools of communication scale into the hands only of those few who could afford it. In the past century, Mass Media had a profound change on the way products were developed, companies formed, brands marketed, and people lived.

Today, technology is again on the march, only now it is putting the tools of scale into the hands of Twitterers, bloggers, and Facebook fans. And, we again face profound changes in the way products are developed, companies formed, brands marketed, and people live.

Clearly, a substantial and profound metamorphosis is underway, but rather than framing this to marketing executives as a risk-filled journey of experimentation into the unknown, we Social Marketing practitioners may be well advised to take a different tact. Relationship-based, one-to-one marketing that creates influence and intimacy isn't the stuff of the future but of the past. The tools may be George Jetson, but the strategy was ancient by the time Paul Revere was networking with Mason lodge members.

Reach, Sentiment, and "Balloon Boy"

2009-10-25T21:02:00.010-05:00

Attaining reach in traditional media is easy--buy an ad. Attaining reach in Social Media can be more challenging--marketers can buy ads to guarantee impressions on Social Networks, but those impressions are far less impactful than the ones that occur when consumers praise, recommend, or share their enthusiasm for a product with others.

All impressions are not equal, so it is important that metrics-obsessed marketers take care to consider subjective sentiment along with objective measures of scale. The difference between reach and sentiment can be demonstrated by assessing the impressions and attitudes generated by two recent newsmakers--Balloon Boy and Jaycee Dugard.

There isn't much that connects the stories of Falcon Heene and Jaycee Dugard, other than the way their stories captivated the hearts and attention of the nation. Heene, known as "Balloon Boy," was thought to be trapped inside an experimental balloon that became untethered, resulting in a chase watched live on cable news nets by almost 5 million people--double the usual number of viewers. Dugard reentered the national consciousness for the miraculous story of her safe return, eighteen years after she was kidnapped at the age of eleven.

These two news stories received terrific attention in the media, generating high awareness via sustained and repeated impressions. They have been featured prominently on national TV news, hit the front page of newspapers, and set the blogosphere and Twitterverse on fire. As a result, Falcon and Jaycee both became household names.

But even though the reach of these two hot stories are similar, the popular sentiment about the two couldn't be more different. Richard Heene, Falcon's dad, reportedly staged the balloon stunt in an attempt to land a reality TV show deal; instead he faces jail time and the loss of his children, and his reputation has been vilified everywhere from Twitter to editorial pages. Meanwhile, an outpouring of interest and goodwill continue to shower Jaycee Dugard; her story has been called "an inspiration" and her recent People magazine cover story is expected to be one of the year's best-selling magazines.

The backlash against Heene is so great that it may impact the use of children in reality television programs; conversely, Dugard's recent People cover story has resulted in an increase in news stories about and interest in horse therapy. Public sentiment about Heene and his stunt is so bad that many are blaming the media for covering the story in the first place; public sentiment for Dugard is so positive that Oprah for the first time ever asked her producer to get on the story and arrange an interview.

This certainly is an extreme example, but it effectively demonstrates how scale, in and of itself, is a pretty ineffective way to evaluate results in Social Media (or any marketing, for that matter). Tallying blog mentions of a brand or counting the tweets of a branded hashtag is nowhere near the same thing as measuring the impact of Social Marketing programs on consumer perception or purchase intent.

Marketers must be careful not to become Richard Heenes, attempting to spark buzz in any way possible in the mistaken belief that impressions matter and the end justifies the means. As Mr. Heene found, any Social PR is not good Social PR.

My New Adventure with Forrester

2009-10-21T22:25:00.000-05:00

As some of you who follow my Tweet stream may know, I am leaving Fullhouse (a place I love full of bright people I respect) for an exciting new opportunity; I'll be joining Forrester's Foster City (Bay area) office as a Sr. Analyst of Social Computing.

You may have noticed that my blog production has been down a bit recently; that's because Forrester's recruiting process is thorough and time consuming, but also very fun and exciting. I got the chance to write my first Forrester report and then present it in their Cambridge, MA home office. (I hope to share more about this report--exploring the relationship between trust, influence, and scale in Social Media--in the future.)

I found the experience of researching and writing a report to be very similar to the process I've used on this blog, only with Forrester there are some tight (and very helpful) guidelines. Also, while blogging has been a solitary endeavour, the Forrester process is collaborative. I've always been conscious of the challenges and limitations of being a one-person research, writing, editing, and proofing team, so working on the Forrester report with another person's input was different and enjoyable.

I intend to continue to maintain this blog in the future, but the coming couple of weeks will be challenging ones as I finish up with Fullhouse, move 2,189 miles, and begin my new and exciting career at Forrester. Please continue to monitor this blog, where I hope to share observations about my transition to Forrester, explore report ideas, convey Social Media news and insights, and ask for input and guidance from my readers.

If any of you have thoughts on what you expect from a good analyst, topics that I should explore, contacts I ought to make, or even tips on the Bay Area (I'll be settling in San Mateo, 20 miles south of San Francisco), please feel free to email me (augie --at-- mkeray.com) or comment here. While ExperiencetheBlog.com may not get my full attention for a few weeks, I am committed to keeping it an exciting, informative, helpful, and interesting spot for Social Media, Social Marketing, and Social Computing commentary.

Thanks,
Augie
http://twitter.com/augieray

10 Simple Things to Know About the FTC's New Guidelines for Blogs & Brands

2009-10-05T17:51:00.029-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

The long-awaited new guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) were published today, and they aren't much of a surprise. While addressing blogs, message boards, and other forms of new media, the FTC didn't stray from its traditional commitment to ensure that consumers know when they are seeing paid advertising.

What does today's FTC update mean to Social Marketers and bloggers? You may find it interesting what the FTC did--and didn't--say:

1. Sponsorship = Advertising:

Given marketers' and bloggers' use of the term "Sponsored Conversations" to refer to paid blog posts, it is probably no coincidence that the FTC uses the term "sponsorship" in the following statement: “The fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered ‘sponsored’ by the advertiser and therefore an ‘advertising message.’”

A blogger who posts a product-based statement independently and without commercial arrangements with the brand is not making an endorsement by the FTC's definition and thus needs not be concerned about the rules governing advertising. But as we'll see, a blogger's post that is sponsored can become an advertising endorsement and may trigger legal requirements with respect to factual information and disclosure of commercial arrangements, under certain conditions.

2. The FTC is furnishing guidelines, not rules:

The FTC has the power of Federal law to enforce legal advertising standards, but today's document defines guidelines and not rules. The Commission recognizes that the marketing and communications world is changing and is too complex for hard and fast rules. The FTC notes that it will have to “consider each use of these new media on a case-by-case basis for purposes of law enforcement, as it does with all advertising.”

So, what factors will the FTC weigh in determining if a given relationship between brand and blogger meets the standard for an "endorsement"? Today's FTC document lists the following:

Whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent;
Whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser;
The terms of any agreement;
The length of the relationship;
The previous receipt of products or services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and
The value of the items or services received.

In other words, the FTC is not tightly defining the legal standards for bloggers and brands, but it is telling us enough to advise caution with respect to paid blog posts, endorsements, and disclosure.

3. Independent consumers are still free to share their praise of brands:

Some more histrionic observers felt the FTC's guidelines would limit consumers' ability to compliment and recommend products via ratings, on blogs, and in Social Networks. This is nowhere near the case; the FTC notes that “a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement.”

4. It is not necessarily an exchange of value between brand and blogger that triggers an endorsement but the existence of a material relationship.

The FTC furnishes three similar examples of a blogger writing about a brand to draw distinctions between what is and is not an endorsement.

The first example is a simple and obvious one--the consumer buys the product and then praises it; this is clearly a legitimate, unsponsored communication.

The second example involves a blogger who posts praise after receiving free product. The key in this example is that the blogger who praises the brand is not targeted by that brand but instead receives a coupon for free product generated by a store computer based upon the consumer's past purchase patterns. In this case, the FTC notes "given the absence of a relationship between the speaker and the manufacturer or other factors supporting the conclusion that she is acting on behalf of the manufacturer (i.e., that her statement is 'sponsored'), her review would not be deemed to be an endorsement."

The last example should be considered carefully by marketers who have established networks of consumers to whom product is regularly distributed. The example involves a consumer who joins "a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so." Says the FTC, "If she receives a free bag of the new dog food through this program, her positive review would be considered an endorsement." As we'll explore later, the Commission suggests that endorsements made via blog posts require disclosure and adherence to the legal requirements of paid advertising.

5. Giving product to bloggers for the purpose of posting reviews may or may not make the bloggers' recommendations an "endorsement" (but it probably does):

The FTC takes great pains to try to address the issue of brands that disseminate free product for the purpose of garnering positive product reviews in Social Media. The Commission states that a blogger who "receive(s) merchandise from a marketer with a request to review it, but with no compensation paid other than the value of the product itself" may be considered "endorsed" by the brand depending upon "among other things, the value of that product, and on whether the blogger routinely receives such requests."

The FTC clarifies that last portion of their statement in this way: "If that blogger frequently receives products from manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular demographic group that is the manufacturers’ target market, the blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed to be 'endorsements.'" In the view of the FTC, "Although the monetary value of any particular product might not be exorbitant, knowledge of the blogger’s receipt of a stream of free merchandise could affect the weight or credibility of his or her endorsement."

In other words, someone who maintains a review blog and regularly receives free product for the purpose of authoring and posting reviews is more likely to be considered an "endorser" than a blogger who only occasionally receives products to review. Some find this curious, because it seems contrary to established practices in traditional media. There are, of course, journalists--such as movie reviewers or food critics--who frequently receive free product, but their articles in newspapers and magazines are not considered "endorsements" per the FTC.

To those who want to make the case that bloggers are being treated differently than journalists in traditional media, the FTC has a response: "The Commission acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media." In other words, get over it!

Regardless of whether you find this guidance puzzling or not, this much is clear: The FTC is putting brands on notice. Giving free products to popular bloggers or recruiting networks of consumers into "word of mouth marketing programs" for the purpose of distributing free products for review will likely be considered and regulated as paid media.

6. The fact that compensated bloggers are free to say whatever they want does not prevent their posts from being considered legal endorsements:

It doesn't matter that a brand pays a blogger and then permits him or her to express anything s/he wants, without editorial control or rules. And it also doesn't matter that bloggers compensated by a brand feel they are expressing their true and honest opinions, unbiased by the commercial arrangement. The FTC notes that “an advertiser’s lack of control over the specific statement made via these new forms of consumer-generated media would not automatically disqualify that statement from being deemed an ‘endorsement’ within the meaning of the Guides.’”

7. The fact that compensated bloggers are free to say whatever they want does not protect the brand from the legal responsibilities that come with paid advertising:

The FTC understands that marketers may not have control over what bloggers say, but "if the advertiser initiated the process that led to endorsements being made – e.g., by providing products to well-known bloggers or to endorsers enrolled in word of mouth marketing programs – it potentially is liable for misleading statements made by those consumers."

The risks to brands also include the risk that a compensated blogger fails to disclose the material relationship. Notes the FTC, "In employing this means of marketing, the advertiser has assumed the risk that an endorser may fail to disclose a material connection or misrepresent a product, and the potential liability that accompanies that risk." The Commission promises, should legal action result from a blogger's failure to disclose, that it will "exercise its prosecutorial discretion" and "consider the advertiser’s efforts to advise these endorsers of their responsibilities and to monitor their online behavior."

In short, marketers must understand they are accepting certain legal risks by entering into Sponsored Conversations. These risks can be mitigated by carefully apprising bloggers of rules for disclosure and accuracy and then monitoring them for compliance, but this does not completely eliminate all risk.

8. Because Social Media is a vehicle for authentic peer-to-peer dialog, the presence of sponsored speech (i.e., advertising) is suggesting a greater need for disclosure than may be required in other media.

The FTC recognizes that the medium matters; consumers are more likely to recognize advertising as advertising in some media more than others. A TV ad is clearly "sponsored" and thus does not require any special disclosure on the part of advertisers or networks. But in Social Media, the distinction between earned and paid media is far less evident to consumers.

The nature of Social Media and the FTC's greater expectation for disclosure is evident in their revised example pertaining to a video game blogger who is sent a free game system by a manufacturer, along with a request that the blogger write about the system. Notes the Commission, "Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement" (emphasis mine).

9. If your organization doesn't have Social Media guidelines in place, create and communicate them ASAP!

The FTC notes that employers are liable for the actions of their employees in Social Media. For example, if an employee participates in a Facebook forum or bulletin board by praising his or her employer's brands but fails to disclose his or her relationship to the brands, that could trigger prosecution.

The FTC notes that legitimate efforts to create and enforce rules that protect consumers from injury "would warrant consideration in its decision as to whether law enforcement action would be appropriate." Moreover, the FTC notes that "although the Commission has brought law enforcement actions against companies whose failure to establish or maintain appropriate internal procedures resulted in consumer injury, it is not aware of any instance in which an enforcement action was brought against a company for the actions of a single 'rogue' employee who violated established company policy."

So, get your Social Media policies in place and actively enforce them. Not only is this a good, common sense practice, it also helps to establish a defense in the event one of your employees strays into a legal minefield.

10. The FTC has outlined when material relationships must be disclosed, but it still hasn't said what constitutes "clear and conspicuous" disclosure on blogs, microblogs, or elsewhere in Social Media.

The FTC's approach to disclosure requirements is based on three primary questions:

Does a material relationship exist between endorser (i.e., blogger, consumer posting in Social Media, etc.) and brand?
If so, would the presence of this material relationship affect the weight or credibility given to the endorsement by consumers?
If so, is the endorsement likely to be recognized as paid advertising by consumers based on the circumstances, communications vehicle, and medium?

The FTC outlines a slew of diverse and subtle examples of when material arrangements relating to endorsements must be disclosed, both in Social and traditional media. For example:

A film star appears in a commercial endorsing a food product in exchange for a $1M fee or royalties on sales; no disclosure is required because such payments likely are ordinarily expected by viewers.
A well-known professional tennis player appears on a talk show and raves about the laser vision correction surgery at a clinic that she identifies by name. The athlete does not disclose that she has a contractual relationship to speak publicly about the clinic. Consumers might not realize that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview has been paid for doing so, and knowledge of such payments would likely affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the endorsement. Thus, disclosure is legally required.
The same tennis player under the same contract endorses the clinic via a real-time Social Media site, and the same rules apply; consumers might not realize that she is a paid endorser and knowing this might affect the weight consumers give to her endorsement, so the relationship with the clinic should be disclosed.
A physician endorses an anti-snoring product. Consumers would expect the physician to be reasonably compensated for his appearance in the ad, so no special disclosure is required to alert consumers the physician was paid.
But the same physician in the same ad may require disclosure if he receives a percentage of gross product sales or he owns part of the company; either of these facts would likely materially affect the credibility that consumers attach to the endorsement. Accordingly, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose such a connection between the company and the physician.

So, assuming a brand does have a commercial arrangement with a blogger, the blogger endorses the brand's product, and this relationship requires disclosure in the blog post, what meets the legal definition of "Clear and Conspicuous" disclosure? The FTC doesn't attempt to address this question at all. In other FTC documents, it establishes standards as to how proximal and evident disclosures must be, but the new guidelines do not attempt to address acceptable disclosure in Social Media. It is left to brands to discern if its disclosure policies are sufficient under the laws and guidelines established by the Commission.

Marketers are advised to ensure sponsored bloggers write and construct their blog posts in a way that make the disclosure immediately apparent to even the most casual of readers. This means disclosure in the headline or in the first part of the blog post and not a brief mention at the end!

The FTC guidelines are purposely vague, but their direction is clear. The FTC is taking a conservative approach to whether compensation to bloggers and others in Social Media--be it cash or free product--must be disclosed to consumers. The Commission's guidance suggests that the sorts of arrangements that involve remunerating others to promote products via WOM make their blog posts and other comments in Social Media legal endorsements. Since these endorsements are not expected or recognized by consumers as paid media, the FTC believes that disclosure is most likely required.

Marketers and bloggers who engage in these sorts of commercial arrangements must understand their legal obligations and the risks of failing to adhere to FTC laws pertaining to advertising. Marketers must be prepared to ensure that bloggers disclose material relationships and do not make false or unsubstantiated claims; bloggers who are compensated are also potentially legally liable for their failure to disclose commercial arrangements or for incorrect claims communicated via their blog posts.

As noted, the FTC believes each situation is unique and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As enforcement actions occur in the future, we will be provided with further clarifications to how the Commission and courts interpret the legal issues of sponsorship, endorsement, and disclosure in our new and evolving Social Media channels.

Social Media Is and Will Be Ever More Placeless

2009-09-23T01:10:00.002-05:00

Image by jamesbt via Flickr

I am on vacation this week, so I hope you'll enjoy one of my favorite blog posts from last year--one which I believe is even more relevant today.

ReadWriteWeb shares an interesting report about how cell phone users are interacting with Social Media via their phones. The study, conducted by ABI Research, found that "nearly half (46%) of those who use social networks have also visited a social network through a mobile phone. Of these, nearly 70% have visited MySpace and another 67% had visited Facebook. No other social networking site reached 15% adoption mobile adoption."

The study concludes that, "consumers do not want to recreate entirely new and separate social networks for mobile, but rather want to tap into their existing social network and have it go with them via the mobile phone." This would seem intuitively obvious--why would consumers want to create duplicate lists of friends, manage duplicate profiles, and update multiple social sites based on whether they are sitting at a PC or using their mobile device?

Of course, there are reasons that consumers may desire different profiles and friends on different sites or services, but they have nothing to do with the device used or the manner in which the data is maintained. Instead, much like we all do in the real world, consumers may want to be different people to different audiences. You might be, for example, buttoned down at work (LinkedIn), loose and casual with friends (Facebook), and downright nerdy and enthusiastic when hanging with hobbyists who share your passion (at, for example, Disney Boards, Star Wars Forums, or a Scrapbooking network).

It really should come as no surprise that consumers aren't interested in separate mobile-only networks. Their need to connect with friends doesn't end when consumers shut down their PCs; if anything, the need to stay connected is greater when people are away from their computers and out in the world. These are the times people wish to report where they are (Brightkite andLoopt), learn about others' ratings and perceptions of restaurants (Yelp), share photos of funny and unique occurrences with their mobile cameras (Twitpic and Yahoo Flickr Mobile), and broadcast updates about their experiences (Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace).

The study's finding reinforces an important attribute of successful Social Media: It is placeless. As the power and features on mobile devices continue to improve and as more consumers adopt mobile services such as the wireless Web, Internet-connected mobile applications, GPS, SMS, and broadband speeds, we will see consumers begin to erase the lines between their real and virtual networks.

If you're planning Social Media tactics, ask yourself where consumers may be most interested in sharing, listening, or collaborating with other consumers. If you're a CPG company and your Social Media campaign extends only as far as a computer keyboard, what will this do for consumers when they're at the supermarket? If you're an alcoholic beverage brand and your Social Media plan requires a PC, how will this enhance the consumer's experience at a club late on Saturday night?

If you think it's farfetched consumers will whip out their cell phones in the soft drink aisle or while ordering a beer, you may be limiting your thinking in one or both of two ways. First of all, it may be that you underestimate the rapid advances that are occurring in cell phone technology or their adoption by consumers; for example, in the past year the number of U.S. subscribers with 3G devices has grown 80 percent.

The second and more important reason a marketer may not see a compelling need for a mobile Social Media program is that they just haven't hit upon the right idea. Too many marketers hear the word "mobile" and immediately think advertising. Instead, as Adam Brown, director of digital communications for Coca-Cola recently pointed out in a MediaPost article, "the proliferation of mobile devices will 'change the whole chemistry' of social media by providing Coke and other marketers with a 'brand in the hand' to reach consumers at the right time with the right message."

With a focus on value-added marketing to consumers (listening to and engaging versus talking to customers) and consideration for where and when consumers will want to engage (on both the second and third screens), Social Media can become placeless and very, very powerful for marketers.

Join a Discussion on Ethics (and Even More Vital Topics) in Blogging

2009-09-15T23:43:00.002-05:00

I've been invited to participate in a webinar about Ethics in Blogging, sponsored by SocialMediaToday.com and The Social Media Group. The event will occur Thursday, September 24th at 1 pm ET/10 am PT. You can register to listen and participate for free, and the event is a steal at that price!

If you're webinared out, perhaps this will entice you to listen in: I don't care that much about ethics in blogging.

Don't get me wrong, I believe ethics are vital on a personal and professional level, but a dialog about ethics interests me far less than a discussion about how brands and blogs combine to impact (either positively or negatively) brand perception and consumer actions. Ethics are merely the table stakes--just like in traditional media, ethics are essential but the real magic in delivering results via blogs depends far more on blogger reputation, consumer attitudes toward the brand and category, the offer, demographics, and psychographics.

The operative issue for brands isn't that a blog is run ethically but that the blog, the blogger, the content, the context, the form of compensation, the value of compensation, and the type of disclosure work in concert to enhance the brand as desired. In some respects, I believe all the attention given to "ethics"--which is actually a relatively black-and-white issue--is obscuring the more complex, subtle, and important questions of how marketers can best use Social PR, blogger outreach, blog advertising, and "sponsored conversations" (a/k/a "paid blog posts").

One reason why Ethics in Blogging doesn't excite me is that (according to Wikipedia), Ethics is "a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality." I'm not a philosopher and I wouldn't presume to lecture anyone on moral right and wrong--but legal and marketing strategy right and wrong are horses of a different color.

The legal implications of paying or bartering with a blogger in exchange for blog posts are a little in flux because the FTC has issued proposed changes to advertising practices but has yet to publish the final code. But even without the final rules change, smart and experienced observers have a strong sense of how the FTC will use its enforcement power to set standards for brands in Social Media.

There are two reasons why few people expect any surprises when the FTC publishes its final guidance. The first is that the agency has already signaled its direction with their preliminary document, furnishing three specific examples of advertiser liability and disclosure on blogs and message boards. (During the Ethics in Blogging webinar, we hope to touch on a few specifics contained in the FTC's proposed rule changes.)

The second reason is that the FTC has always governed advertising with a fairly simple golden rule: Consumers must know when they are being advertised to. In forms of media where advertising is clearly delineated and well recognized--such as TV ads and billboards--no special disclosures are necessary. But when any level of confusion may exist in the mind of consumers--such as an advertorial in print or a paid blog post--then the advertising disclosure must be clear and conspicuous.

The FTC doesn't explicitly define "clear and conspicuous," but one FTC publication challenges advertisers to ask four questions about their paid media:

Prominence: Is the fine print big enough for people to notice and read?
Presentation: Is the wording and format easy for people to understand?
Placement: Is the fine print where people will look?
Proximity: Is the fine print near the claim it qualifies?

On blogs, it isn't that hard to interpret these standards. The reader must know from the start (and not tucked into language at the end of a 1000-word blog post) that a commercial arrangement exists between a brand mentioned in a blog post and the blogger. About the only real issue of any disagreement with respect to blogging ethics and the law is what sort of disclosure meets the FTC's "clear and conspicuous" standard. Is it acceptable for the entire blog to have a single disclosure? Must the blog post headline contain an alert such as "Ad" or "Paid Post"? And what of paid tweets--how can adequate disclosure be given in 140-character tweets?

Total disclosure--clear and conspicuous--of commercial arrangements (be they cash, product, travel, or other forms of remuneration) is both ethical and legal, but this is just the tip of the iceberg for marketers wishing to gain attention in the blogosphere. For example, if a blog post begins "I was paid $1,000 to write about Jinkie's brand cereal," will consumers read the article, if so will they trust it, and if so how will the article alter their opinions or actions? What if the paid blog post appears on a blog that is nothing but paid blog posts--will this affect consumer trust and the impact of the sponsored conversation?

These are just a few of the questions marketers need to answer, which is why disclosure is child's play compared to discerning the attributes that separate a blog strategy that helps from one that hurts or does nothing for the brand.

So as a member of this webinar panel, I hope to share some insights and spark dialog not about what is right or wrong for the souls of bloggers but what is right or wrong for brands participating in the blogosphere. If you have specific questions, topics, or opinions you'd like to see addressed, please comment below so we can consider your input!

I hope you'll consider joining us for the free webinar, Ethics in Blogging. In addition to myself, webinar panelists include Maggie Fox, founder and CEO of Social Media Group; Daniel Tunkelang, Chief Scientist and co-founder of Endeca; and John Jantsch, author of Duct Tape Marketing: The World's Most Practical Small Business Marketing Guide.

HR is the New Marketing and Employees are the New Media

2009-09-13T08:45:00.022-05:00

For too long, Marketers have been content to focus on messaging and media while considering activities like recruiting and training to be the concern of support or operations departments. In our newly social world, in which employees create or cause interactions that can impact the perceptions of many, Marketers cannot ignore how brands are altered by employee actions and communications. In 2009, brand management isn't about what you say you are, it's about who you are, and this is what makes HR the new Marketing.

We've already seen plenty of instances where the careless and irresponsible actions of individual employees have been shared with millions of consumers, harming the organization's reputation, moving the brand off message, distracting leadership, requiring urgent PR response, and forcing organizational reconsideration of management processes. Examples include Domino's kitchen workers soiling ingredients placed onto pizzas, an ill-advised kitchen sink bath by a Burger King employee, and a Honda product manager embarrassing his organization with a lack of transparency on a brand's Facebook page.

I sometimes get asked why my blog more frequently spotlights negative examples of Social Media rather than positive best-case examples. The problem is--not just for me as a Social Media observer but also for brands--that the damaging and shocking are much more likely to go viral than the helpful and constructive. An employee placing ingredients on a pizza in a hygienic and appropriate manner just doesn't grab attention like an employee transferring a slice of cheese from his nostril to a customer's pizza.

So, I am pleased to get an opportunity to present a positive example to contrast the headline-grabbing antics of dimwit employees. As reported on AZCentral.com, Mary Moss has worked at the drive-thru window at a McDonald's for four years, and over that time her upbeat attitude and desire to connect with her customers resulted in quite a fan base. She didn't even know what Facebook was until a customer told her she had her own fan page on the Social Network. Mary's fan page had 260 friends back when the article was published on August 11th, but it now has over 800 members.

I think this positive example demonstrates several important things of note:

Negative goes farther and faster than positive: Mr. Unstable gets 460,000 views on his video while Mary Moss earns just 260 friends (prior to the mainstream media attention). As noted, there is an innate human fascination with the gross, stupid, and humiliating, and this combined with Social Media's speed and reach present risks that brands must take seriously and manage.
Authentic Social Media success starts with positive consumer experiences: Brands can pay for tweets, reach out to bloggers for Social PR, and launch and moderate their own fan pages, but authentic, groundswell success is based on the experiences brands provide to their consumers. The brands that were Word of Mouth powerhouses before today's Social Media existed--such as Harley-Davidson, Disney, Apple, Google, Starbucks, and Honda--have known this all along.
Every employee is a marketer: A friend recently raved about the assistance he received from an employee in a Costco wine department (and he's eager to find time to blog about it). In his one-minute story about this employee, my friend impacted my awareness and perception of Costco more than all of the organization's marketing efforts. As Nielsen reported back in July, consumers place far greater trust in the opinions of people they know, and even have more trust in the opinions of strangers, than in official marketing communications. If HR is the new Marketing, than employees are the new media.

What does this mean to marketers? Focusing on advertising and PR while ignoring the ways in which employees are recruited, onboarded, trained, evaluated, and supported is like paddling a sail boat when you've yet to hoist the sails. Sure, you can get the boat moving with a lot of paddling effort, but why not create velocity by setting the conditions and exploiting natural circumstances?

How might marketers and others within organizations better influence and care for the power of human resources in Social Media?

Personality Testing for All New Employees: We all know that inconsistency kills brands; if brands are increasingly reliant upon employees communicating, networking, and sparking dialog in Social Media, how can a brand's personality arise from all those different voices?

In an age when authenticity matters and people are expected to reflect their personal as well as professional selves in Social Media, it is much easier to find employees whose personalities fit the brand than to expect employees to be something they're not. Many organizations already conduct personality testing as part of their hiring process; in how many of these organizations do you suppose Marketing professionals have contributed to or vetted these tests?
Selection Criteria for Key Social Communication Roles: Any employee can (inadvertently) become a viral media star, but those placed on the front lines of Social Media by their employers have a particularly important role in brand perception. For this reason, the criteria used to select Social communicators deserves special consideration.

Some organizations are selecting employees based on the fact they are already active in Social Media. Knowing Facebook doesn't seem like a particularly helpful criteria for critical and visible positions moderating discussion groups, listening and responding to criticism and praise on Social Networks, and offering customer service via Twitter. It's not that experience with Social Networks hurts, but there are more important communication and relationship-building skills to be considered. Twitter and Facebook processes can be easily taught; it is more difficult to instill listening skills, judgment, empathy, patience, time management, problem solving, and the other abilities necessary to succeed in Social Media.
Brand Training: Marketers spend a great deal of time crafting messages and broadcasting them to consumers, but how much time is spent ensuring employees know and can reflect the brand in their daily interactions with others?

Brands have personalities, a voice, points of differentiation, and other attributes that create the expectations and experiences that forge the brand in the minds of consumers. These attributes cannot be reflected by employees in their Social communications unless those employees are intimately familiar with the brand platform; furthermore, brand information cannot be conveyed to employees in the same manner marketers communicate to each other and to agencies, but must be shared in practical ways that help front-line employees understand how to communicate and act.
Setting Expectations of Employees: Every employee, no matter how self-motivated, wants to know what is expected and how their performance will be evaluated. Setting an employee loose to Tweet for the brand should be no different than assigning him or her to a call center job--the quantitative and qualitative expectations of the position must be clear.

Every brand and organization will have different expectations, so it's important to communicate rules and performance measures. In Social Media, this might include standards for the personal versus professional information conveyed, who to follow, topics appropriate for public dialog, criteria for alerting management of potential PR crises, and the like.
Monitoring and feedback: Monitoring employees' interactions with consumers has always been vital, but consider the increased urgency of doing so in a highly-networked world where a single incorrect or frustrated tweet or post can be shared with thousands of current and potential customers within minutes. Real-time monitoring may not be realistic for any but the largest of organizations, but implementing some form of periodic and ongoing monitoring is vital for performance evaluation, employee feedback, and brand management. Companies cannot afford to wait for a complaint or, worse yet, a viral crisis before recognizing the need to listen to employees as carefully as they listen to consumers.

Employees have always had an important role in managing brands, but Social Media has made this role even more vital. How else should organizations ensure they are proactively tapping their human resources and protecting their brands in our highly networked world? Your feedback and ideas would be appreciated--just click the "Comments" link below.

Nineteen Free Twitter Tools that Turn Tweets into Knowledge

2009-09-08T01:41:00.000-05:00

Image via CrunchBase

Twitter hosts approximately one million tweets per hour. In mid-September, the site will accept its 4 billionth tweet. Everyone knows there is wisdom in all that group thought--some even predict Twitter could be the next Google--but how can you tap the brainpower of Twitter's 6 million (give or take) users?

That's Twitter's $64,000 question (or, according to Scoble, the $5 billion question). The reason there's so much hype about a microblogging tool with almost no apparent means of revenue or profit is that everyone realizes the amazing value contained in all those 140-character status updates.

What does this mean to you as you conduct research to assist your clients, your small business, or other interests? How can you turn those billions of tweets into knowledge you can leverage?

There are plethora of paid services and tools available for monitoring sentiment and knowledge, but since the R&D budget for Experience: The Blog is somewhat south of $.01, I cannot share any insights about these offerings. It is a sign of the growth of Twitter and other Social Networks, as well as the explosion of awareness about the importance of Social Media to business, that the list of paid offerings seems to grow daily: Crimson Hexagon, radian6, Techrigy, Sysomos, J. D. Power, Visible Technologies, Tealium, dna13, Cymfony, BrandsEye, Trackur, Spiral16, BuzzLogic, ChartBeat, Attentio, Nielsen BuzzMetrics, Biz360, and on and on and on.

But you don't need deep pockets to derive insight from the Twitterverse. Those on a budget (or without a budget) who want to tap Twitter for wisdom can select from a number of tools that are available at no cost. Here are some of my favorites. If you have others to add to the list, please comment!

Track Tweet Volume

There are a lot of search engines and trend-tracking tools available, but in my opinion one stands out for the precision and amount of data it makes available. Although a bit buggy, Trendtistic is still worthwhile.

For terms and phrases with a reasonably high volume of tweets, Trendtistic furnishes custom graphs of Tweet volume over the past 180 days. The Y-axis represents the percentage of Tweets that mention the desired topic, and the X-axis is a timeline that can be set to specific time periods. Among the helpful features are the ability to enter and compare more than one term at a time and a method for embedding charts into sites and blogs.

Track Yourself on Twitter

I've always felt that the narcissistic aspects of Twitter were overstated, but it is interesting to note how many tools are available to help compare one's Twitter habits to others. A few to check out include:

Twitter Analyzer provides your volume of tweets, number of conversations, reach, common subjects, the apps you use, and other aspects of your Twitter habit.
Twitter Grader compares you to others and furnishes a score on a 1 to 100 scale where 50 represents an average Twitterer. You can easily compare your Twitter profile to others in your city or state. How the site computes the actual score is a deep, dark secret.
Twitterholic shares a list of the most followed Twitterers and also permits you to find where you sit on that list.
Tweeps.info is a bit like a stripped down Twitter Analyzer. Check out your average number of tweets per day, your frequency of hashtag use, your social ratio, and top terms contained in your tweets.
TweetPsych puts you and your tweets on the couch and evaluates your Cognitive, Primordial, Conceptual and Emotional Content.
TweetStats is yet another tool to graph your Twitter habits. This handy site presents the number of tweets you send per month, your tweet density by day of the week and time of day, and the top people you retweet or to whom you reply.

Track Sentiment on Twitter

There may be no hotter topic in social marketing circles (besides Social Media ROI) than how to track sentiment. To be honest, the free sentiment-measuring tools are more toys than they are business research applications, but they are not without merit.

TweetFeel allows for real-time sentiment tracking of Tweets based on the search term entered. The site labels tweets red or green based on an analysis of the sentiment in the Tweets. Half the fun is watching for instances when TweetFeel gets it wrong (such as when it labeled the tweet "It'll only be a matter of time before disney rules the world. Then we really are f***ed." as a positive one for Disney), but the site does a pretty remarkable job of getting sentiment right, albeit for a highly limited period of time and number of tweets.

A similar site for tracking sentiment in real-time is Twendz. As tweets stream down the page, Twendz not only monitors sentiment (positive, negative, and neutral), but also related subtopics and their sentiment. You might, for example, track "Disney" and also learn the sentiment on terms like "Gomez" (actress Selena), "World" (Walt Disney World resort), and "Channel" (the Disney cable net). (In my decidedly non-scientific evaluation of TweetFeel and Twendz, it seemed TweetFeel tended to gauge sentiment with a bit more accuracy.)

Track Tweets in Real Time

There are plenty of tools available to watch tweets scroll across your screen. Monitter permits users to enter up to three terms and observe tweets as they occur. TweetGrid is a similar tool that gives you control of how many windows and terms you wish to monitor--choose from grids such as 1x2 (for two real-time search windows) up to 3x3 (nine windows) and 2x5 (10 small, hyperactive windows).

Twazzup isn't technically real-time but does refresh often, combining the latest tweets along with news, photos, popular links, and the Twitterers who are most influential or most active at the moment.

And, of course, Twitter.com also presents search results in real-time--just use the "Search" box on the right side of your Twitter page, and watch for the "Refresh" message to appear at the top of the search results.

A fun tool for tracking tweets in real-time is Twistori. This site only tracks tweets that contain "I hate," "I love," "I think," "I believe," "I feel" and "I wish." It's like spying on the secret diaries of millions.

Track Who is Following You

Twitter does not furnish a good way to tell if someone in particular is following you. You could review your follower list page by page, or you might try sending someone a Direct Message to see if it goes through or is rejected, but there is an easier method: Just enter your and their Twitter handle into DoesFollow, and you can quickly find out if that person if following you.

Another handy site is FriendorFollow.com. This slow site will try your patience, but it is an effective way to discover the people you are following on Twitter who are not returning the favor ("Following"). You can also see a reverse list--people following you who you're not following back ("Fans.")

Track Tweeted Backlinks

Wonder who is tweeting links to your blog or site? BackTweets reverse engineers those link shortening tools to provide you with a list of recent tweets that include links to a specified URL. You can enter the root domain (such as nytimes.com) to view tweets that furnish a link to any page within that domain.

Primary Research via Twitter

All of the tools mentioned thus far are fine for secondary research, but what if you want specific information from your followers? You could just tweet a question, or you could use a tool to conduct a poll.

PollDaddy couldn't be simpler--just enter your question, up to 20 optional answers, and your Twitter username and password. The site tweets your question and a link, then tracks the responses. The only problem is that it can be easy to lose your poll, since there is no way to register and track the polls you created; the only way to track the results is to save the link Tweeted so you can access it a later date after the responses are received.

Vizu offers a free and powerful polling tool. You can access your past polls, export results, and see a map of your responders. Polls are easily posted to Social Bookmarking sites or embedded into blogs.

Those are a few of my favorite free Twitter tools. Did I miss yours? If so, please comment and share your favorite knowledge-gathering Twitter sites!

Ten Ways to Identify Trustworthy Social Media Communication Professionals

2009-09-03T00:30:00.008-05:00

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

The time has come for business to put away childish Social Media notions. It was fun while it lasted, but Social Media is no longer a new toy or an experiment; it is serious business, integral to everything from customer service to marketing to recruiting. Of course, individuals can still tweet jokes, chat with friends, or post embarrassing videos to YouTube, but professionals and businesses must now set aside naive and harmful presumptions.

Social Media is not for kids; it's big business and getting bigger. More than one in five online display ads now appear on Social Media sites. More than 60 percent of Facebook users are over 26 years old, and the site's aging population has motivated Facebook to add "Widowed" as a Relationship Status. Three of the five most visited Web sites (and seven of the top 15) are Social Media destinations. In a recent survey of diverse professionals, 86 percent reported their organizations are currently using social technologies for business purposes. In a different survey, 60 percent of US marketing professionals reported already implementing Social Media as part of their marketing mix, and another 28% were planning on implementing it over the coming year.

Because of the growing importance of Social Media to business, it is disappointing to see the scattered and grasping way some consultants, agencies, and companies are promoting and talking about Social Media and themselves. On ClickZ, Rebecca Lieb, who was ClickZ's editor-in-chief for over seven years, complained about "social media carpetbaggers," "self-anointed pundits, swamis, and social media gurus (who) perform a sleight-of-hand that so confounds onlookers" but who haven't "walked the walk." Over on The Viral Garden blog, Mack Collier rails about "kool-aid drinkers" who push the idea that Social Media is easy to use and free or cheap.

Today I participated in a Twitter conversation about Social Media, and the topic turned to how to recruit for Social Media positions within organizations. Some "experts" actually suggested looking for people frequently and deeply engaged in Social Media, as if posting party pictures, playing Farmville, and tweeting about a favorite teen singer qualifies one for a Social Media career. That's like picking phone service professionals based on the fact candidates love to chat and share gossip with friends via the telephone.

Given that survey after survey after survey after survey demonstrate the biggest hurdle to Social Media adoption is a lack of knowledge, it may be that many organizations simply do not possess the experience needed to separate trustworthy communication professionals from the self-anointed Social Media "Gurus". I'd like to suggest some ways to tell the difference, and I hope you'll add comments with your suggestions!

Are they active and professional participants in Social Media? Do they have a blog, and if so, is it updated regularly? Are they on Twitter, and are their tweets enlightening or noisy? Do they participate in LinkedIn groups, and if so, do they engage in insightful discussions or are they merely promoting themselves? I am highly dubious of Social Media experts who are absent or infrequent participants in Social Media.
Do they brag about the size of their Twitter following? A widely-read and respected blog is brag-worthy--traffic, engagement, and authoritative links cannot be easily faked. But an enormous Twitter following is not necessarily a sign of Social Media expertise. Some folks built their following the old-fashioned way--they earned it by being smart people who others want to know and follow--but many others have amassed tens of thousands of followers by using auto-follow tools that collect and follow anyone, regardless of relevance. If a potential candidate brags about the size of their Twitter following and not the influence they have or the way they developed quality followers, proceed with caution.
How long have they been in the marketing, communications, or PR business? I have met many passionate and smart young people in the field of Social Media, but expertise is not amassed in six or twelve months. There is a definitely a place for young professionals on a Social Media team, but that place shouldn't be advising large companies or brands about the nuances, ethics, or measurement of Social Media. Professionals with an impressive background in digital, marketing, or public relations are able to ground their Social Media knowledge and recommendations in communication best practices and not simply their own personal experiences on Twitter.
What are their stands on the ethics and laws in Social Media? Social Media offers great opportunities but also substantial risks. We've seen many high-profile missteps, such as companies spamming Twitter hashtags and game developers caught posting fake positive ratings on their own games. Ask your prospective Social Media consultants what their stand is on paying bloggers (they ought to have an extremely cautious approach to cash compensation and instead recommend relevant blogger outreach) or their expectations of bloggers disclosing relationships and remuneration (total disclosure--period).
Do they start by asking about the audience and goals or by talking about Facebook, Twitter, and widgets? Facebook and Twitter are certainly the headline-grabbing Social Networks of the day, and they likely will be at the top of the Social Media heap for quite some time. Despite that (or perhaps because of that) any Social Media consultant worth your time will not start by reviewing opportunities on Facebook and Twitter. They should begin--as should any professional communications expert--with a thorough understanding of the target audience, their habits, and needs, as well as the goals of the program. For a high-level overview of a smart Social Media strategic process, check out Forrester's Groundswell POST approach.
Do they suggest Social Media is free, cheap, and/or easy? There is no cost to set up a Twitter account or a Facebook page; pretty much everything else has a price tag. Monitoring buzz, participating, listening, identifying audience habits, measuring success, designing and programming social applications, fostering relationships with bloggers, building thriving communities, and furnishing relevant content all require time and expense. Beware the Social Media expert who underestimates the investment and time required for a successful Social Media program.
Do they ground their recommendations and plans in a thorough understanding of your brand? Your brand has a point of view, a voice, a purpose, and points of differentiation from competitors. These brand attributes are no less (and very probably more) important in Social Media than traditional media. Your employees who participate must bring their personalities to their interactions with customers and partners, but they also have to represent the brand. Any Social Media plan not informed by the brand is a one-size-fits-all solution that fails to leverage and enhance consumer perception of the brand.
Do they prepare you and the organization for the ongoing commitment? Some Social Media strategies might be short-term in nature (such as User-Generated Content campaign or Social sweepstakes), but most involve a long-term commitment to listen and participate. Launching and then abandoning a Twitter account, Facebook page or community is almost never the right approach, so it's vital a Social Media plan consider not only the costs and time necessary to launch the program, but also the resources or investment required to maintain the engagement on an ongoing basis.
Does their plan include training, monitoring, and defined expectations for employees involved? Assigning an employee or group of employees to participate and manage Social Media profiles, groups, or communities without setting expectations and furnishing support is a recipe for disaster. Employees must be trained on the appropriate use of Social Media tools, told what is expected of them and how their performance will be measured, and monitored and coached on an ongoing basis.
What is their approach to measuring success? There are two ends of the spectrum to be avoided--Social Media experts who promise ROI and those who suggest or launch plans without any regard for measurement. On the one hand, computing actual financial Return on Investment on Social Media efforts is no less challenging than it is to compute ROI on a television campaign or a customer service program; on the other hand, every business effort should have established metrics (qualitative or quantitative) so that results can be evaluated and used to revise and enhance processes. An appropriate and sensible approach is to define a measurement plan based on the objectives and to execute the means to monitor and evaluate the program per that plan.

Social Media can be fun and games for consumers, but for business is must be considered a crucial and serious tool for cutting costs, enhancing loyalty, sparking action, building and protecting the brand, or increasing awareness. Choosing the right partners should be done with the same care and planning that is dedicated to finding and securing other professional services and resources.

If you have your own recommendations for ways to identify true Social Media professionals, please comment and share your thoughts.

Who Matters Most in Social Media? Not You!

2009-08-27T23:53:00.001-05:00

Please don't take this personally, but you are not the most important person in the world. (Nor am I.) If professionals and brands keep just one thing in mind as they develop strategies and engage in Social Media, it is this: "It's not about me."

In Social Media, you can and should have goals. Having goals helps to define how you establish profiles, who you follow, what you share, and how you measure success. Even for those who use Social Media purely for personal reasons, having goals and gauging qualitative success is vital; we live in a stressful world with many demands on our time, so we ought to be able to judge that our hours with Twitter and Facebook are worthwhile. But no matter your goal, it's vital to focus more on your listeners than on what you care to say.

Right now, Social Media seems like a bright, shiny new toy because it is new to a lot of people. Twitter's been around since March 2006, but as of the end of 2008, 70% of Twitter users had joined in just the past year. Facebook took almost all of 2004 to reach its first million users; thus far in 2009, the site has grown from 150 million to 250 million users.

As with any change in communication technology, Twitter is causing an upheaval in the norms and rules in communication and in this time of uncertainty, people and organizations are inserting their own rules of engagement. Businesses that would never dream of sending a spam email are encouraging their followers to blast valueless brand messages to their Twitter networks. Folks who would never send an email to their entire contact list in order to invite one friend to lunch are announcing their plans to every follower they have on Twitter.

How is one to know what is right and wrong when best practices in a new medium are still forming? That question sounds rhetorical, but it's not. The answer is easy--just think "It's not about me!"

This maxim isn't based on cutting-edge Social Media theory but on two truisms as old as mankind: "Technology changes; people don't" and "Communications is about the understanding, not the speaking."

Technology changes; people don't

Every time technology changes the way humans communicate, someone predicts it will alter the very nature of human behavior, and these predictions always prove wrong. In the 1930s, Philo T. Farnsworth thought his invention, the television, would be "a marvelous teaching tool," ending illiteracy and permitting people from different lands to settle differences "around conference tables, without going to war." Close, but no cigar.

The late 90s were full of financial speculation based on the idea the Internet had changed everything. High banner ad click rates convinced many that content would be free; Ecommerce was going to put stale old bricks-and-mortar enterprises out of business; and profits were derided as some sort of quaint concept like the buggy whip or waiting until marriage. Today, digital news is as much at risk as its printed counterpart because online ad revenues cannot cover costs; the list of top online retailers consists mainly of large offline retailers and manufacturers; and the financial markets made clear the importance of profits when the dot-com crash evaporated trillions of dollars of value, 500 dot-com companies, and half a million high-tech jobs.

Social Media will change much--the size of human networks, our ability to maintain soft relationships, the reach of the individual, and the transparency of organizations--but it won't change humans. We cannot argue that the things people are not interested in today--interruption advertising, spam, others' private conversations, narcissistic self interest, irrelevant babble--will suddenly become in vogue simply because Twitter exists. These types of "me"-focused messages create just as much noise in Social Media as in the real world.

Communications is about the understanding, not the speaking

George Bernard Shaw said "The problem with communication ... is the illusion that it has been accomplished." Twitter is filled with illusion--the illusion every tweet is read; the illusion others are interested in my every thought; the illusion that being followed means being heard; and the illusion that the larger the list, the greater the influence.

None of these statements is completely true, and none is completely false; their truthfulness varies from person to person based on the attention earned from the listeners. Communication doesn't occur because words are uttered or a status update is tweeted; it occurs when those messages reach another person who cares enough to pay attention and can translate the meaning.

Thoughts of caring and attention on Twitter came to mind as I read the comments to my last blog post, Eight Twitter Habits That May Get You Unfollowed or Semi-Followed. I was honored (and lucky) to be picked up by the SmartBrief on Social Media, which resulted in 30,000 views, 67 comments, and 1200 tweets on Social Media Today. The volume of dialog about this blog post permitted some interesting insights about following and listening.

The most contentious part of my blog post was my suggestion that people will tend to tune out Twitterers who publicly thank others for retweets (RT) and #followfriday recommendations. Many thought that a public expression of gratitude was more valuable than a Direct Message (DM). What I found interesting was that, out of all the comments, just one person approached the issue in terms of whether Twitterers like or value seeing others thank each other (which is "you"-focused). Everyone else commented how much they liked to publicly thank people or how much they wanted to be publicly thanked (which is "me"-focused).

My intent isn't to debate etiquette but to encourage people to think of what motivates followers to truly follow and not merely semi-follow; having people on your Twitter list is one thing, but having active listeners is another. Assuming you want to earn attention from those following you, then regularly tweeting a message pertinent to a tiny fraction of your followers seems likely to reduce your relevance and diminish the attention you earn.

Think of it another way: How often have you heard people complain of not having time to Twitter or of being overwhelmed by the microblogging service? Keep those people in mind when you consider these questions: How many of your status updates are of the type that others must scroll past to get to the interesting and pertinent tweets? And how many are perceived as valuable and worthwhile by almost all of your followers?

"It's not about me" doesn't mean you have to approach Social Media with a sense of altruism. It's okay to have objectives, but it's vital to keep in mind the people who earn influence are the ones who focus most on others.

Two comments I received really stood out as shining examples of the "It's not about me" school of thought. Deb Kolaras shared a rule of thumb that forces one to consider his or her status updates from the perspective of others: "Would I say this to a large room of people?" Think of a room full of people including family, peers, and future employers, and consider that they will only "hear" your tweet and not the entire conversation you're having. Will it make sense? Will it be relevant? Is it appropriate?

The second comment came from Christopher Sherrod who summarized this topic succinctly: "People love tweets that are useful. Be useful in your niche and people will follow you."

Who matters most in Social Media? Everyone else! Strive to live by this, and others will perceive your value, listen to you, and connect in a very real way.

Eight Twitter Habits That May Get You Unfollowed or Semi-Followed

2009-08-24T01:01:00.007-05:00

Best practices on Twitter are still developing, and everyone seems to have their own preferences and attitudes about right and wrong on the microblogging service. Standards vary widely depending upon whether one is using Twitter just to keep in touch with friends or is tweeting on behalf of their business or employer. Whatever your purpose, you may have some tweeting habits that encourage others to unfollow or semi-follow you.

Before delving into the list of attention-repelling habits, let's first explore the concept of the semi-follow. On Twitter, there are only two possible states for following--a person either follows another or they don't. But while most people still post updates via the Twitter Web site, many use third-party applications that help group and organize followers. People using software such as TweetDeck or sites like HootSuite can follow others with different levels of rigor--some people are followed closely, others are semi-followed, and still others are almost completely ignored.

For example, I follow over 2,000 people, and as my list grew beyond several hundred, I found I was missing tweets from the people I care most about. I could have opted to axe strangers with interesting things to share, but instead I opted (as do most people with large Twitter follow lists) to use a tool to group my Tweeple. I have HootSuite organized with groups that include friends, peers and clients from Fullhouse, local people of interest, marketing thought leaders, news feeds, and Social Media movers and shakers. This gives me the ability to track about 200 Twitter feeds more closely than the remainder of my follow list.

They key to being followed more closely is to say and share things that others care about. This requires a great deal of focus and an awareness of the subtle tendencies that can cause others to begin to tune out, consciously or not. Here are eight things Twitterers do that tend to diminish the attention they receive from others:

8. Constant Tweeting about your own business: I was just followed by a printing company in Raleigh, NC, and every single tweet was about their business--"lowest prices," "visit our site," "why everyone is switching to us," blah blah blah. According to TweetLater, the tool I use to vet followers, over 50% of those followed by this business chose to ignore this account, and it is a sure bet almost none of the remaining 50% will pay any attention to what this Twitterer has to say. Constant self-promotion isn't a stream of tweets, it's a stream of ads, and no one really wants to subscribe to that.

7. People who mistake public tweets for private messages: When you make lunch plans via email, you send a message only to the people you wish to invite and not to everyone in your contact list. This common sense approach isn't so common on Twitter, where some folks seem to believe every communication to anyone should be broadcast to everyone.

As the number of followers grows, the need to cut down on noise increases, so if you wish to encourage your followers to pay attention, keep private communications private and send a public Tweet only when the message may be of interest to many of your followers. The Direct Message (DM) is a powerful tool--don't fear the DM!

6. People who engage in partial and cryptic @replies: Twitter is intended to be conversational, but remember that people will begin to tune you out if they cannot understand or decode many of your status updates. For this reason, it's important when replying that you give context; for example, what is "@you Word," "@you I'm sorry to hear that," or "@you ROFLOL" supposed to mean to people unless they 1) follow both you and the person to whom you're responding, and 2) care enough and have the time to follow the dialog back and forth?

It's one thing to say "@you That Conan O'Brien video clip of Shatner reading Palin's speech was funny," but it's an altogether different and more annoying thing to tweet, "@You That was hilarious." The former gives context that invites attention and replies from others; the latter is just noise that will only have relevance to one person.

5. Just links: Sharing links is a great way to create value for your followers, but please don't share links with no explanation. What is on the other end of a link-shortened URL such as http://ow.ly/iyu8? Is this news, a video clip, spam, spyware? I don't know and I don't care--links with no context not only won't get clicked but may encourage others to dump you.

4. Excessive games, sweeps, & viral marketing: I'm a marketer and support the appropriate use of Twitter for participation in marketing promotions. But when a Twitterer becomes obsessed with a game or sweepstakes and litters their Twitter feed with promotional tweets, it isn't any different than spam. Sharing a cool branded video or a relevant sweepstakes is great; tweeting #moonfruit 20 times in 5 minutes because you want to win an Apple computer is just damn annoying.

Of course, smart marketers will find a way to create Twitter promotions that engage others rather than irritate them. For example, Marriott launched an annoying Moonfruit-like promotion at http://marriotthawaiitweets.com/. It's causing a minor flood of useless and repetitive tweets like "Trying my luck to win a Hawaiian getaway from @marriotthawaii." As my Twitter friend @RobertKCole pointed out, "This is spam without some form of community benefit, like naming a favorite activity in Hawaii." Marketers need to challenge themselves to get people sharing something of interest and not just spammy and irrelevant tweets, because what worked for Moonfruit once could well become a PR disaster for a brand running a Twitter sweepstakes in the future.

3. Automatic Direct Messages (DMs): Talk about getting a relationship off on the wrong foot--someone trusts a Twitterer enough to follow him or her and then is repaid with an impersonal and spammy Direct Message. Many is the time I've followed someone, received a generic Auto DM, and immediately unfollowed, beginning and ending a Twitter relationship in less than five minutes.

Using an Auto DM may seem like a good way to "welcome" new followers, but most people actually find it very unwelcoming. Also, Auto DMs can fill up peoples' lists of incoming Direct Messages, making it difficult to catch real, valuable, person-to-person DMs.

A move is afoot to shame those who send automatic DMs. The site StopAutoDM.com recently launched, encouraging Twitterers to send an @reply containing the hashtag #stopautodm to those who use Auto DMs; doing so causes the tweet to appear on the site's "Recent Offender Newswire."

2. Publicly thanking others for thinking you're terrific: It's very rewarding when new people follow, when you get cited by others with a #followfriday mention, or when you get retweeted. Each of these occurrences is an appropriate opportunity to thank someone--privately with a DM!

Sending a public tweet that thanks someone for following, for recommending you, or for retweeting your post isn't an expression of gratitude but a boast sent to everyone who follows you. It's a big, needy, self-serving way to make sure a wide group of people are aware that someone thinks you're terrific.

Think of it this way: When you receive a compliment from a boss or peer, do you express genuine gratitude in a private manner, or do you stand on a chair and bellow "Thank you for complimenting my work!" Public tweets that express appreciation for referrals and recommendations are the Twitter equivilent of a vain bellow.

1. Politics, Religion & Sex (unless that is your Twitter profile's purpose): If you create a Twitter profile to support gun rights, gay marriage, your church, or your adult film career, by all means talk politics, religion, or sex; that would be expected by people who follow you. But if your Twitter account is intended to be professional, then tweeting about politics, religion or sex is a good way to offend or annoy some portion of your followers.

Miss Manners' advice is as relevant on Twitter as it is at dinner parties: "Unless you are like-minded old friends, (do not talk to another) about sex, politics or religion. That is not a quaint prohibition. Such subjects as gay marriage, taxes and abortion have been known to explode otherwise pleasant dinner parties." Or Twitter relationships.

Some folks reject the idea of "rules" for Twitter and think anything goes. This attitude may be fine for those who don't really care whether they're followed or what others think, but that's a luxury not afforded most of us with a professional intent on Twitter. The microblogging service hasn't changed the essentials of communications and relationships: People listen to and connect with those who demonstrate concern about their relevance, comprehension, and value to others.

Poll: Social Media Convergence--Are You Using More or Fewer Social Networks?

2009-08-18T22:41:00.006-05:00

Today I ran across a couple of interesting studies--Universal McCann's "Power to the People: Social Media Tracker" and ShesConnected's "The Power of Social Networking For Women Research Study."

These two documents are crammed with terrific information, but one thing that caught my eye was some data that indicates a Social Media convergence may be underway. As noted by eMarketer:

Universal McCann also sees a “decline or stasis” in the use of separate sites for activities such as blogging and photo-sharing. Instead, users are looking to social networks that consolidate multiple social media in a single place.

Meanwhile, the ShesConnected report notes:

As the number of Social Network sites proliferate and people become overwhelmed with the number of choices and time required for upkeep, Social Networks with the greatest number of members will thrive. This consolidation will mean smaller networks will be unable to remain viable unless they offer a unique value proposition.

The term "consolidate" appears in both reports. In some ways, the consolidation noted in these reports parallels my own experience; at one point, I tried to keep up with multiple microblogging platforms, but I've long since abandoned Identica and Plurk to focus on (of course) Twitter.

But in other ways, I'm still expanding my Social Networks based on interest, uniqueness, and need. For example, I recently became a paying member of Flickr because uploading low-res images to Facebook sometimes does not satisfy my needs; sharing pictures in Facebook is easy, but doing so in Flickr is the better option when quality matters.

So, I'm curious about the experience of those that read this blog. Are you using more, fewer, or the same number of Social Networks as three months ago? Please answer below:

Online Surveys & Market Research

Twitter's 40.55% "Pointless Babble": The Insights Mainstream Media Missed

2009-08-14T02:46:00.001-05:00

FOX News led their "Click This" segment with a laugh and this assertion: "If you feel like you're missing out on this Twitter thing, don't worry, because 40% of the tweets are just pointless babble." Courtney Friel delivered the line in the sort of disparaging tone FOX usually reserves for Nancy Pelosi.

To that, I respond: If FOX News was only 40% pointless babble, it would be a huge improvement!

My gripe isn't only with FOX News; other news sources were quick to jump on the story. For example, V3 featured an article titled, "Twitter is no business tool, says research," which claimed the findings of a Twitter study, "pour(s) cold water on suggestions that Twitter can be used as an effective business tool and news source." That will come as a surprise to the millions of people effectively using Twitter as a news source or the thousands of businesses of all sizes that are already seeing benefits from using Twitter.

All of this Twitter twattle came as a result of a study conducted by Pear Analytics, which certainly got the PR value it desired from the report. Pear says they studied "2,000 tweets from the public timeline over a 2-week period" and categorized these tweets "into 6 buckets: News, Spam, Self-Promotion, Pointless Babble, Conversational and Pass-Along Value."

The study's results as reported on SFGate.com are:

40.55% "Pointless babble." Pear defined these as the "'I am eating a sandwich' tweets."
37.55% "Conversational." Questions, polls, back and forth dialog in an almost instant message fashion.
8.7% "Pass along value." Re-tweets passed along from other Twitter members.
5.85% "Self promotion." Tweets about members' products, services, shows, or companies.
3.75% Spam.
3.60% News from mainstream media sources like CNN.

Pear concludes with this question, "So there is a lot of 'Babble' – What Can We Do About It?" The firm has a helpful answer, "One of our favorite tools we are currently beta testing is called Philtro (http://philtro.com). Philtro will take your unruly Tweets and narrow them down to what you actually care about."

What is most interesting to me is how much of the news coverage missed several key points. News sources were awfully quick to repeat the "pointless babble" statistic, but how many dug deeper and drew out any insight? The way this study's "pointless babble" phrase was repeated time and again in headlines goes to show that, despite the fact some deride Social Media being an "echo chamber," this can occur in traditional media as easily as it can in the Social sphere.

Here are some key points that have been largely missed or at least given short shrift in all the media coverage:

Twitter isn't mostly Self Promotion: Pear Analytics conducted the study intending to prove that "Twitter was being used predominantly for self‐promotion." As it turns out, less than 6% of tweets are self-promotion, which hardly seems like a huge percentage given the nature of Twitter. It goes to show that at least one stereotype of the microblogging tool is incorrect, and it begs the question as to what other commonly-held perceptions may also be wrong.

The study was hardly scientific: Pear's White Paper says little about the methodology, and what it does reveal is awfully subjective. For instance, the "news" category only included tweets about topics "you might find on your national news stations such as CNN, Fox or others" and excluded "tech news or social media news." Considering Twitter's early adopters have tended to be tech and Social Media professionals, this seems an awfully arbitrary distinction on Pear's part.

Another questionable definition is that "Self Promotion" (a term that carries a judgmental hint of narcissism) includes "'Twitter only' promos," which some might consider "opt-in marketing." Also, the "Pass‐Along Value" category only counted "tweets with an 'RT' in it," thus omitting both the original tweet that contained the true "Pass‐Along Value," as well as other tweets that use "via..." as a means of conveying credit.

Finally, even the most casual of Twitterer will instantly recognize the inherent subjectivity of these categories. One person's news is another's babble; what is conversational to one person may easily be babble to another. This "study" involved a bunch of Pear Analytics employees eyeballing tweets and stamping them with one label or another, which is about as scientific a way to determine the innate quality of tweets as American Idol is a scientific way to ascertain the greatest singer in America.

For example, last night I tweeted, "Using Digsby? Buried in TOS is fine print allowing it to use your CPU, bandwidth, & electrical power when your PC's idle: http://ow.ly/k1G8." How would Pear have categorized this? It's news, but it's Social Media news, so it wouldn't qualify for Pear's "News" category. I was retweeted, but since my post wasn't a retweet, it wouldn't fit Pear's definition of "Pass along value." This tweet isn't spam, self promotion, or conversational, so I guess Pear would label this "pointless babble." I'd disagree, and I hope you would too.

Twitter is a Communications Medium! Twitter isn't merely a business tool, a marketing medium, or a news dissemination engine; it's a Communications Medium!

The fact that 40.55% of tweets are "pointless babble" is hardly newsworthy unless this statistic is put into some context. Given Twitter is a person-to-person communications medium, what percentage might we reasonably expect to be babble? Have you overheard the idle chatter in a food court lately? What percentage of that is babble? 80%? 90%? More?

How about the weather report in your local news program? All I want is to know is the temperature and precipitation forecast for the coming days, but I have to sit through jokes with the anchors, high pressure maps, the low temperature in International Falls, MN, and a photo of a sunset sent in by Edna Theirfelder of Oconomowoc, WI. If the weather portion of my nightly news was just 40.55% "pointless babble," it would make me ecstatically happy.

If Twitter is only 40.55% babble, that might make it the most information-rich medium in human history, a conclusion quite a bit different than the majority of news stories that covered Pear's study.

What's in it for Pear Analytics? As noted, the research firm published the report and recommended a course of action--use Philtro.com to filter your tweets. The report goes on to refer to Philtro as "they," conveying dissociation and increasing the objectivity of the recommendation. But is this as selfless and unbiased a recommendation as it appears?

You'd think news organizations that wanted to broadcast data from Pear's report to millions might have taken the time to ask a few questions about this recommendation. As it turns out, I found only one news source, The Register, that dug deep enough to uncover a potential (and potentially suspicious) motive behind Pear Analytics' recommendation: Philtro's Founder and CEO, Paul Singh, also happens to be Pear's on-staff Business Intelligence Expert.

I'm not suggesting this relationship colors the results (any more than the subjectivity of the study's categorization process), but Pear owed it to readers to disclose the relationship (some might even call it a conflict of interest) for the sake of professionalism and transparency. It seems evident that had the relationship been disclosed, it might have affected readers' perceptions of the recommendation and possibly even the study results.

With so many news outlets eager to promote this research and hardly any discovering the Singh connection, doesn't that make most of the news coverage nothing but "pointless babble"? I may be exaggerating a little, but the Pear Analytics coverage reinforces something I've observed over the past year: You can't really count on mainstream media to give objective and thorough coverage to topics of Social Media.

Social Media will continue to evolve and change the way humans communicate and brands are built, but you won't really find the interesting, perceptive, and important details conveyed by traditional news outlets. For that, digital and Social Media will remain the best source for those who want to see where Social Media is going.

Paid Blog Posts: Ways to Protect and Enhance Brands

2009-08-10T13:12:00.002-05:00

This is the second of a two-part post about the law, ethics, and risks of Paid Blog Posts and how marketers can protect their brands while participating in "sponsored conversations." Part One was "Paid Blog Posts: The Need for Total Disclosure But Only Partial Independence".

Tom Gray was right: Money Changes Everything. Start with a group of people with the desire to share experiences, observations, information, and knowledge; add a large number of subscribers; insert cash-rich brands struggling with the slow bleed of ad-supported channels; and what do you get? Bloggers extorting free product from brands; bloggers who rave about tourist destinations while failing to reveal the free trips they receive; brands offering payments for positive reviews; brands spamming blogs' comments to promote themselves; fake brand-sponsored blogs (or flogs) masquerading as legitimate consumer-generated content; and brands so desperate for attention in Social Media that they'll exploit global news and events in order to spam consumers.

How bad has it gotten already in the blogosphere? So bad that you can't even trust mom. (Next we'll be questioning the authenticity of apple pie.) CNN.com has a front page headline today asking, "Can you trust 'mommy bloggers'?" The answer is apparently not. "There has been a turn of goodwill [against mommy bloggers]," says Liz Gumbinner, the publisher and editor-in-chief of Cool Mom Picks. The influx of advertiser money has "created a new generation of bloggers who blogged to get free stuff."

It's a sad sign of maturity that the once (relatively) altruistic world of blogging is now struggling with the invasion of commerce. Some bemoan this, but it's always been inevitable that some bloggers with lots of readers would want to monetize and that brands would pay to reach those readers. The problem today is that there are no rules of the road for either bloggers or brands, and as noted in the list above, mistakes are both common and embarrassing.

The next year or two is going to see substantial changes coming to the blogosphere, with firms like Forrester offering guidance that will become de facto standards and the FTC jumping into Social Media with strong new rules. Even then, with the world of Social Media continuing to evolve, brands that aren't careful can stumble, and doing so in our ever more connected world can be costly and damaging.

In my last blog post, we explored how brands can pay for posts in a way that meets important ethical and legal standards for advertising. We focused on the concepts of Disclosure and Independence, but are these enough to protect brands? No, conducting business in a legal and ethical manner are table stakes, but brands will not enhance their reputations or protect themselves from all harm merely by being legal and ethical.

What else should marketers consider when planning and executing "sponsored conversations" in the blogosphere? Before we explore this question, it's important to remind ourselves why marketers are so eager for bloggers' attention in the first place; after all, brands already have access to advertising vehicles on blogs that are far easier and less risky than paid blog posts, such as banner ads and Google's AdSense. The reason that brands want mention and acclaim within the content of blogs is, as noted by Forrester's Josh Bernoff, that "sponsored conversations" done right are genuine because they are in the blogger's voice.

Being "genuine" is important; being perceived by consumers as "genuine" is vital. Marketers must not lose focus on the goal of promoting genuine dialog on blogs or doing anything that would undermine perceived authenticity in the minds of blog readers. With this in mind, we can explore how brands can create or undermine genuine dialog with "sponsored conversations."

Form of Payment to Bloggers

As Jeremiah Owyang points out, the form of compensation matters. He's identified eight types of compensation for bloggers, ranging from blogola to access. It is very important for marketers to understand that these forms of payments are not equivalent options and that the way bloggers are paid may be more important than the amount they're paid.

Cash: If all brands want to do is buy blog awareness and links without regard for the impact on consumer perception, then paying cash to bloggers is fine. Of course, marketers do care about consumer perception, which is why writing a check for a blog post is a weak and risky option. Paying cash for a blogger to post about your product does not buy authenticity for that product; in fact, it does the opposite.

My hope is that, as disclosure and transparency become the law and expectation in the blogosphere, we'll see the disappearance of marketplaces that connect greedy bloggers wanting to sell the trust of their readers and brands looking for the easiest way to be mentioned within blog content. After all, when fully disclosed at the outset of a blog post, what blog subscriber would continue reading past the words, "This blog was paid $500 to write 300 words about Jinkies cereal...?"

Product Demonstrations: While blog readers are apt to find posts less genuine when bought and paid for with cash, they will have a different reaction when bloggers are compensated with free or demonstration products. Readers will be more inclined to engage with and believe posts that begin, "I was given the opportunity to try new and improved Jinkies cereal, and here's what I thought..."

No one objects when a movie reviewer gets to see a preview of a film for free, and we expect car makers to lend new models to "Car and Driver" magazine for the purpose of evaluating and publishing reviews to their readers. Access and product demonstrations are forms of compensation that increase the authenticity and reduce the risk consumers will punish brands or bloggers with diminished trust. (Of course, depending on the product, there is a huge difference between giving a product and loaning it to bloggers--see below for a discussion on the importance of perceived value.)

None: The only form of compensation that can be completely disclosed without any risk whatsoever to brand sentiment is none--nothing of value given to bloggers other than great brand experiences that motivate them to share.

Social Media hasn't changed the basic principles of Word of Mouth. The same is true today as ten, twenty, or fifty years ago--the best form of advertising isn't tell people things but to get people telling each other. Of course, advertising will always be a vital part of the marketing mix; brands like Disney were built and are maintained with large investments in advertising, but the company's ads are not why Disney World was mentioned on 10,000 blogs in the past week while Six Flags' 14 parks were mentioned only 4,300 times. Creating authentic buzz on blogs with no special compensation is the ultimate answer to the challenges and opportunities presented by Social Media.

Of course, getting people talking is still hard work! As noted by the Word of Mouth (WOM) Marketing Association, "Word of mouth can be encouraged and facilitated. Companies can work hard to make people happier, they can listen to consumers, they can make it easier for them to tell their friends, and they can make certain that influential individuals know about the good qualities of a product or service." In short, "sponsored conversations" may have a place in building WOM, but it must be a portion of an overall WOM plan and not a replacement for it.

In the end, smart marketers will challenge themselves to avoid the easy path of pulling out the checkbook to pay off bloggers and instead seek ways to create genuine buzz in genuine ways. A fan who raves (without compensation) about a positive brand experience is extremely authentic; a blogger given a product to review is mostly authentic; a person given cash to say something on their blog does not convey genuine sentiment and (when properly disclosed) will tend to reduce rather than enhance the brand's authenticity.

Perception of Financial Value of Offers to Bloggers

Whether or not compensation is monetary, the cash value of the offer must be carefully considered by marketers. This is because the value given to a blogger in return for a paid post will be subconsciously assessed by consumers as they weigh the credibility of the sponsored conversation, the blog, and the brand.

To illustrate this point, let's return to the example previously introduced of new car reviews in auto enthusiast magazines. Subscribers of car magazines understand the quid pro quo between automakers and the publication: Car makers lend cars to the magazine for the purpose of evaluation and review; they don't transfer ownership of the cars to the writers. If readers learned that "Car and Driver" reporters were making tens of thousands of dollars a year by reselling the "gifts" they received from car makers, this knowledge would substantially affect the perception of trust for both the magazine and the brands. (Even under the system of loaned cars, it still caught some bloggers' attention when Motor Trend editor Arthur St. Antoine admitted he didn't even own a car because he had access to "too many test cars.")

How should appropriate cost or value be determined for a paid blog post? Relying on the traditional impressions/readers/eyeballs method of pricing paid media is extremely dangerous for "sponsored conversations." Marketers need to recognize the distinction between paid advertising on blogs (which can vary by the number of impressions) and paid editorial on blogs (which should not). While this may sound counterintuitive, marketers must never lose sight that their actions in Social Media must be seen as genuine by consumers.

Blog readers will likely accept the authenticity of a blog post from a mommy blogger who received a case of free diapers for the purpose of sharing relevant perceptions with her readers. But will readers' perception of authenticity scale with the size of the blogger's audience? If a blogger with a thousand readers receives one case, should a blogger with 10,000 readers receive 10 cases and another with 100,000 readers get 100 cases?

No, consumers' perception of authenticity is based on factors other than the size of the blog's audience. While marketers will and should consider the size and composition of a blog's audience when identifying potential blogging partners, the only factor that matters when determining the value of the offer is how it will be perceived by consumers. Paying more to a blogger with a large audience is risky because it not only raises the question of the authenticity of the blogger's sentiment but does so across a wide audience.

The question of how consumers will perceive value is a tricky one, because it is subjective and not objective. The perception of value will vary based on a variety of factors such as:

Actual dollar value of compensation

Form of compensation

Type of product or service

Type of blog

Contractual obligation of the blogger

Consider your own reaction to the following similar situation:

A blogger is paid $1,500 for a blog post of 500 words.

A blogger's trip to a brand tradeshow (worth $1,500) is paid by the brand with the expectation of a three blog posts about the brand.

A blogger's trip to a blog conference (worth $1,500) is paid by a brand with no expectation of coverage for the brand.

Ninety-five boxes of disposable pull-up training pants (3800 diapers worth $1,500) are sent to a mommy blogger, enough diapers for 12 to 18 months for one child.

A car maker loans a car to an auto blogger for a month, and since it can no longer be sold new, the loss of value of that car is in excess of $1,500.

A blogger is given the opportunity to give away a $1,500 prize as part of a brand-sponsored contest on the blog. No direct compensation is paid to the blogger, but this promotion allows him or her to increase the blog's readership and earn more money from the paid advertising on the site.

A blogger is paid $1,500 cash for 15 hours of consulting and research conducted by the brand into the needs and wants of consumers (with no anticipation of coverage on the blog).

A blogger is given the opportunity to interview the CEO of the company in order to furnish content for the blog. The executive's time plus the time required to arrange the interview costs the organization $1,500.

Each of these situations has an actual, objective value of $1,500, but the perception of consumers will vary widely. Brands should proceed with caution, deal only with reputable bloggers, generally avoid cash compensation, and above all research and test the way different forms and amounts of compensation will be perceived by consumers. Compensating bloggers for posts may be a form of paid media, but treating it as if it's just another option in your media mix--a simple question of reach and impressions--can be very harmful to brands in Social Media.

Blog POV

The final dimension that should concern marketers as they evaluate options for sponsored conversations is the Point of View (POV) of the blog. This includes several factors such as:

What is the blog's POV with respect to Paid Blog Posts? How often does the blog participate in sponsored conversations? What brands has it promoted in the past? Under what circumstances has it taken paid blog posts? Has it furnished readers with appropriate disclosures? These are questions that should influence a brand's willingness to work with one blog or another.

What is the blog's POV with respect to the brand? A blog may have never mentioned the brand in the past, may have criticized it, or may have praised it. If the blog has been critical of the brand in past, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be avoided; in this case, marketers should consider if the criticism was reasonably fair, dispassionate, and professional. A toilet paper company would be well advised to avoid attempting a "sponsored conversation" with a blogger who rails against the destruction of forests, but finding someone who has complained about the texture of the toilet paper may make sense when rolling out a new, softer version of the product.

Of course, sometimes a brand may find bloggers that have praised the brand or perhaps even find blogs dedicated to promoting the brand. It is not uncommon to find blogs such as Only WDWorld and Harley Davidson Sportster--blogs dedicated to a brand. The rules of the road in terms of maintaining credibility are different on these sorts of blogs since there is no allusion to objectivity. If your brand has fan blogs, this opens up additional opportunities for "sponsored conversations" or other forms of relationships with reduced risk.
What is the blog's POV on brands, marketing, the category, or the world at large? Making sure a blog is aligned with and appropriate for a brand is vital when marketers create partnerships with bloggers. There are many ways a brand could be embarrassed by an association with a blogger, and since the rules for bloggers are far less defined and rigid than for traditional media, brands must proceed with caution. Thorough vetting is necessary to make sure the blog and blogger demonstrate the sort of professionalism, consistency, attitude, and beliefs that enhance and support the brand.

Clearly, blogs are here to stay and will only grow in importance to readers and marketers. And there is no stopping the flow of money to bloggers from brands eager for more Social PR. This is recipe both for success and mistakes. Some marketers will succeed in building their brands authentically using Social Media and blogs, but others will get caught in embarrassing situations involving inappropriate disclosure, unethical influence, excessive payments, or improper control of bloggers' content.

Social Media may provide an opportunity for your brand to go viral, but it does the same for your mistakes. A single embarrassment can undo a great deal of brand building in Social Media, so the burden is on marketers to proceed cautiously and with a full understanding of the risks.

If you have additional thoughts on the factors that enhance the opportunities and minimize the risks, please comment!

Paid Blog Posts: The Need for Total Disclosure But Only Partial Independence

2009-08-07T18:27:00.002-05:00

Calling the world of blogs the "blogosphere" makes it sound futuristic, but the truth is that it's more like the Wild West. There are few best practices; no recognized industry organization has the power to set or enforce standards; rules are in flux (with the FTC currently reevaluating their guides); and modern-day brothel owners are eager to tell you how easy it is to buy blog love. ("Hey big boy, hot Playboy bunnies crave to tweet you!")

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the best way to gain attention in Social Media is to earn it honestly with great brands that resonate with an audience, terrific consumer experiences, and customer service that delights. But for marketers who wish to pay for blogger attention, there are controllable factors that can help to protect the brand and diminish the risks.

I decided to revisit the topic of "sponsored conversations" after an interesting week of discussion. Four days ago, I posted a purposely provocative article to my blog entitled, My Paid Blog Post on the Forrester Blog. In it, I pointed out an apparent contradiction between Forrester's guidance on paid blog posts and their own site's rules against paid blog posts. Forrester's Josh Bernoff responded with a fair clarification of their stance in a blog post entitled "To Augie Ray: Thanks for the offer, but we don't take sponsorships." I very much appreciate the insightful, serious, and interesting dialog that has occurred within the comments of my blog and elsewhere, particularly from Josh and his Forrester peers, Jeremiah Owyang and Sean Corcoran.

The experience has caused me to reconsider my opinions of "sponsored conversations." I still believe very strongly that paid blog posts carry enormous risks for brands--legal, ethical, and, most of all, consumer perception--but there also is a place for brands to compensate bloggers for attention in the blogosphere. The problem is that, in lieu of established standards and governing bodies, there is no alternative for marketers except to proceed with care, knowledge, and a great deal of preparation to build meaningful relationships with relevant bloggers. "Sponsored conversations" may be paid media, but smart marketers will treat them more like strategic partnerships than advertising.

To properly explore the benefits and dangers to brands, we first have to recognize that the "sponsorship" in "sponsored conversations" can take a wide variety of forms. On his blog, Jeremiah Owyang identifies eight types of blog compensation. While paying cash to bloggers is easy, it also raises the greatest ethical fears and risks for the brands. But what about free product, junkets, and access? (I've been offered and turned down monetary compensation for coverage on Experience: The Blog, but I haven't hesitated to use those opportunities to gain access to information and insight I can share on my blog; in essence, I've accepted compensation in form of interesting content, opinion, and experience for my readers.)

With no established standards, what can marketers do to ensure their paid blog posts authentically build brands in Social Media? What factors separate blogola (the Social Media version of radio's payola scandal) from the sorts of compensation arrangements that meet with the approval of consumers and the FTC?

I believe there are several factors that marketers must consider when participating in sponsored conversations. We'll explore the first two--which largely pertain to issues of law and ethics--in this blog post. In my following post, I'll suggest several other factors that marketers must consider to protect their brands from risks and harm when paying for coverage on blogs.

The first two important factors for brands are Disclosure and Independence. It's important to note that these are not simple elements that merely are present or not. Both Disclosure and Independence have nuances and complexities that marketers must understand to avoid costly and embarrassing mistakes when compensating bloggers:

Paid Blog Post Disclosure

Not all disclosure is equal. To be effective, disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, detailed, and complete.

Clear and conspicuous: If a blogger is contractually obligated to furnish coverage in exchange for compensation of any kind, this fact must be evident to even the casual reader. Consumers must know when they are being exposed to paid advertising in manner that is instantaneously obvious. A small disclaimer at the end of a long blog post isn't conspicuous--it doesn't inform consumers until after they've dedicated time and attention.

Consumers seeing an advertorial ad in a newspaper know it's an ad with little interpretation and no doubt. These article-like ads are identified as paid media in several visual ways including special fonts, backgrounds, or borders, but mostly by plastering the ad with the word "advertising." For example, here is a blog post about just such an ad that appeared in L.A. Times, and it not only demonstrates how print advertorial ads are set apart from content, but also the risks that come from ads that appear to be editorial, even in established media like newspapers.

What would be the equivalent for blogs? How might paid blog posts be instantaneously identified as such by even a casual blog reader? Perhaps the term "Advertisement" should appear in the blog headline or in a repeated background image. Or, the very first paragraph of a blog post could declare the article is a paid advertisement in letters that are bolded and highlighted. No disclosure standards exist (yet), so it is left to marketers to establish the disclosure rules they feel are essential to protect the brand, ensure consumer acceptance, and adhere to legal and ethical expectations.

Detailed: The second aspect of disclosure is that bloggers must be thorough in revealing the form and amount of compensation. Consumers must know if cash was paid, free product was given, or the blogger received some other form of remuneration. I'd also suggest that the value of this compensation be disclosed to ensure the sort of transparency expected in Social Media and to protect brands from lost trust should consumers subsequently learn of unexpectedly lucrative blogger agreements.

Some may argue that disclosing the value of compensation is more than is necessary since magazines and television networks don't reveal the cost of their ads to consumers. This is true, but the difference with paid blog posts--and it is an important one to both brands and bloggers--is that what is being purchased is not merely advertising but editorial attention. Brands do not need special disclosures when paying for traditional and customary online banner or AdSense advertising on blogs, but when a blogger's words and sentiment may be influenced by compensation, consumers need to know more.

This is one area the FTC is specifically exploring as it considers more thorough rules for sponsored conversations. In their proposed new guides, an example is furnished of a gaming blogger being provided a new game system to review; the FTC states, "the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge." While these guides are not yet approved and in place, it is clear that bloggers compensated for posts are going to be expected to disclose far more than is common today.

Complete: To protect their brands, marketers must ensure bloggers reveal any special arrangements between brands and bloggers, not merely when a pay-for-post agreement exists. In the same way newspapers are expected to disclose their interests and potential conflicts when covering a story, bloggers must do the same to protect the credibility of both the blog and the brand.

I call this the "wink wink nudge nudge" rule. It is designed to protect against questionable and risky situations such as when a brand pays a blogger to be "a consultant" without (wink wink nudge nudge) defining any specific quid pro quo on the blog. Or when marketers pay a blogger to furnish content for the brand's site without any agreement (wink wink nudge nudge) for positive coverage on the blogger's own blog. Any time marketers feel a "wink wink nudge nudge" coming on when negotiating deals with bloggers, that's evidence the circumstances may not meet ethical standards or require greater disclosure.

Paid Blog Post Independence

In some ways, disclosure and independence are opposing forces in the battle for consumer trust. For paid blog posts to have authenticity for brands, consumers must feel the blogger is working independent of brand interference, but the moment we disclose the presence of an agreement, consumer trust begins to erode. Nothing marketers or bloggers do will prevent some degree of suspicion that the brand's consideration to the blogger didn't just buy coverage but in fact positive sentiment.

This sounds like a problem of perception, but this is an issue as much of reality as perception. Once we compensate bloggers, how do we know that we haven't swayed their opinions? Let's be honest, what do we marketers really want when we compensate bloggers--mere coverage or positive sentiment such as praise, endorsements, and recommendations? If we compensate a blogger and he or she bashes our brand, will this impact our willingness to pay this person again? Consumers are smart; they know the answers to these questions and don't need any excuses to be suspicious of paid blog arrangements. Any missteps or mistakes will be costly and consumer reaction will be unforgiving, so brands and bloggers must strive to make independence a reality even though it's a battle for consumer perception we cannot completely win.

One irony of paid blog posts is that while consumers, bloggers and Social Media practitioners may demand the complete and total independence of bloggers, the FTC has different ideas. For brands, there can be such a thing as too much independence, because the onus is still on the brand to make sure the compensated blogger's content is accurate. This is paid media, and like all paid media, the FTC expects advertisers to ensure accuracy.

In the proposed rule changes, an example is cited of a skin care products advertiser purchasing editorial coverage via a blog advertising service. In the example, the blogger makes a product claim that is not true, and the FTC notes, "the advertiser is subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through the blogger’s endorsement." The FTC goes on to suggest:

"In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered."

This is dangerous ground for marketers. Asking for prior review of bloggers' posts is considered a very troubling practice that undermines the necessary independence of the blogger. Asking for such a review--even in the absence of intent to evaluate and control sentiment--can influence the blogger's words and stated opinions. Conversely, leaving bloggers to their own devices can expose brands to risk. Best practices will develop, but for now it's clear brands must:

Set expectations that bloggers will be factual and will validate or ask for confirmation of all statements of fact contained within paid blog posts;
Furnish vital brand facts to bloggers so they can write their posts with both independence and knowledge;
Monitor the bloggers who are compensated to ensure their accuracy.

Another practice that I believe will develop is that the level of independence afforded to bloggers will be part of the disclosures associated with paid posts. Did the agreement require the mention of a product's new feature? Was there an expectation of positive sentiment? Was the brand given the opportunity to review the blog post before it was published? Or did the brand furnish compensation with no expectation as to content, sentiment, prior review, or anything else other than accuracy?

If brands want to pay for play in Social Media where transparency is king, queen, and prime minister, then the independence afforded bloggers must be as great as legally advisable and disclosed thoroughly.

Disclosure and Independence are the primary factors that ensure paid blogging is executed in a legal and ethical manner, but there are other attributes that can help or significantly harm a brand's reputation when compensating bloggers. We'll explore these other important factors--which include form of compensation, financial value, and the blog's existing and implicit credibility--in my next blog post on Experience: The Blog.

My Paid Blog Post on the Forrester Blog

2009-08-04T00:51:00.004-05:00

My opinion of "sponsored conversations" (aka paid blog post advertising) is well established. I feel paid blog posts are wrong for brands, wrong for bloggers, and wrong for consumers. But Forrester, the respected and renowned research firm, disagrees and has unequivocally stated that paid blog posts are fine. So, I am extending a financial offer for a "sponsored conversation" on the Forrester Blog--one that thoroughly abides by Forrester's own guidelines. I trust Forrester will accept my offer and tell me where to send the check.

As I researched the topic for past blog posts, I was disappointed to find Forrester analysts--among them the author of best-selling Social Media book, Groundswell--to be supporters of paid blog posts. At first I was going to complain about Forrester's stand on this topic and perhaps write a blog post where I expressed that my opinion of Forrester has been diminished, but then I realized this wasn't a problem but an opportunity: If Forrester thinks paid blog posts are good for brands and bloggers, that means I can buy some attention and inbound links for Experience: The Blog from the widely read and trusted Forrester Blogs.

So, here's my open offer to Forrester: I'll pay $500 for a "sponsored conversation" on your Groundswell blog. My guidelines are simple: You can write whatever you want, provided your blog post is dedicated to Experience: The Blog, contains more than 200 words, includes at least one link to my blog, and you mention my name and the name of my blog.

This offer is completely sincere, but I don't really expect Forrester will even consider the financial arrangement. They are averse to any action that would convey even a hint the objectivity of their analysis or opinions has been compromised by compensation from third parties. In fact, it's right there in their Integrity Policy:

"Forrester employees may not engage in activities that will compromise -- or appear to compromise -- the integrity of our research... Our independence allows us to produce research and offer advice that express clear opinions. Forrester's research agendas, judgments, and conclusions are solely under our control. Client companies cannot purchase research coverage or favorable opinions... Forrester's internal policies create an environment where clients and vendors cannot wield undue influence on our research topics and judgments."

So, why is it wrong for Forrester bloggers to sell coverage but okay for other bloggers to do the same? Perhaps we can get some clues from Forrester's "Why Sponsored Conversation--aka Paid Blog Posts--Can Make Sense," available via link from the IZEA web site. (You'll find the link to the Forrester Report adjacent to IZEA's "Caveman’s Guide to Sponsored Conversations," because when it comes to advertising and brand integrity in Social Media, who can you trust more than a cartoon caveman?)

According to Forrester Analyst Josh Bernoff, paid blog posts are "Genuine" and bloggers can retain credibility if they disclose that they are being paid and are able to write whatever they want, positive or negative. I'm not sure I agree, but if Bernoff believes this, there is absolutely no reason Forrester blogs should not accept my paid blog post. I'm happy to have them write whatever they want and to disclose the compensation. Per Forrester's guidance, this deal works out just fine for everyone: my blog gets a boost in attention and Forrester keeps their credibility.

It should come as no surprise that Forrester's stand on paid blog posts has drawn fire. David Churbuck wrote a blog post titled, "Shooting fish: Blog Sluts" in which he says, "Payola is crossing the line. Contextual advertising or an overall sponsorship is one thing. But paid posting is a no go." Over on the CenterNetworks blog, Allen Stern wrote, "The real risk to brands is the damage they could face from having people spew amazingly positive comments about their products... Look at the damage that Walmart and Sony faced last year with their blogging efforts. I can provide many examples of brands being tarnished by making bad decisions." And Adam Singer wrote to brands on TheFutureBuzz, saying "People are going to ridicule you for your efforts, even if you are being transparent and the bloggers themselves disclose the situation. They will see that you aren't creative enough or have a good enough product to warrant coverage on your own, thus you have to pay for it."

Forrester has had to defend their opinion on this matter on their blog. Back in March they addressed Google's statement that "paid posts should not pass Page Rank." Forrester cited IZEA founder Ted Murphy's challenge that it would be "virtually impossible for Google to police this." That's an interesting assertion coming from IZEA, considering that's the same objection IZEA critics have leveled at the "sponsored conversation" marketplaces IZEA operates. IZEA has a strong "Code of Ethics," but how can consumers and brands know IZEA's bloggers are living by those rules? They can't, as evidenced by the fact one of IZEA's own high-profile Featured Bloggers was recently caught blogging and tweeting without disclosure.

More recently, the Forrester Blog returned to the subject when the FTC signaled it would be taking a close look at the practice of paid blog posts and hinted at tough new rules of disclosure. I sensed some defensiveness in Forrester's May blog post, as they said they felt it necessary to update and clarify (but not change) their position. Forrester reiterated its position that "marketers can compensate certain bloggers to create content for their brand in an above board fashion" (emphasis theirs).

Which brings me back to my offer to Forrester Blogs. Forrester's opinion on paid blog posts couldn't be clearer. It's been stated, restated, revisited, and confirmed multiple times: Paid blog posts are fine provided the commercial arrangement is disclosed. So again, I repeat my offer: $500 for a paid blog post, and of course, I expect nothing less than total transparency, independence, and authenticity, which will protect Forrester's interests per their own professional opinions.

Of course, Forrester will not accept this offer, and those seeking to understand the benefits and drawbacks of "sponsored conversations" would be well advised to look at Forrester's actions, not their words. Forrester won't accept paid blog posts because doing so--even with total disclosure and transparency--would reduce their credibility, damage their brand, and harm their business. The fact they feel these ramifications are right for Gawker, Huffington, or Experience: The Blog but not for themselves says more about their attitude on paid blog posts than anything found in their reports on the topic.

Twenty Minutes a Day to Twitter Success

2009-08-03T10:36:00.008-05:00

No two Twitterers are alike, which means the needs of individuals Twittering are unique. Despite this, there are some quick and easy habits that can help you conquer Twitter, no matter if your account is purely personal, employee, corporate, or brand (four types of Twitter accounts identified by Jeremiah Owyang).

Some people have derided Social Media as a "time suck." My belief is that if you feel this way, you're doing it wrong, unless your goal in Social Media is to kill time (and if it is, then stop complaining about the "time suck").

Certainly, it's easy to get sucked into Twitter debates, Facebook quizzes, viral videos, and the like. While a certain amount of random surfing and inconsequential discussion can be fun and even vital for creating personal connections, these are the sorts of habits that can overwhelm one's time and get in the way of successful Social Media participation.

The key is to know what your goal is--do you merely want to get closer to family and friends, promote a brand, or advance your career? If you know your goal, then it is less likely you'll get waylaid by frivolous activities such as the "Five Things I'm Usually Wearing" quiz on Facebook. (The only reason I am even remotely interested in this quiz is that I may de-friend anyone whose list does not include underwear.)

Twitter doesn't have all the diversions of Facebook (which is probably why its adoption rate is higher among older, busier, and more professional people). Still, Twitter can be overwhelming and distracting. If you know your goal, wish to enjoy and create success on Twitter, and are looking for some assistance with helpful and productive habits, here are my suggestions for Twitter in just 20 minutes per day:

Three Minutes Fives Times a Day: Monitoring, Dialog, & Sharing

When it comes to Twitter, real success requires a certain amount of monitoring and vigilance. Since Twitter is such a real-time form of communications, it can help if you constantly keep Twitter open in your browser or via your mobile phone. I'm not suggesting you stare at Twitter 24/7, but it can be beneficial to have your Twitter feed instantly available for whenever you have a minute or two free and can glance at what is happening in the world and with your followers.

This sort of constant availability is not for everyone. For those who can't afford or don't want to stay in touch with this sort of persistence, my recommendation is to find three minutes five times a day. In that three minutes, you should:

Sign into Twitter or your favorite Twitter tool.

Check recent tweets in your friend feed. Look for one or two that are interesting and pertinent, and retweet or reply to them. If your friends retweet or reply to someone you don't know, consider adding that person to your follow list.

Check your @replies. If someone directed a question to you and is awaiting a response, reply immediately. If someone mentioned you in a positive manner or retweeted something you shared, thank them with a private DM. And if someone retweeted or replied to you who is not yet in your follower list, consider adding them.

Check your Direct Messages. Respond as appropriate.

Tweet--Share something!

The "three minutes five times a day" habit helps you to be responsive, engaged, and available on Twitter.

As I've done in the past, I'd recommend HootSuite as a terrific site to help you manage your essential Twitter tasks. On a single page, you can set up columns to view your friend feed, replies, and direct responses. HootSuite will keep this information constantly updated, which facilitates easy and efficient access to vital Twitter communications throughout the day. If you go dark for an hour or more, HootSuite will snooze, but you can wake it up and update all of your columns with one click.

It's important that you not only listen but also contribute. Twitter doesn't ask you "What are you doing?" for nothing. So, what are you doing? Share something about yourself or something you find interesting and relevant.

Again, keep your goal in mind. If all you want to do is keep in touch with friends, then Twittering about being stuck in a lousy meeting might be fine (provided your boss isn't following you) and might even spark some supportive dialog. If, however, your goal is to advance your career, then complaining about meetings may be counterproductive.

My primary goal with my Twitter account is professional, so one of my habits is to share interactive and social media news as I read it. If I find something interesting in an article, my followers might find it interesting as well, so I tweet. (I can be confident I am sharing news and opinion that is of interest because people frequently retweet and reply to my posts, and because HootSuite tells me that my links are clicked around 2,800 times each month.)

If you don't have anything to share right this moment, then think about asking a question. Some folks consider Twitter a "Social Search Engine" because of its power to gather information and opinions from a large number of people very quickly. Want to know the best restaurant in an area, which Twitter application is right for your phone, or the keystroke to insert a link into a Word document? Ask it on Twitter, and if you have enough followers, the answer will be delivered within minutes.

Five Minutes: Searches, Introductions, and Expanding Your Follower List

A decade ago, people who created Web sites started paraphrasing the movie Field of Dreams; they found, "If you build it, they won't come." It wasn't enough simply to have a site--you needed to promote it, link to it, email about it, maximize the site's visibility in search engines, and put the URL in printed material.

The same is true on Twitter--the fact you created a Twitter profile and tweet occasionally doesn't mean that people will find you and that your follower list will grow. Those using Twitter for professional reasons or on behalf of their employer will likely want to expand their spheres of influence; doing so means seeking out others, engaging in dialog with people you aren't already following, and following new people. (The best way to gain new followers is to follow others, most of whom are likely to reciprocate.)

You can begin to find new people to follow (and encourage others to follow you) with just five minutes a day. You cannot do all of the following tasks in just five minutes, but if you pick one each day and try another the following day, you will steadily and appropriately build your Twitter list:

Conduct a search for pertinent terms within Tweets, find relevant discussions, engage in dialog, and follow the Twitterers you find intriguing. You can conduct a search for your topics of interest, your brand, or your site on Twitter at http://search.twitter.com/. If you use HootSuite, you can also save search terms in order to see pertinent tweets as they happen throughout the day. Engaging with people you don't know and following new people are the most effective way of increasing your Twitter network.

Conduct a search for relevant terms within Twitterers' profiles and follow the ones that match your interests. Using a tool such as Twellow, you can search Twitterer's profiles for key terms. This is a great way to find link-minded Twitterers and add them to your follower list.

Use a third-party directory to seek out Twitterers with similar interests. Sites like Twibes and WeFollow allow Twitterers to associate themselves with specific areas of interest. Seek out Twitterers who have identified themselves as interested in the topics that are pertinent to you, and follow them. (Of course, registering yourself on sites like these is also a great way to increase your visibility and gain new followers.)

Find local Twitterers: If your Twitter interests are geographically based, you can find the top Twitterers in your state or city on sites such as Twitter Grader. Following popular Twitterers may help to raise your profile (provided your tweets are perceived as interesting and worthwhile.)

If you perform these tasks every day, you will begin to create and build relationships with a commitment of less than 30 minutes per day. Very quickly, you may find yourself expanding the time committed to Twitter, but if you stick to the essential tasks to achieve your goals, Twitter can become a vital tool to improve communications, promote your business and network with others.

FollowFormation.com: Great New Way to Find Followers or Spam? You Decide!

2009-08-02T08:41:00.010-05:00

If you've assisted a Twitter newbie in their first tentative steps into microblogging, you know that the concept of "following" is tough to grasp for the uninitiated. A common error for Twitter newbies is to start tweeting without seeking out others to follow. This leads to a poor Twitter experience--broadcasting tweets into a void with little opportunity for dialog and no listening.

FollowFormation is a new service that aims to help Twitter newbies find and follow top Twitterers in several topic categories. Considering how few Web 2.0 companies seem to have any idea how to make money, the fact that FollowFormation has a business model attracted my attention. But, that business model may leave the door open for spam in your Twitter stream.

To get the bottom of FollowFormation's service and business model, I interviewed the site's 18-year-old founder, Brian Wong. I remain skeptical of FollowFormation's approach, but Wong's responses to my vaguely hostile questions demonstrate that those behind the new Twitter service have given consideration to the challenge of balancing a quality user experience with the need to monetize their service.

Is FollowFormation a great new tool to grow your Twitter follow list? Or is it a vehicle for spam? You can decide for yourself--this blog post conveys a description of FollowFormation.com's service and my challenging interview with Wong.

What is FollowFormation?

FollowFormation promises users an extremely easy way to grow their Twitter follower lists with relevant Twitterers. Just enter your Twitter username and password, select the topic categories in which you're interested, and choose whether you want to follow 10, 20, or 50 new Twitterers in each category. FollowFormation automatically adds the specified number of Twitterers to your Twitter follow list.

It is easy as can be, but I had concerns about allowing any service to select and automatically add Twitter followers for me. FollowFormation provides a small preview of the sorts of people they'll add, but you can only review the first five for any topic category.

To (aguably) make matters worse, this service has a business model that permits people and brands to buy their way onto the FollowFormation lists. Since the service only reveals the first five Twitterers in a topic (including the top paid Twitter profile), people who use FollowFormation will add not just unknown Twitterers to their follow lists but also people and brands that paid for access to your Twitter feed.

Is this a value-added service or a way to get spam into your Twitter feed. Let me know what you think after reviewing my interview with Brian Wong.

Interview with FollowFormation Founder Brian Wong

Twitter still leaves many people confused. (According to Fast Company, 70% of Americans are still clueless about the microblogging site.) It's not the tweeting that causes questions--everyone "gets" entering a status update and clicking the "Update" button. It's the microblogging concept of followers and following that seem to leave some people scratching their head. Brian, how does FollowFormation help these confused folks?

Followformation helps new Twitter users (we call them “Chirpers”) find more meaning in the following concept when they first start out. We do this by empowering them to quickly find and follow the top people in the areas that they are interested in. We feel that it is a more semantic approach to provide a discovery tool that helps users choose to follow based on their interests.

People quickly understand that following is simply keeping tabs on a feed of information that is updated in real-time - and to automatically pre-populate this feed is an incredibly useful step. We are essentially Twitter’s “suggested users list” (the list you see when you sign up, and are recommended to follow), but on steroids. It’s a lot more meaningful to see categories than a bunch of profiles with checkboxes next to them.

Where did you get the idea for FollowFormation.com?

It actually came to me in the middle of the night, much like most of my other ideas. I was browsing around on WeFollow, and I was thinking to myself of how I didn’t think that the directory would be of much use to new Twitter users who didn’t really have the time to shop around for people. I also had a lot of friends who just signed up to Twitter and really disliked the fact that they were simply given a group of celebrities to follow via the “Suggested users” feature; that was hardly meaningful to them when starting out. Then I realized that following by interest, much like Netvibes does with its pre-populating of its customized homepages, was the way to go.

While the ease of use of FollowFormation is great, it might be too great. The idea that I'd let you choose ten (or 20 or 50) people and automatically follow them for me with no approval or vetting process leaves me uncomfortable. Why should I trust FollowFormation's recommendations?

I’m glad you find that Followformation is incredibly easy to use - and that was our main intention, given our target audience.

You should trust our recommendations because we aggregate our user data and category data based on a few directories, and use popularity as our method of indicating how top a user really is. In general, to the Chirper, this is a very reasonable way of discovering and trusting top users based on category.

But we aren’t sitting underneath a rock! We’ve heard the concerns about new followers in inappropriate categories and the potential for spammers to game themselves into the process. That is why in the short run we’re building the ability for users to report inappropriate category and spam, and in the long run we’re building in our own mechanism to categorize and rank individuals by more advanced data like Retweet data and positive or negative sentiment based on feed analysis from services like Peoplebrowsr.

Unlike so many Web 2.0 sites and tools, you actually have a business model in mind, and I respect that! Unfortunately, your business model leaves me uncomfortable--you propose allowing people and businesses to buy themselves a place on the lists of Twitter profiles that get automatically added to FollowFormation user's Twitter followers. This sounds like a muddling of content/editorial with advertising! In what way do you feel this is not spam?

Because this is the first aggregator/tool that enables individuals and brands alike to claim a stake in each category on a bidding model, we’d like to think that we’re one of the few social media advertising platforms in the world right now that aims to provide true value to its users.

You’re phrasing the question as if the notion of muddling content with advertising is spam. This model is used in a different form on media properties all across the internet. It’s a tried and true model of attention and awareness that companies and individuals are comfortable with utilizing, and users are comfortable with consuming. Our policy is to replace only up to 10% of number of people followed by paid listers. That means the maximum number of people you could follow that are inserted are at 15 (with our limits at 150).

Essentially what I’m saying is that advertising can be value added, and users would always be first for us. That is why, given the sheer amount of interest and e-mails we have been receiving about these features spots, we haven’t already started listing advertisers! We aren’t here to rush to the dollar signs - we’re frankly more interested in catering to the users interests first, and then enabling the advertising model only if it doesn’t take away from the entire user experience.

Actually, muddling content and advertising is not spam only when there is a clear difference between advertising and content (as with Google AdWords and Google organic results), but it is spam when there is no difference, which is the case with FollowFormation, in my opinion. On your site, you’re offering pre-selected offers—choosing advertisers to auto-follow based on a consumer’s selected category—and the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) has issued best practices for “pre-selected offers” that state these are fine provided the consumer is given the chance to opt-out and/or skip the offer. Have you considered an opt-out from paid auto-followers?

In visual terms, we make clear colour divisions in our user category previews that show which users in the formation are paid (i.e. “featured”), or not. This will help make that difference obvious. (Augie's note: FollowFormation only provides a sample of the first one paid and four unpaid followers; if users choose to add 20 or more followers using FollowFormation, they cannot preview the additional paid or sponsored followers.)

I think that making the direct connection between what Followformation does and an opt-out advertising model does is inaccurate. Although we are a platform for advertising, we are using a very unique social network and concept to test this process with – much like people would not directly compare “following” with subscribing to an RSS feed (mainly because the level of engagement is not the same), I wouldn’t try to compare the two. We will take feedback accordingly and if we are seeing an overwhelming demand for an opt-out system, we can consider implementing it.

What feedback are you receiving on FollowFormation’s business model?

Feedback so far on this model has largely been positive. People will be polarized on this issue though, I’m afraid, much like yourself. But beyond the nitty gritty, on a larger scope of things, this model I hope will show the world how social media monetization strategies don’t have to always be static or mundane - frankly I believe that the more controversial they are, perhaps, the more impactful overall they will be.

Can you expand upon that last thought—that the more controversial an ad model is, the more impactful it will be? Courting controversy sounds risky for advertisers. Back when Facebook launched Beacon, it was certainly controversial, but the initial controversy didn’t seem to benefit brands being advertised; in fact, several advertisers including Blockbuster and Overstock were sued for their participation in Beacon. How do you see FollowFormation’s controversy benefiting advertisers?

Beacon was incredibly controversial because of its egregious infringements on respect for privacy. This type of controversy is unhealthy. Our controversy is meant to be healthy – to only stimulate discussion and perhaps interest of adoption of our formation model on other Twitter app websites. We’re working on partnerships with other directories to enable an enhanced value proposition when someone is signed on into the formation. It’s about providing value beyond simple exposure through a “follow”. We coordinating with dozens of interested advertisers right now – it’s a process that will take a lot of effort because of our approval process, but effort we are willing to put in to ensure the quality of the formations on our directories – benefitting user experience at the end of the day.

Your site says FollowFormation will review and approve advertisers who bid for spots on your lists. What criteria will you use to ensure those buying their way onto follower lists will be relevant and ethical and not just spammers?

We’ve pretty much finalized this criteria, but we expect that approved Twitter accounts will be older than 90 days, have a minimum amount of followers (and a follower to following ratio that is greater than 1), a minimum amount of retweets on average per day, and a consistent quality of tweet of content that is relevant to the category requested.

Will you be publishing this criteria on your site and allowing consumers to comment? Are you open to people weighing in on these criteria? If so, how might someone with feedback share their ideas and concerns?

This criteria summary will be published on the Formation page. We are incredibly open to feedback, and we care a lot about our users – in fact, we have been blogged about that here: http://societrends.com/2009/07/29/zoom-out-and-see-the-big-picture/

If someone has feedback they can e-mail me at brian ‘at’ followformation.com and I will respond personally. We welcome feedback, as we are still in beta. That will show that our users care, and we love that.

We had a beta test period for approximately two weeks before we launched. It was actually during this period that we were suggested the user category previews, and the custom category feature. We have acted on user feedback before, and we will again. Although features like those may seem obvious to some, they aren’t to others. For us, it’s a matter of cutting through all the suggestions to the ones that really impact the usability of our tool the most for majority of our audience. Aer Marketing is also Followformation’s parent company. The company has a great network of advisors that have been helping Followformation’s scope grow in the past few weeks and will be helping further growth in the months to come. What we have essentially done is built channels of feedback from multiple sources to help develop Followformation as a tool to its fullest potential. And, as we are in beta, we are always in flux; and our direction in the next few months will be a reflection of this pattern.

How can a FollowFormation user ensure they won't end up automatically following a Twitter profile they find offensive? For example, an indie music lover could select your "Music" list and end up following the RIAA's or Britney Spears' Twitter profiles, if they were high bidders for your Music list. Or a family movie lover could end up following a vulgar movie campaign on Twitter if that film's studio bids for the "Entertainment" category. Those are just two hypothetical examples, but without any vetting process, this sort of situation could occur frequently for FollowFormation users. How do the users of your service protect themselves from following someone they otherwise wouldn't?

I’ve mentioned the feature we’re building in shortly that allow people to report users - this will be a valuable feature for helping us determine who to remove or re-categorize on our lists internally.

To be frank, the only way to tell if someone’s content really is offensive or vulgar is to see it come across your feed - we’re not preventing our users from moving through their own following lists at the end of the day and unfollowing truly poor quality tweeters.

We could build in the feature to manually deselect users when the following action occurs, but in my opinion, that would be a very shallow way of utilizing user discretion - you won’t be able to judge a tweeter until you’ve seen the tweets. And to preserve the simplicity of it all, we want to keep it a cool three steps.

While there is substantial value to helping Twitterers find like-minded Twitterers, why not give people the opportunity to review and accept FollowFormation's recommendations? If you allowed your users to review and select folks to follow--and also presented them with clearly delineated "sponsored Twitter accounts"--this would be like bringing the established and ethical Google/AdWords model to Twitter following. Doesn't adding a step seem like a way to keep consumers in control of their own Twitter follower lists?

I agree, and this is a feature we’re building out. Perhaps not in the exact form you’re suggesting, but I don’t see why we wouldn’t put into place a formal way of empowering users to suggest other Twitter users to be in certain categories. Or to remove them. Yes I am aware that Pete Wentz is in the “entrepreneur” category. He’ll be out of there shortly.

You're a very interesting guy--an 18-year-old entrepreneur who's launched his own business (Aer Marketing), developed a Web 2.0 business model, and created a functional and attractive Web tool with FollowFormation. Please share a little bit about yourself: What motivates you, and what would you like to achieve with your career?

I am motivated by seeing change, and I am motivated by challenge. I am also motivated by the energy of the people around me, so I always try to include collaboration and cooperation into every one of our projects. We can only be so impactful in the world; it is more about how effectively we can work with other movers and shakers that determines how much we can change at the end of the day. I am also motivated by the great talent and energy in the people around me – I can only express the most respect and appreciation for my partner in crime for Followformation, Lucas Lemanowicz. He is Followformation as much as I am, and his smarts keep this project on the cutting edge as well.

I’m still very young, and quite honestly, I’m not quite sure where my career will take me. I would like a fulfilling career that follows no predefined set of rules that I can forge on my own - that will provide me with a rich set of experiences and skills that I can use for many different things. I think that as an entrepreneur I will always be somewhat of a slave to my own ideas - I just hope that in the years to come I will become even more and more effective and efficient at making them a reality, and also to become more internally liberated to give up the ideas that I know won’t challenge me or change anything.

Blogger's Note: So, what do you think? Is this an ethical and appropriate business model? Or is it an open door for spammers? Would you use FollowFormation.com ?

Interview with Ryan Holmes on HootSuite 2.0 and Twitter Business Models

2009-07-31T01:18:00.002-05:00

I've been a big fan of HootSuite for some time, and today the Twitter management tool made a huge leap forward with great new functionality that makes it worth a look, no matter which Twitter client you currently use. Even before today's improvements, HootSuite was one of the top Twitter clients and one of the two Twitter management tools used by the White House.

I wondered about HootSuite 2.0 and what drives an organization to create and invest in tools that improve upon the Twitter experience, so I reached out to Ryan Holmes, CEO of Invoke Media, the interactive agency behind HootSuite. We had an interesting discussion about HootSuite's new features, its business model, and what happens if Twitter goes the way of Friendster.

Before getting into my Q&A with Ryan, let's briefly explore HootSuite 2.0 and why it is one of the leading Twitter clients available. The new version combines the benefits of a web-based tool with the group-creating and -tracking power of TweetDeck or Seesmic Desktop. This means users can sign on to any computer and access groups without any software or synchronization. It works far better than other tools I've tried with similar functionality, and the new HootSuite retains the site's attractive user interface.

In addition to Twitter user groups, HootSuite.com offers:

Customizable interface with ability to add tabs and columns, which can contain groups, keyword tracking, searches, or Twitter profile feeds such as your home feed, Mentions (@replies), Direct Messages (both in and out), and pending, favorite, or sent tweets
Easy maintenance of multiple Twitter accounts
Saved searches, permitting you to track Twitter buzz in real time
Ability to embed those searches into sites and blogs
Scheduled Tweets
Functional browser button (called a Hootlet) to easily tweet links as you surf
Built-in link shortening using ow.ly
Ability to track and graph the clicks on the links you post to Twitter (via ow.ly)
Auto-tweeting of new items in RSS feeds, such as blog posts
Ping.fm integration
User management, allowing multiple people to maintain Twitter accounts.

You can get a better idea of how all these great new features work in the HootSuite video below. After the video, you'll find my interview with Ryan Holmes, CEO of the company behind HootSuite. We touched on topics ranging from the new HootSuite to the wisdom of creating business models built upon Twitter, which itself has yet to determine its model for profitability. I hope you enjoy the interview and will check out the new and improved HootSuite.

Ryan, let's start with what HootSuite is. In a world of (seemingly) a million Twitter clients, what does the new and improved HootSuite offer that is different or better than any of the competing tools available?

HootSuite 2.0 is a solution for pro/business users and groups to make Twitter easier and better. At a high level, HootSuite is easy to use, customizable and has many rich features including:

Team workflow
Multiple Twitter accounts
Tweet scheduling
RSS/Facebook integration (via ping.fm)
Rich analytics so users can see # of clicks in URLs by user and geographic region
People grouping

HootSuite.com currently features a "Support HootSuite" button to permit users to donate to HootSuite (which I've done, I might add.) Do you get much financial support from this?

We actually get a surprising amount of donations by our loyal users through our donations. It's in the hundreds (but not thousands) of dollars a day. We really appreciate it.

I'm guessing the PayPal donations are really not your end-game business model. I'm intrigued by the amount of investment we're seeing in Social Media tools and sites with little revenue (much less profits) evident. Can you share your plans for how HootSuite is generating or will generate revenue?

You're right, it's hard to feed a team on donations. We do have a few fantastic monetization concepts that we are looking forward to putting in place, and I am positive that we will be profitable before Twitter is.

Speaking of business models, Twitter is still far from having a reasonable, self-sustaining plan. Are there concerns about building a robust and complex tool on the foundation of a Web 2.0 system that, while popular, isn't yet sustainable? Are there risks to HootSuite that in order to execute a supportable business model, Twitter may need to alter its API or rules in a way that could undermine or invalidate portions of your own system?

If you look at historical trends, massively popular applications like Twitter don't really need to worry about monetization for quite a way out. Facebook, YouTube and others are still even working on their models. The most important thing is that it is where eyeballs are, and eventually that will be monetized. 80%ish of Twitter traffic is via 3rd party applications like HootSuite, and therefore API access is a potentially lucrative revenue stream for Twitter. That being said, however, they will really have to tread lightly if they try to monetize there because they don't want to risk decreasing that 80% of traffic.

Let's talk about HootSuite 2.0, the new version that offers users the ability to set up Twitter groups, save sets of keyword alerts, and monitor other real-time Twitter queries. How did your team go about determining what new features were needed for this major upgrade to HootSuite?

For our 2.0 release, we got feedback from a lot of sources--our users, our advisory businesses, and our team. Our 1.0 release focused on getting our core team/corporate functionality out to users. Our 2.0 release focuses on power users and the sticky features they need. Our team looked at the things that kept them from going off of our dashboard and added them in using the easy simple style our users love.

One thing that drew me to HootSuite was its clean interface and intuitive usability (something that can be sorely lacking in many other Social Media tools and sites I've sampled.) Can you share a bit about your design, usability, and testing process for the new version of HootSuite?

Thank you. We often get positive feedback on the nice usability of HootSuite. I really have to hand this one to our team who painstakingly built this out. Their attention to detail and craftsmanship is fantastic. The parent company of HootSuite is Invoke (http://www.invokemedia.com/). We have been building tools in the Web space since 2000, and I think that the cloud is the BEST platform for this type of application. I think that the length of time our team has been together is another factor in how we can build HootSuite out so well.

What are your goals for this new version of HootSuite? How will you and your team know you've achieved what you set out to achieve with HootSuite 2.0?

Our goal with HootSuite 2.0 is to make the BEST tool for power users and teams. If we make something that is addictively sticky, it will ultimately result in increased user base. Our users have been our best advocates, so I am optimistic that they will help us get the word out.

Let's end with a big, hairy, audacious question: Twitter may not be king of the hill forever. We've seen popular Social Media sites flame out (SixDegrees, Friendster, and now MySpace), so what is your vision for what's next for Social Media and how HootSuite will evolve to reflect and exploit changes in Social Media?

Great question. Twitter was revolutionary because it made everyone realize that realtime is important. It re-invigorated this area of web, and right now there is a Wild West mentality again. At this point there are something like 11 realtime search startups, which is pretty amazing. Twitter has a huge store of realtime data and I am very sure that all of these realtime search properties want access to the firehose (business opportunity). I don't think Twitter is the next Friendster, but if it is, there will be iterations like MySpace and Facebook to polish the concept further. As a dashboard, HootSuite will be there to provide outbound microblogging to whatever platforms arise.

Author's Note: I hope you enjoyed the interview and are curious about HootSuite 2.0. As readers of Experience: The Blog know from past posts, I am not a fan of paid posts. This blog post was not made in exchange for any compensation of any sort. I'm a fan of HootSuite (75% of my Tweets come from this client, according to TwitterAnalyzer), and I wanted to share some enthusiasm and experience with the tool. If I can answer any questions about HootSuite, please let me know.

Can Your Tweet Defame? The Law Behind Horizon and Bonnen

2009-07-30T18:58:00.004-05:00

This blog post is provided by Deb Spanic, an Internet and intellectual property attorney with Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. I asked for her insights about the news regarding Amanda Bonnen, a woman who was sued for criticizing her former landlord, Horizon Group Management, in a tweet to her 20 followers. In Deb's opinion, Horizon's case is not without merit.

What does this mean to you and your tweets? Have you tweeted a concern or gripe that might leave you open to litigation? Deb shares her thoughts on the law of tweets...

The recent lighting up of the blogosphere over the suit filed by Horizon Group Management against former tenant Amanda Bonnen for an allegedly defamatory tweet she posted on Twitter caused me to pause for a moment and think through the potential legal issues that may result from this suit.

Clearly, Horizon found a quick way to make a "mountain of out a mole hill" by converting what was a brief, casual tweet by Ms. Bonnen to her 20 followers into a global media frenzy (including articles across the pond on the BBC). And clearly, they've jumped themselves into a PR disaster.

But the interesting point that I think may get lost in the he-said she-said of a typical defamation case is the question of whether or not you can defame with a tweet. I think the answer to that is yes, you can.

To defame someone, you need to (a) publish to a third party (b) a false statement of fact (c) that is understood to concern the plaintiff and (d) tends to harm the plaintiff's reputation. If the plaintiff is a public figure, that public figure must prove you committed this act with "actual malice."

If you walk through the elements, perhaps the most interesting one related to Twitter is the "publish to a third party" element. It's well-settled law that blogs and web pages are considered "publications." As a microblog service, I think it could be easily argued that a tweet is a publication. And Twitter is really only Twitter if you have followers. If you have followers, you have published to a "third party."

There is no requirement that a defamatory statement be of a certain length. You could certainly defame someone in 140 characters. "Attorney John Smith is a crook" is 30 characters, leaving 110 more characters for further mischief. If that statement is false, it would meet the second element of a defamation claim. Finally, if you mention the plaintiff by name in the statement and the statement could be taken to harm the plaintiff's reputation, then you have completed all the elements of defamation.

Confining yourself to statements of fact and personal observation are two ways to avoid statements being considered defamatory. Saying, "I was unhappy with how Attorney John Smith handled my case" is better than stating he's a crook. Note, however, that it is sometimes not enough just to add "In my opinion," or other qualifying language, to what may otherwise be considered a defamatory statement. Courts have found that saying, "In my opinion, Attorney John Smith is a crook" can be just as defamatory as it is without the qualifier. What the courts do consider is the view of the statement in the broader context of the environment in which it was said or written, the person who was allegedly defamed (whether they are a private individual, public figure or company), and perhaps most importantly, whether or not the statement is true. In fact, truth is the ultimate and best defense against defamation.

What does all this mean for Twitter? Nothing really, because Twitter is likely protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and would not liable for the defamatory comments of its users. But for the users? Well, this case just goes to show that you CAN get sued for libel for a tweet. Whether Horizon will win or not is a different story, but rest assured, it will not be inexpensive for either side in this case.

About the Author: Deborah Spanic is an Internet and intellectual property attorney, specializing in trademarks, copyright, domain name issues, e-commerce and e-business issues and social media law. Ms. Spanic is licensed to practice in the state of Wisconsin.

The content of this blog post is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Social PR Crisis and Response: How Horizon Group Management Might Yet Save the Day

2009-07-29T00:21:00.002-05:00

Lots of companies have turned customer complaints into gold. By monitoring Twitter and other Social Media channels, smart organizations seek out legitimate complaints from displeased customers, proactively solve them, and snatch victory from the jaws of consumer disenchantment.

But what happens when an organization isn't smart about customer service, Social Media or PR? Horizon Group Management provides us with a case study to monitor and evaluate. While a great deal of damage has already been done in just the first day of Horizon's PR crisis, there are steps the company could take quickly--as in tomorrow!--to begin to mitigate the injury to their reputation and business.

Smart organizations approach Social Media complaints with an eye toward service and earn terrific PR. Not only will formerly aggrieved consumers often tweet their new-found brand happiness, but customer-focused companies also can earn positive PR of the traditional variety. By providing Social Media customer service, companies like Virgin Atlantic, Best Buy, JetBlue, and Comcast have received brand-building attention from news organizations.

But what happens when a company isn't smart about consumer complaints and the power of Social Media? Just today, a situation developed that will allow students of Social Media to monitor and evaluate the damage that can be caused by substandard customer focus and careless Public Relations. If you aren't doing so already, track the Social Media buzz and news about the situation with Horizon Group Management and Amanda Bonnen. We'll see who wins and loses, but I'm already prepared to make a prediction: This will end badly for Horizon.

Chicago resident Amanda Bonnen tweeted a complaint about her Horizon-managed apartment to her 20 followers. In return, the property management company filed a $50,000 lawsuit claiming she "greatly injured its reputation as a landlord in Chicago."

As reported on arts technica, Horizon made no attempt to resolve their concerns with Bonnen. As if the lawsuit didn't sufficiently demonstrate this organization's lack of understanding of Public Relations, an executive with Horizon made a shockingly stupid remark when contacted by the Chicago Sun-Times; Jeffrey Michael told a reporter, "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization."

An awkward press release subsequently posted by Horizon claims Michael's comments were intended "tongue in cheek," but this will do very little to quell the growing backlash and damage to Mr. Michael's and his company's reputations. In the press release, Horizon also revealed that Bonnen previously filed a lawsuit against the organization, which hints at a far more complex and delicate situation than perhaps was first evident. Problem is, even if Horizon is in the right, the damage is done; their careless actions have caused this situation to go viral.

As Horizon is about to learn the hard way, companies can no longer effectively manage their reputation via legal actions, and consumers are no longer at a disadvantage in the face of bullying lawsuits. Although Bonnen deleted her Twitter account and will have to deal with the lawsuit, Horizon is already emerging as the loser in this David versus Goliath tale.

Bonnen's tweet was made May 12 and was undoubtedly quickly forgotten by her 20 followers. No news organizations picked up the story. Bonnen's complaint against Horizon had--for purposes of Social and Web media--died.

But thanks to Horizon's inelegant handling of the situation, the complaint has been not only reborn but supercharged. What had been a message to 20 people is now being discussed and considered by tens of thousands, perhaps millions. Social Media, blogs, and news organizations broke this story wide just today, and already:

Google news shows that the number of sources covering this story prior to 8 am was zero; as of this evening, it is over 250 including the Associated Press, Sydney Morning Herald, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, FOX News, and USA Today. For a company that was concerned about how an ignored Tweet might "injure its reputation," Horizon has done a mighty fine job of broadcasting Bonnen's complaint around the globe.
Twitter search reveals that dozens of people are now tweeting about Horizon each hour, and it will come as no surprise that none of the tweets are complimentary. Bonnen only had 17 followers; the people now dragging Horizon's reputation through the mud have far more than that:
- DanDrusch has 107 followers and says, "Here's a tip: Don't ever ever ever rent an apartment from Horizon Group Management."
- streetlogics has 1,469 followers and says, "Sued for a tweet http://bit.ly/4m5VnZ My opinion, Horizon Group Management is dumb! UH-OH they might sue me now! Don't we live in America?"
- charlesthomas has 1,335 followers and says, "An apartment company sued a tenant over a tweet about a moldy apt. http://is.gd/1RVLs If you google the co, the hits are now all about mold."
- jvandeboom has 4,200 followers and says, "What a PR failure by Horizon Group Management... Makes me believe the mold claims even more. - http://bit.ly/PjLsE"
An article about this story was posted on Gawker, one of the most popular blog sites around, and in 9 hours has garnered more than 11,000 views. Over on the Consumerist, more than 18,000 people have viewed today's blog post about Horizon's lawsuit.
Prior to today, the Horizon Realty Group had just three ratings on Yelp, averaging a mere two stars. Today, 17 new ratings were added, all but one with just one star. Horizon's reputation on this popular rating site will forever be marred thanks to the lawsuit and the ill-advised comment by the owner to the press.
Over on Digg, the ChicagoNow.com article about this situation is one of the day's top 15 posts with 1,211 Diggs in just seven hours.

Almost a year ago, I wrote a blog post that asked, "Which is more important? The law or public opinion?" My answer then is even more appropriate today since the past year has seen Facebook grow 248% and Twitter 1,164%:

Brands must become cognizant that the law provides no refuge from public opinion when graceless legal actions are taken. In situations where anger and disappointment go viral, being legally right will not save brands from shame, damaged brand perception, costly PR crisis response, and reduced sales.
The growth of Social Media will increasingly require organizations to consider legal alternatives not just on their merits in law but also based on the potential reaction of millions of interconnected consumers.

So what lessons have we learned in just the first day of Horizon's Social PR mess?

Being right in the court of law (which Horizon has yet to prove) will not protect a brand in the court of public opinion.
If a brand's goal is to silence a defamer, a lawsuit will rarely accomplish the trick and will often make it much, much worse.
When a reporter calls, defer an answer until the right person can make the right statement.
Consider how your story will play in 140 characters: Big company suing a woman for a tweet to 20 people? Bad. Ignorant sound bite easily encapsulated in 140 characters with plenty of room left for derision? Very, very bad! ("We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization." is just 63 characters! Has this man never heard of Twitter's 140-character limit?)
Listening to customers and dealing with their issues with care and attention is a whole lot easier and cheaper than lawsuits and PR crises.
Get to know and understand Social Media NOW! A company cannot hide from its problems or control the spin as they might have in the past.

What should Horizon do now? First, stop communicating through press releases and lawsuits; authenticity matters. Second, Jeffrey Michael must issue an apology immediately; if he is to save face, he must demonstrate remorse for his oafish comments and promise to resolve the issue with Bonnen quickly. Third, Horizon needs to move with alacrity to resolve the competing lawsuits between themselves and Bonnen, and frankly it's going to cost them now that this problem has gone viral.

Lastly--and most importantly--Horizon needs to embrace transparency. If Horizon has a mold problem in any of their apartments, the time has passed for them to deny and ignore it. This very loud situation has focused an electron microscope on Horizon and their properties; if other tenants start posting YouTube videos or Flickr galleries of poorly maintained properties, or if Chicago media finds merit to tenant complaints as they investigate this headline-grabbing story, Horizon will be very, very sorry they fought Bronnen's complaint not with appropriate action but with a lawsuit.

Why IZEA is Wrong for Absolutely Everyone: Bloggers and Consumers

2009-07-28T00:09:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I suggested that IZEA and other paid-post and -tweet services are the wrong approach to Social Media and bad for everyone involved. In Part One of this blog post, we explored the reasons why brands must approach "sponsored conversations" with caution, including the poor quality of blog "inventory" and the unreliability of early results from untested digital marketing practices. Most importantly, the idea that buying "conversations" imparts authenticity and trust is pure fantasy, because for Social Media conversations to be truly valuable to brands, they must be earned, not sponsored.

Brands that pay for sponsored posts and tweets risk being seen as annoying, out of touch, and disrespectful; worst of all, paid blog posts are a blinking neon sign that a brand has to pay for friends because they have not earned them. Disney World didn't need to pay for 501 tweets in the past 24 hours; the resort earned this attention (compared to 173 tweets for Busch Gardens and 227 for Sea World) by creating amazing experiences and nurturing fans.

IZEA's Sponsored Conversations present significant risks for brands, but what about bloggers and consumers? Is IZEA a sweet deal for them?

Why IZEA is Wrong for Bloggers

Like a sleazy used car salesman who appeals to the ego of a car shopper by telling him he deserves that shiny new sports car, IZEA seduces bloggers on PayPerPost.com by casting them as unwitting victims:

You've been writing about Web sites, products, services and companies you love for years and you have yet to benefit from all the sales and traffic you have helped generate. That's about to change. With PayPerPost advertisers are willing to pay you for your opinion on various topics.

Pay for our opinions? Is that what advertisers are doing using IZEA's marketplace? Heck, I'd be more than happy to have advertisers pay for my opinions--I have hundreds of them and I love to share my opinions with anyone who will listen! Of course, the truth is that advertisers care for bloggers' endorsements, not their opinions.

IZEA weaves a pretty seductive tale, but serious bloggers are at a crossroads; they need to decide if their blogs are going to be trusted sources of news and opinion or if their posts are going to be vehicles for advertising. They cannot have it both ways.

Bloggers can't have their cake and eat it, too. They cannot demand to be taken seriously as journalists or ask for the same legal protections afforded journalists while violating long-standing journalism codes of ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists demands that they "be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know." This includes "Refusing gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment," "Resisting (advertisers') pressure to influence news coverage" and "Avoiding conflicts of interest, real or perceived" (emphasis mine).

These aren't old-fashioned and stuffy rules of some bygone era; they reflect the way sources of news and opinion always have and always will earn trust. If these were just "rules" and not essential truths, then news organizations struggling to find financial viability could simply sign up with IZEA, improving the bottom line by selling paid advertisements in the lead stories right below their mastheads.

Should the New York Times, which just reported a loss of $74.5 million in the first quarter, sign up for IZEA and increase their revenue? Perhaps they could change their motto to "All The News That's Fit to Print... or Fit an Advertiser's Wallet"? Of course the question is facetious--the Times won't do that in part because it violates their ethics but mostly because readers would reject this approach and abandon the organization's newspapers and Web sites in droves.

Why would bloggers think they face a different reaction when they whore themselves out to "sponsored conversation" networks like IZEA? Blogs may be a relatively new phenomenon, but they haven't changed the way writers earn (or lose) trust.

Will a single paid blog post or paid tweet cause a blogger to lose trust and readership? Perhaps not, but the cash and free gifts from paid posts will be like crack cocaine to bloggers--an addictive habit that is impossible to break. And as the ad-to-content ratio begins to rise on a blog, there is no question of the impact it will have on that blogger's reputation, influence, and readership.

Some people point to the fact IZEA has a Code of Ethics requiring mandatory disclosure as evidence that bloggers' reputations won't be harmed by "sponsored conversations." While I respect IZEA's commitment to full disclosure (they support stricter FTC disclosure requirements), the service seems unable to completely police its own members. IZEA has a history of dubious disclosure, and despite strides toward transparency, one of IZEA's high-profile Featured Bloggers was recently caught blogging and tweeting without disclosure.

But even assuming a blogger embraces full disclosure, does that really protect him or her from a loss of readers' trust? Think of the last time you paged through a newspaper and ran across one of those ads. You know the kind--it sort of looks like an article, but the headline and body font don't quite match the rest of the paper, and there's a thin border surrounding the "article" with the repeated word "Advertisement." Did you read it? Did you trust it? Your reaction to that vaguely misleading article/advertisement is exactly the way consumers will come to feel about blog posts that were bought, paid for, and influenced by advertisers' cash.

Of course, not all blogs need to maintain the same level of perceived objectivity. If you author an "I Love Ford" blog, the fact you were provided a month's free use of Ford's newest vehicle is unlikely to diminish anyone's opinion since your bias is well established and fully disclosed. But if you're the sort of blogger who prizes your objectivity and readers' trust, then history and human nature leave no doubt: Ads that are clearly ads (such as banner ads and Google AdWords) are acceptable on blogs, but advertising purposefully designed to look like content and trade on bloggers' authenticity is spam and harms blogger credibility.

Why IZEA is Wrong for Consumers

If you've read both parts of this blog post, I hope there can be little doubt as to why paid blog posts and tweets are bad for consumers--"sponsored conversations" have questionable accuracy, sketchy disclosure, diminished integrity, and muddle the line between editorial and advertising.

Consumers may be increasingly savvy about advertising in our media-saturated world, but that doesn't mean today's consumers are any less deserving of marketing integrity or consumer protections than in the past. Whether it's product placement, guerrilla marketing, fake blogs, or "sponsored conversations" in Social Media, the FTC, the FCC, and Advertising Industry organizations have always recognized consumers should be protected from advertising that isn't disclosed as such.

In the end, it is possible consumers will be fully able to protect themselves provided bloggers follow industry practices and legal requirements to disclose paid content. It seems easy enough to unsubscribe from a blog feed if that blog's content becomes too commercial, untrustworthy, and spammy. But I wonder about the impact this may have upon consumers and their perception of marketing and media; already, most consumers find advertising bothersome (72 percent said they find advertising "annoying" or "extremely annoying" in a 2008 survey) and untrustworthy (per the latest Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey).

As marketers, are we really demonstrating care for consumers by finding yet another way to interrupt them and encourage even greater suspicion of both media and marketing? Employing "sponsored conversations" may end up being a way to win a battle or two but eventually lose the war for consumers' hearts and minds.

What matters to consumers in Social Media isn't the size of marketers' ad budgets or their need for positive ROI but the authenticity with which brands engage and create social experiences for and with consumers. That is a currency you won't find traded on any IZEA Web site or marketplace.