Mizz Information

Why Having Staff Be Facebook Emissaries Is a Bad Idea

2012-01-27T12:24:00.001-05:00

Lately I've been seeing social media pros suggesting that, in light of recent changes to Facebook's algorithm, organizations start focusing less on Facebook Pages and more on having staff members use their own Facebook profiles to promote the organization's agenda. Call me cranky, but I think this is a terrible idea.

The rationale behind this suggestion is that, as Facebook changed its news feed algorithm last fall, admins began to notice that posts from pages were appearing in fans news feeds less frequently than posts from individuals to whom people were subscribed. What does that mean, exactly? It means that where a year ago, Facebook Pages for brands were where it was at in terms of Facebook success; now, not so much. I personally have noticed that the effectiveness of the pages that I admin has tanked, at least in terms of Facebook's own metrics. Facebook used to display impressions per post; however, since the algorithm change caused that impressions number to universally plummet, they conveniently replaced "impressions" with "reach," to try to convince brands that they didn't just cripple the functionality of pages with these algorithm and insight changes. They spun it as "impressions are down but engagement is up." But now more and more page admins are starting to notice the dip in page effectiveness and the clear favoring of subscriptions by Facebook's weird algorithm. And since, at this time, only personal profiles and not pages have this snazzy new subscription capability, the concept of brands/organizations having staff people use their own personal Facebook profiles to get their org's content back into people's news feeds was born.

Here's why I think this is a terrible idea:

Once upon a time companies Facebook Pages were inextricably linked to an individual profile. Which meant if that person got fired or quit, the company was SOL. Facebook finally realized tying a brand's whole Facebook presence to an individual was not a good/workable idea, and added the ability to make more than one person the admin of a page. So now going back to tying your org's Facebook presence to individuals....still not a good idea for the same reason it wasn't a good idea back then: people leave companies. And if they leave, all their subscribers go with them. Do you really want to encourage your company's customers/members/constituents to follow an individual who, for all you know, six months from now will be working for a competitor?
Especially in this day and age, jobs do not last forever. People have personal lives then they have jobs--the two are not the same, unless they own the business. Asking them to mix their personal Facebook presence with your company's Facebook presence is, in my opinion, taking advantage of them and presuming a lot--that they'll forever be in your company's employ, that they personally endorse all aspects of the business, and that they are, essentially, paid spokespeople for the business. Sure, there are people who feel passionate about their jobs, but there are equally many for whom a job is a job. They are getting paid to do that job, not advertise the company on a social networking platform--there is a difference, IMO.
Facebook's privacy settings are a moving target. You could recommend to these staff spokespeople that they adjust their Facebook profile settings so that if they post personal stuff they make it visible to friends only, and they set privacy for company updates to public. That, in my opinion, is playing with fire. You're really willing to risk your employee not accidentally setting those drunken photos or political private updates to public, and having them seen by all your company subscribers? That's asking a lot of technology (Facebook's iPhone and iPad apps are horrible and setting any privacy settings when posting from them is a bitch) and human error, not to mention Facebook's own constant breeches in terms of "oops" moments where they "accidentally" display content that's supposed to be private to a different audience, or when they, without warning change their settings so that previous privacy settings are wiped out.
Facebook's Terms of Service forbid multiple accounts for individuals. I know you were about to offer the suggestion that you just ask staff spokespeople to create a new personal account, one that just represents them as a spokesperson for your company, so all these pesky privacy settings are a non-issue. Right? Wrong. Facebook's Terms of Service specifically forbids individuals from having more than one account:

Please be aware that managing multiple accounts is a violation of Facebook’s Terms of Use. If we determine that an individual has more than one account, we reserve the right to terminate all of their accounts. (from Facebook Business Account FAQs)

My advice? Hold steady with your Facebook Page. Chances are that within a few months, the situation will change yet again and pages will either be granted subscription capability or some other magic bullet that will again propel your page's updates into fan's news feeds. Analyze the content you're posting on your page--what's working, what's not, and tweak your strategy accordingly. Or focus on building your company's presence on Google+--maybe your time and money is better spent doing that in light of their new search algorithm changes.

Honestly, the situation is not that dire--your company will not go out of business because of Facebook's algorithm changes.

Community Manager Appreciation Day

2012-01-23T11:56:00.003-05:00

Photo by elkokoparrilla, on Flickr

Unless you are a community manager (and maybe not even then) you probably don't know that today is Community Manager Appreciation Day (CMAD). Well, guess what? It is! Two years ago Jeremiah Owyang suggested that the fourth Monday of January be a day to "take the time to pause, recognize, and celebrate the efforts community managers around the world to improve customer experiences."

Three and a half years into my career as a community/social media manager, I can attest to the fact that it's a demanding, exhilarating, exciting, and life-encompassing job. It's customer service and marketing and content creation/curation/management and who knows what else, all rolled into one job that, in most organizations, is new and often not well understood. It's at the same time an established profession, as there are community managers who have been at it for over a decade, as well as such a new one that there's a ton of confusion still about what tasks the role includes, what pay grade it should be, which department it belongs in, and even whether it is a role worth paying someone to do in the first place.

In honor of CMAD, here are a few links about community management--the fun of it, the trials it involves, and just some fun resources:

Ok, those are just a few--please feel free to add others in the comments.

And, if you're a community manager--happy CMAD!

Movie Recap 2011

2012-01-15T14:59:00.003-05:00

Photo by ToastyKen

(I originally posted this on my other blog but am reposting here)

It's that time of year again...time for my movie recap. In case you don't know this about me, I'm obsessed with going to movies. Not watching movies at home--too many distractions. But going to the movie theater. In 2008 I saw 50 movies. In 2009, I saw 53. Last year I made it to 57. So my number to beat this year was 57. Did I make it?

Of course I did! This year's total? 64 movies. Gulp. Next year is going to be a bitch having to top that.

Let me just preface this by saying that if you didn't go to a lot of movies in 2011, you really didn't miss much. It was a pretty crap year as far as movies go, especially the second half of the year.
Ok, so here we go. In case you haven't read my previous year's movie recap posts, this is my rating system: sucked, rocked or meh, followed by best and worst movies of 2011.

The Rite-- rocked
True Grit--rocked(ish)
No Strings Attached--cute and better than meh, but can't really say rocked
The Company Men--rocked is a bit strong, but I did like it
Country Strong--sorry but this movie rocked. Have seen it three times.
Just Go With It--rocked(ish)
The Mechanic--rocked. I mean, of course Jason Statham rocks.
The Eagle--rocked(ish)
Unknown--actually Rocked, with a capital R.
Battle:Los Angeles--action parts rocked, and if you like loud movies, you'll like it.
Insidious--ROCKED--if you like scary, this is a must-see.
Limitless--Rocked--I love this movie, although it starts great and kind of peters out.
Soul Surfer--Better(ish) than meh, sort of. Cute for teens/tweens.
Hanna--Sorry but this looked like it was going to be great but in reality SUCKED.
Scream 4--Ok, yes I saw this and of course we all know it SUCKED.
Prom--Utterly forgettable so I'm going to go with cute for teens. Yes, I have one, which is why I saw it.
Thor--Meh plus.
Bridesmaids--HILARIOUS. ROCKED.
Hangover 2--Meh plus. Nowhere as near as good as the first, but some funny parts.
X-Men--I want to say "ok" but that's not a rating, and meh is a little low, so I'll go with rocked(ish)
Pirates of the Caribbean 3--the mermaids ROCKED; the movie was rocked(ish). First Pirates movie I've seen, btw--I only saw it for the mermaids.
Midnight in Paris--Rocked. Even my kids liked this.
Super 8--rocked.
Cowboys & Aliens--Meh. What did you expect?
The Help--ROCKED. I was worried this wouldn't be as good as the book, but it really was.
Captain America--can I just give this a sigh? Patrick (my husband) loves those Marvel movies, but I"m personally over them. This was actually pretty good, but please, 2012, no more Marvel movies, ok?
Crazy, Stupid Love--Meh. Maybe I'll throw a plus on there for Steve Carrell and Julianne Moore
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--I'm giving this a meh on principle--seriously, can we stop with the two part movies Hollywood?
Rise of the Planet of the Apes--ROCKED. Ceasar better win an Oscar.
Bad Teacher--ROCKED. Raunchy but hilarious.
Friends With Benefits--Meh plus. I liked it but can't bring myself to say rocked. Cute though.
Green Lantern--another sigh. And a meh.
Horrible Bosses--Meh. Jennifer Anniston as sexy just does not work for me.
Transformers 3--Meh.
Contagion--Meh, and a big disappointment--this looked like it was going to be good.
I Don't Know How She Does it--I'm going with Meh, because I can't remember one thing about this movie.
Drive--fun if you like action, but meh if you are looking for a great movie.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark--SUCKED. This was just freaky and creepy and sucked. AND had Katie Holmes in it, who is meh personified.
The Change Up--Rocked.
Sherlock Holmes 2--Meh. Yeah, really.
Young Adult--Meh plus. Was really slow, but decent if you don't mind really slow and some random details just thrown in there with no real tie-in.
The Sitter--Meh, and a big disappointment--this looked like it was going to be awesome.
Mission Impossible 4--ROCKED. Especially in Imax, something I'd never shelled out for before but now I'm a convert.
Dream House--Meh.
Jumping the Broom--rocked, if for no other reason than the house. But even my kids liked it.
Paranormal Activity 3--Call me crazy, but I thought this rocked, and even saw it twice. I like scary.
Twilight 3--There is not a big enough font in the world to convey how much this movie SUCKED. But I need to find out what happens so of course will have to go see the second part, which just makes me hate it worse. And no, I'm not going to read the book.
Fast Five--Meh
The Dilemma--Meh minus--this was another big disappointment--looked like it would be great and totally was not.
The Roommate--Fun in a Single White Female kind of way, but Meh.
The Ides of March--Yet another disappointment--they're getting really good at making great trailers for not great movies. Meh.
Immortals--Rocked-ish for action, but as with Marvel, no more greek god movies in 2012 please.
Sanctum--Meh minus. Utterly forgettable.
I am Number Four--this was actually pretty good, but I can't really say it rocked. How about enthusiastic Meh plus?
Hall Pass--rocked. I've seen it at least three times and would see it more.
The Lincoln Lawyer--rocked--this was pretty good, but not so good that I actually remember much about it other than that I liked it.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules--I had low hopes for this movie after the first one, but this was actually pretty good. Can I just go with Good?
Sucker Punch--HORRIBLE. SUCKED. But the girl was super cute.
One Day--Long, drawn out....Meh.
Moneyball--not as great as I thought it would be but still pretty good. Too long, though, and slow. But rocked. With a small r.
What's Your Number?--Cute and funny--but I don't know if I'd say rocked. But better than meh.
Jack and Jill--Sigh. Yes, I saw this, and it was bad as I thought it would be. Could be fun-ish as a rental.
New Year's Eve--Cute, if predictable. Meh.
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--I had high hopes for this but have to give it a solid Meh. WAYYYYY too slow. Just read the book. I haven't seen the Swedish version, but I would imagine it's better.

Ok, so worst movie of 2011? It's a close race between Sucker Punch and Twilight 3. The girl in Sucker Punch is so cute....but ultimately that movie was just BAD. So Sucker Punch.

And best movie of 2011? I have to say that I hardly want to name one because the year as a whole was so meh, movie-wise. I will give a nod to Midnight in Paris because it was Woody Allen and cute, and another to the Help, because it was pretty good, but for sheer movie enjoyment and pretty tight plot, I'm going with Unknown. Patrick said I couldn't say Mission Impossible 4 was the best movie of the year, but it was pretty awesome.

So there you have it. Here's hoping 2012 will be a better movie year.

I Will Stop the World From Ending in 2012

2012-01-07T11:01:00.000-05:00

Ok, sike, but I couldn't resist that headline, because the subject of the world ending in 2012 has been a hotly debated subject in my house for the past three or more years, ever since my daughter (now 15) saw the trailer for the movie 2012 on YouTube and became obsessed and freaked out. Did I mention she's a little OCD? All I know is that the world BETTER NOT end in December, or I'm going to have hell to pay for assuring her, time and time again, that she has nothing to worry about.

So enough beating around the bush--I was really, really hoping to hide from this meme about what I'm going to do to change the world in 2012 because I had no idea how I'd respond if tagged. I figured, ok, if I do get tagged I'll just write that I'm not going to change the world. But then Jeffrey Cufaude scooped me (awesomely, I might add) so there went that option. Then Elizabeth Weaver Engel tagged me and here I am, racking my brains to come up with some way that I'm going to change the world in 2012.

Somehow lists seem to help when I can't think of anything to say, so let's try the "three things" thing and see what bubbles up:

In 2012 I'm going to:

Take it offline. In case you haven't noticed, I tend to spend a lot of time online. A LOT of time. Which obviously can interfere with the rest of life that takes place offline. If the world does happen to end in December, I don't want to have missed friendships or opportunities because I was busy blogging, playing Plants vs. Zombies, or sitting on Facebook. So I'm going to work hard to foster relationships offline. Call my sister more than once every many months. Finally arrange that monthly movie club with neighborhood friends that I've been thinking about for two years now. Make the trip down to DC for various social or professional events.
Be a stigma buster about mental illness. 2011 seemed rife with cries for help within the social media bubble--the suicide of someone in the social media big-wig bubble, several instances of other social media types using their Facebook pages or Twitter accounts to announce, in essence, "goodbye cruel world"--thankfully usually met with an outpouring of support from friends and family to get the person the care they needed. And of course The Bloggess's recent post about her ongoing battle with depression and self-harm--a beautiful, heartbreaking post. She points out "When cancer sufferers fight, recover, and go into remission we laud their bravery. We call them survivors. Because they are," but that those who battle depression mostly battle alone because of the stigma associated with mental illness. I know I do, and I know that there are many others out there who do too. I'm a veteran at this battle--I've been fighting for over 20 years now, yet mostly people don't know that about me. So I'm putting it out there, just as I'd put it out there if I were a cancer survivor or victim of some other disease--if you are depressed and don't have anyone to talk to or don't know where to turn, feel free to connect with me. I'm not a shrink, obviously, but if you feel like you're the only one who has ever not known how you'll make it through another day or not known where to turn for help, you're not. Sadly, there are plenty of us out here, fighting with you, and it sucks--but having to suffer in silence only makes it suck worse.
Embrace change--or at least shake hands with it. It's hard to make changes, especially when a situation is comfortable and works well enough. But sometimes comfortable isn't actually comfortable. It may work and it may pay the bills, but is that really all we want to ask of life? Is ok good enough, or is amazing out there waiting to be had? And how will you know if you don't try something different? So this year I'm going to go beyond my comfort zone and see if I can't find amazing, or at least beyond comfortable.

Ok, there went my Saturday morning....now it's someone else's turn to grapple with this meme--I'm tagging these five people (and ducking their ire at being tagged):

Jessica Smith-- who said she wants to get her blogging mojo back--what better way to start? ;)
Cassie Soofi-- my sister, who hasn't blogged in ages, but who is an awesome writer and, as a speech language pathologist, is doing a lot more to change the world than I am.
Janet McNichol-- my friend and coworker, as well as fellow association person.
Mandy Stahl-- I know she doesn't have a blog (or maybe she does and we don't know about it?) but maybe she can do a post on Acronym--or a guest post here?
Kem Foley-- another association peep who is active with a very underappreciated set of professionals, in my opinion--administrative professionals.

If This is What Being an A-List Blogger is, I'm Happy to be on the D List

2012-01-02T12:53:00.001-05:00

I swore I wouldn't write about this and send traffic to her blog, because that's the last thing I want to do. But I can't stop thinking about it and feel stupid for being so affected by something written by a person I don't even know--or at least barely know (I did meet her once). I'm sure people will accuse me of linkbaiting, but honestly I don't care--the last thing I feel like is getting into a debate about whether or not it's ok to post pictures of practically your genitals (and I'm not kidding, so be forewarned before clicking that link) on what's supposed to be a business blog. Or whether it's ok announce to the world that you're in a violent marriage--you and your two kids--but are ok with that and are sticking with it.

In my book, it's not ok. To share it with the world and profit off it, that is--"it" being domestic abuse that involves children. You want to stay in a relationship with a guy who leaves bruises on you? That's your choice. But sharing graphic photos on your blog and explaining how it's partially your fault and maybe your kids are actually better off if you stay in the marriage? And promoting that rationale as career advice? No thanks. It's not like she's the first women to rationalize abuse--but most women who do it probably are not making money off sharing that opinion. But Penelope is--she runs ads on her blog and offers an online course "Secrets of an A-List Blogger" for $196. Several of her posts are sponsored by the American Cancer Society (ACS), which is very weird because those posts had nothing, really, to do with cancer. I'm wondering if ACS has pulled their advertising from her blog, though, because the blog used to feature banner ads for them and they don't appear to be there now. In fact, originally that's what this post was going to be about--is it a bad PR move for associations to run ads on blogs which feature controversial content--but when I went to check out the ACS banner ad on her blog I saw, instead, the A-List blogger ad, which prompted the title of this post.

I get that the blogosphere has gotten increasingly crowded and to get traffic you need stand out from the millions of other bloggers. I get that Penelope's old standby--being controversial and oversharing stuff like her miscarriage at work, her sex life, the abuse she endured as a kid and a teen--has been replicated many times over by other bloggers. I get that she's gone from career woman making tons of money to mom homeschooling her kids and is conflicted about it. I get how her identity is tied up in being a farmer's wife--not to mention her income, as her blog now pretty much centers around photos taken on the farm. I even get how her self-worth has become tied to the amount of attention she gets from readers--she readily admits that her closest relationships are with her kids and with her blog readers. But what I don't get is how the company she founded and is still part of in some way--Brazen Careerist--still wants to have anything to do with her or wants pictures of her bruised ass in any way associated with their professional brand.

Mostly, though, I'm sad. I used to revere Penelope. I can't even count the number of times I've blogged about her because the search feature on my old blog doesn't work anymore. I loved that she wasn't conventional, and that her brazen-ness was what was responsible for her success. I didn't mind reading her overshares about getting Brazilian waxes or posing for nude for her dad. It made her human and, somehow, likeable. Maybe it made her strong in my eyes, for surviving so much abuse and craziness, and succeeding in spite of it. But this new tangent--her as farm wife homeschooling her kids and making excuses for staying in a physically abusive marriage? There's nothing inspiring about that. Women like that are a dime a dozen--women who marginalize themselves and allow their husbands to degrade and demean them, and who tell themselves that it's better for the kids to have two parents and to live in a beautiful house and have a mom who is home instead of toiling away in an office. I used to be one of those women--not the abuse part--except for one time--but the dependent part. It sucked.

I'll digress, because I don't even really know what it is I'm trying to say--other than that if being a successful blogger means becoming so dependent on the attention and pageviews that you'll do anything to get either or both, I'm happy to be a crappy blogger.

Association Swing and a Miss--CEA Tech Enthusiast Membership

2011-12-14T11:53:00.002-05:00

Last March, I got an email from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) informing me of a new member category they had just created: Tech Enthusiast. I believe the dues were $30 a year and the benefits included the following:

As a CEA Tech Enthusiast (TE) member you will receive hot deals and incredible opportunities from our corporate partners. These include free and discounted products, advance product launch information, access to industry events, and beta testing opportunities. As a TE, you are privy to some very exclusive information.

What the hell, I figured--it was an interesting concept, and for $30 I thought I'd give it a try and see how great the "hot deals" and "incredible opportunities" were, not to mention "beta testing opportunities." I paid up and....crickets. A few emails...and by few I mean really few. No beta testing opportunities that I recall. A circa 2000 online discussion board. That's about it.

Last week I got an email from them announcing that they are ending the new membership category effective January 31, 2012. Wow, really--not even giving it a year? I guess on one hand I applaud them doing what few associations do--cutting an ineffective program. But on the other hand, it feels like they just threw it out there to see if people would pay and devoted basically no staff or resources to it succeeding--what did they expect?

In my opinion, there are a few things they could have done to make this program more of a success:

Technology--I know I'm possibly more the exception rather than the rule, but IMHO, it's 2011--why would you launch what is basically an online membership category and use online forums instead of an online social networking platform? It's one thing if your members are old-school or not that interested in online discussion, but for the demographic they were targeting, why did they think members would want to interact with each other on an online bulletin board while their other online interactions are likely on Facebook or something similar? Yes, it would have cost more but it also would probably have been a lot easier to use, and would have hopefully fostered better member engagement. That said, there are absolutely some successful discussion forums out there--having a Facebook-esque platform is definitely not a guarantee of success. But in this case...the forums were just a fail.
Communication--We've all heard of "build it and they will come" syndrome when it comes to social media, but a whole member category basically built on pay your dues to join then figure it out from there? Obviously it didn't work out so well in this case. Not that people necessarily want to be inundated with even more email, but seriously--this was the total opposite of too much email: barely any email or any other communications. No newsletter. No magazine. Pretty much no anything, period. How are people supposed to feel part of something if they forget they're even a member because nobody is driving the bus? I heard more from people I haven't seen in 30+ years on Facebook this past nine months than I heard from CEA about the thing for which I was paying to dues to belong to. How about a Facebook presence driving me to the website or reminding me of the "incredible opportunities"? Oh, wait--there is one...which I never knew about until I happened to look it up when I was writing this post. How about a phone call from someone there checking in to see how I was liking my membership and what I felt was lacking? A survey? How about something, anything, other than crickets?
Advertising/Revenue--I have to admit I'm kind of sad to see this thing fail because I think it could have been a success. I get that CEA is a huge association with much bigger fish to fry than some lowly "tech enthusiasts" at $30 a year per, but I thought a consumer membership was a cool idea and could have been a great way for them to connect sponsors and corporate members to consumers like me who spend a lot on tech products. What if they had gotten sponsors/partners to offer free membership to their customers, or had stores like Best Buy or RadioShack offer free memberships in stores or fliers? They could have potentially gotten a lot of members and, in turn, could have probably made decent money through advertising opportunities. What if they had offered some kind of weekly or daily deal concept to members? Granted, I'm the first to admit the daily deal world is already pretty saturated, but something that hooks in members on a recurring basis and both offers them a great deal and reminds them of the organization they're part of? Seems like it could have been a decent source of revenue and a good direct-to-consumer way of advertising.

Ok, I'll stop there. I don't know--I guess the "fail fast" thing applies here and they were just trying to cut their losses, but as someone who thought this seemed like a cool concept and was willing to pay to see how it panned out, I'm surprised how bummed I am to see this fail so fast. As a member, I feel kind of discarded or something. Is there such a thing as failing too fast?

5 Predictions; 5 Resolutions

2011-12-12T16:20:00.000-05:00

What would December be without the obligatory predictions post? Or, for that matter, the new year's resolution post? I'm kicking it FIO style and combining the two into one post.

Predictions:

Hiring for community and social media managers will continue to rise. And confusion about the differences between the roles will persist.
Burnout and disillusionment among social media/community management professionals will rise. All those new hires? Will have to work their asses off to justify their existence and will realize that the job is more than rainbows and unicorns and will decide that the job sounded a lot funner than it is. (And yes, I know perfectly well that "funner" is not a word. I choose to use it anyway.)
Google+ will not be a game-changer. Facebook is where the traffic is and their pages offer more functionality. Sure, some brands/organizations will do great on Google+, but ultimately it won't be worth the time or effort for most orgs to set up shop on one more social network.
Facebook will abandon Timeline. Ok, this may be more wishful thinking than prediction but I HATE the Timeline design.
Foursquare will flourish. I was *this close* to being a Foursquare quitter after I reached 1,000 checkins and, instead of a free t-shirt, got a coupon for 40% off a t-shirt. Seriously?! I was DONE. But strangely, checking in 1,000 times was apparently the magic number of times it took for me to admit my addiction to Foursquare. So despite lack of free stuff or even any decent specials, Foursquare has become a social network for me, as well as probably just a nervous habit, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Also, now that Gowalla has been acquired by Facebook and will be shutting down in January, all those Gowalla users will have to go somewhere, and who wants to give Facebook access to their checkin data?

Resolutions:

I will commit to the Social Sanity Manifesto. I love this manifesto, and have already taken step 1--deleting my Klout profile. I've already experienced the anxiety and overload Rachel Happe talks about in this awesome post and I think the 10 commitments laid out in this manifesto will go a long way towards helping to roll back the anxiety and overload caused by spending too much time online on too many sites connecting with too many people.
I will read more--and not for business. Business books are great, but especially in the social space, everyone and their brother either has written, is writing, or plans to write a book in the near future. That's great and all, but let's be honest--not everyone was meant to be a writer and many of these books are crap. Some, of course, are not, but they are few and far between. So I will spend more time reading books I want to read and less time reading books I feel I'm supposed to read because some social media A-lister is marveling about them.
I will not be sucked into the numbers game. This basically is a replay of #1, but think it bears repeating, if for no other reason than to drum it into my own head. I hate it that I thought twice about deleting my Klout profile because I had bought into the idea of being graded on at least some level. Seriously--who gives a shit about "online influence" except people trying to sell you shit, or who want you to sell their shit--for free?
I will try yoga. I tried it once--about 20 years ago--and the teacher told me, basically, that I was too hyper and/or spastic for yoga. So I never tried it again. But I'm kind of into the idea that people shouldn't limit themselves based on narratives they just play and re-play inside their heads (e.g. "I'm bad at math") so I'm willing (sort-of) to try yoga again. Even as I type this every fiber of my being is saying "seriously?" and laughing, but I'm going to resolve to try it anyway.
I will try not to be this person. Because, sadly, I can own at least half of those 54 things. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but let's be honest--I'm a 43 year old woman who lives in the suburbs. My chances of socializing IRL are not enhanced by being this person. (Or, frankly, by saying stuff like "IRL.") Although I admit that my favorite new friend of this year was someone I inadvertently insulted in a blog post a few years ago, actually met in real life last spring and now am good friends with offline. Even if much of what we talk about is stuff that happens online ; )

Klout Still Suggesting Users Invite Minors

2011-12-06T20:23:00.001-05:00

So remember when I wrote about how Klout had created a profile for my 13 year-old son? And how the story made it to the New York Times? And how Klout apologized and "rolled back" the changes, and vowed they had "no interest" in attracting minors to their site, and had supposedly set up some kind of safeguards ensuring that the same thing wouldn't happen again?

Well, it's happened again.

This is a screenshot of my Klout profile yesterday:

In case it's not clear from the picture, it's a snapshot of my "influence network"--including one mystery head. The mystery head, when moused-over, as depicted in this screen shot, is my 15 year old daughter, and Klout is urging me to invite her to Klout (I have scribbled out her last name--that's the black scribble).

To be perfectly clear: my Facebook profile is PRIVATE, not public. My daughter's Facebook profile is PRIVATE, not set to public. Yes, I have opted into Klout--something I'll be remedying soon--but where are the "safeguards" ensuring that Klout users aren't being urged to invite minors to set up profiles and link up their accounts, thereby giving Klout access to their data?

Here's the thing: parents need to be friends with their kids on Facebook to protect them and ensure they're not doing anything they shouldn't be doing, and to teach them about using social networks safely. But Klout is making it so that, in fact, by friending their kids on Facebook and not expressly opting out of Klout (a complicated and convoluted process), parents are actually providing Klout a direct pipeline to their kids.

How hard can it be to set up some kind of parameters ensuring that profiles of people under 18 will not be included in people's influence networks?

I'm about to make it easier by a factor of one: I'm off to delete my Klout profile.

Book Giveaway: Humanize!

2011-12-02T08:01:00.001-05:00

What better way to kick off the holiday season than with a giveaway? And not just any giveaway--an awesome one.

My friends Maddie Grant and Jamie Notter recently published Humanize: How People-Centric Organizations Succeed in a Social World. I was fortunate enough to review a few chapters while it was still being written and was totally bowled over by how smart and awesome it is. And seriously--I'm not just saying that because they're friends; this book goes well beyond the now run-of-the-mill social media book. Humanize addresses the deep organizational changes that companies need to make to become more human not only to succeed in social media but to succeed in business. The book is chock-full of ideas about why and how organizations can become more human....and it doesn't just stop at ideas. It includes detailed action plans--including dowloadable worksheets--you can use to explore where your organization is now and where it could be in terms of being more human, and concrete steps on how to get there.

Seriously--don't just take my word for it--check out the reviews. Or, better yet, read it for yourself when you WIN A FREE COPY! ; )

Here's all you have to do. Leave a comment with your name and either Twitter handle or email address so I can contact you if you win. That's all. I will pick a winner Tuesday evening, December 6 at approximately 9 pm. Why then? Because Wednesday, I'll be at the ASAE Technology Conference & Expo, as will be Jamie and Maddie, so if the winner happens to be there too I can bring the book, thereby not only saving myself from having to mail it BUT giving you the opportunity to get it autographed by the authors. And if you're not there, well, I could get it autographed anyway before I send it.

Don't want to wait? You can buy it on Kindle or Nook today (not affiliate links or anything--you know I am too lazy for that).

Thanks and good luck!

Update: And the winner is...

Commenter #9: girardster (sorted in order of date/time posted)

Thanks for playing everyone!

Can Associations Successfully Create a Culture of Collaboration and Innovation?

2011-11-29T17:30:00.000-05:00

Weeding through my email this morning I happened to notice a familiar name in one of the dozens of listserv digests that I routinely delete each morning. The NTEN digest featured a post by Allyson Kapin on "Tips to Create a Culture of Collaboration and Innovation." Allyson Kapin is super smart and "culture of collaboration and innovation" is something that is at the top of my mind recently as a result of ASAE's Innovation Talks day, which has stretched into Innovation Talks months in my world. I've been super busy over the past few months, preparing for my association's annual meeting and launching a new online community and, to be honest, am pretty burnt out on basically everything. I was glad to read her post and feel the old "yes!" feeling--she makes some really good points, and also sheds some light on why associations, in my opinion, are pretty much hard-wired to not succeed at collaboration and innovation.

Oh yeah--in my excitement I'm forgetting to actually share the link to her post: here. Go read it then come back to discuss.

Or if you don't feel like reading the full post now, here's a summary of her main points, and why I feel that associations on the whole fail when it comes to collaboration and innovation:

Trust Your Staff. Allyson points out that one of the best ways to create a more collaborative environment is to stop relying on consultants so much and start listening more to your own team. She's totally right. But unfortunately, most associations are built on a model of relying heavily on consultants, especially when it comes to implementing new ideas. While that's great for association consultants, it's not great if you're a smart association staff person. Want to foster a culture of employees who are enthusiastic about coming to work, willing to do their jobs plus the extra work involved in trying new, innovative things? Don't farm out the cool new stuff to consultants.
Don't Shut People Down. Allyson talks about brainstorming and letting everyone having a voice in those conversations. At most associations, the only people who have a seat at any brainstorming table are the senior staff. Think about it--when your association is doing strategic planning or pretty much any strategizing, who's at that table? If everyone on staff does not have a voice in that process, you're missing out, and your association will never be truly collaborative or innovative because some of the best, freshest voices will never get a chance to be heard.
Host Weekly Interdepartmental Meetings. Allyson points out that, in a culture of collaboration and innovation, teams must be integrated, meaning that people in fundraising, advocacy, marketing, PR, Programs, and Tech should be working together to develop campaigns that are integrated across multiple channels. Is that how your association works, or does each department work in its own silo and want to claim ownership/credit for its own ideas? There is no room for silos in collaboration or innovation. Are you regularly interacting with other teams and working together towards common goals? If you work and meet in a bunch of silos, you're not.
Seize Opportunities. Allyson points out that it's important to seize opportunities when they arise, particularly when it comes to leveraging current events that relate to the issues your organization works on. She warns not to get stuck in rigid processes and long approval chains. Sadly, associations are pretty much synonymous with rigid processes and long approval chains. Innovation is not possible in an environment dictated by processes, hierarchy, and approval chains.
Share Successes With The Community. Allyson highlights the importance of sharing successes and failures with the whole staff so everyone can learn from--and be part of--the process. How is information shared at your association? Is the whole staff in the loop on what's going on, or does the senior team meet weekly to keep a pulse on what's going on while the rest of the staff do their jobs in a black hole of not being privy to the big picture and key successes and/or failures? If it's the latter, innovation can never happen because the people doing the work are kept out in the dark with regard to the big picture and key events/dynamics that are the building blocks of innovation.
Commit to Culture Change and Failing Fast. I'm just going to quote Allyson directly because this one is key:

"While creating a culture of collaboration and innovation within a very traditional and rigid organizational structure can be challenging it can definitely be achieved. But, make no mistake it requires a major culture change within the entire organization that must be led from the top. Senior management must focus on breaking down the silos in the organization to have more of an open culture and leadership."

Is your association's senior team on board with breaking down the organization's very structure and starting from scratch? And embracing a culture of open-ness? How about involving the whole staff in the process? And failure--how is your organization set up to handle failure? Are there processes in place to recognize when past successes are no longer successes? And/or to measure new successes and failures?

So am I being overly pessamistic or, based on these key points, does it seem to you associations on the whole are pretty much doomed to NOT do any of these things and, therefore, not be able to create a culture of collaboration and innovation?

Thankful

2011-11-23T17:30:00.000-05:00

Lest I let the opportunity for the cliched "What am I thankful for" blog post roll by, I am muddling through my post-ASHA convention and now sick stupor to try to write a coherent post about what I'm thankful for. Since lists are easier than prose, I'll make it easier on all of us and go with a list of five things I'm thankful for this year:

My health. Yes, I did just say that I'm sick right now and I am, but at least I'll be better in a day or two. This past year has definitely proven that the older you get, the more precious good health becomes. So many friends have been affected by cancer this year, either battling it themselves or losing loved ones to it. Cancer is pure evil, as are the other ailments various friends have had to suffer through this year. Lupus is the main one that comes to mind, as I watch my friend Stephanie Kennedy battle it daily via Twitter and Facebook. So here's to enjoying good health every minute you have it.
My family. Somehow my teenaged children were more entertaining than they were obnoxious this year, so that's good. And I still have a year left until I have to deal with being the parent of a kid who can drive. And who wouldn't be thankful for an adorable husband like Patrick McGary, who cooks, cleans AND is always willing to talk about association stuff?
Pinterest. Ok, not as profound as health and family, but seriously, have you seen Pinterest yet? So fun. Since this blog is about social media, I have to throw in something social media-related, and Pinterest is by far my favorite new thing in that realm.
Friends. Having just returned from a visit with two of my favorite friends who unfortunately I only get to see every few years, I'm extra thankful for friends both near and far, "real life" and online. Yes, I do have great friends who I have yet to meet in real life but still consider them to be friends. But this year in addition to the visit I just mentioned with my Cali friends, I've traveled to England to visit a great friend, gotten to spend time with my sister who lives too far away, and am gearing up for girls weekend with my best friends from college next weekend. I've made new local friends and tried to be better about actually spending time with them offline. And of course, I've also spent WAY too much time hanging out with real-yet-virtual friends in private Facebook groups and other places...but hey, I'm trying to be offline more.
This blog and you. While writing in a private journal is fun, I admit there's something to be said for writing stuff that people actually read. I am deeply thankful for the people who read this blog, and who share the stuff I write. I am particularly thankful for Kiki L'Italien who regularly shares my posts on her weekly Delcor Social Media Sweetspot show--she makes me feel super famous and important.
I know I said this was going to be a list of five things, but one thing I'm seriously thankful for is the fact that Blogger FINALLY added the ability to have links open in a new window!! This will make no sense to you unless you use the Blogger platform, but as someone who's been using it for over five years now and begging for them to add this feature, I am SOOO thankful they finally added it.

Ok, I'll leave it at that--I hope you have an awesome Thanksgiving if you're in the US and an awesome regular Thursday if you're not.

New York Times and Other Excitement

2011-11-16T08:04:00.001-05:00

Remember my last post about Klout and privacy issues? Thanks to the fact that my friend Tonia Ries is a rockstar, the story got picked up by the New York Times, so I will now be able to go down in history--much to my mother's chagrin--as the mom who helped her 13 year old lie to get on Facebook.

At any rate, today I'm off to the ASHA Convention in San Diego, the time of year where I get to actually meet face-to-face with the people with whom I interact on Twitter or otherwise online throughout the year in my capacity as community manager. While I wouldn't mind a shorter flight (I hate flying), I'm sure once I'm there I won't be complaining. About the weather, at least ;).

See you all on the flip side next week.

Why I Don't (Totally) Blame Klout for Privacy Issues

2011-11-09T17:16:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago a friend noticed, when she logged into Klout, that her son was listed as one of the people she influences. She figured it was because her son had recently commented on one of her Facebook posts since her posts are set to public. Curious, I went over to Klout to see who they were listing as people I influence and, lo and behold, there was my son. My 13 year-old son. I clicked on the thumbnail and up popped a Klout profile for him, complete with a score of 26.

I have erased his last name in the interest of privacy (it's not McGary, btw, potential stalkers) but there you have it, what Klout claims they never did: create profiles for unregistered Facebook users. That is exactly what this was--a profile for an unregistered Facebook user, complete with a link to his Facebook profile. Which a friend who I had check it was able to access--I'm guessing because his privacy on Facebook is set to "friends of friends."

Presumably as a result of bloggers bringing the privacy/creating profiles for Facebook users issue to Klout's attention, his profile was short-lived; the following day, Klout updated it's privacy features and, while the thumbnail of his photo--still with a score of 26--remained on my profile as a person I influence, when I clicked on it, instead of opening a profile, it just linked to an "invite your Facebook friends to Klout" app in Facebook. Since then Klout has further clarified the Facebook/Twitter profile thing by adding an "invite friends" tab with separate links to "Twitter friends" and "Facebook friends."

Now don't get me wrong--I still think Klout is BS. Especially with the recent shitstorm when Klout changed its algorithm and scores across the board plummeted. But do I think they meant to exploit minors by creating profiles for them? No. To be honest, if I were to blame anyone, I'd have to blame myself. Facebook's TOS say users have to be 14 to create a profile--so why is my son--a 13 year-old, even on Facebook? Because I let him. And because he, as millions of other kids do on Facebook, doesn't use his real age. So shoot me--I let my kids watch rated R movies and I let my 13 year-old be on Facebook. Do I think it's right that Klout was creating profiles for unregistered Facebook users? No. But were they specifically targeting minors? I would hope not.

I will say, however, that I think they need to revisit their privacy policy towards children--I don't really get the disparity between "this site is not directed at persons under 18" and "We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13." How about not knowingly collecting information for anyone under 18 since the site is not directed at persons under 18?

Google+ Pages: My First Impressions

2011-11-07T20:58:00.001-05:00

Earlier today Google made a big to-do about announcing that the ability to create Pages had launched. Then they took it back and said that the functionality was "coming soon" for everyone, and only available now to select few. Then later they announced, no, really, Pages are live for everyone. Talk about an annoying beginning.

But of course I had to try it to see what all the fuss was about--and you can too.

Here are my first impressions about Google+ Pages:

I am totally underwhelmed. I still don't get the Circle concept for personal use; I get it even less from a company POV.
It seems very redundant of Facebook. Shocker, I know, but seriously--what is it other than a Facebook page circa 3 years ago, albeit way more confusing? I say circa 3 years ago because that was back when you had to create a Facebook page via your personal account and pages were inextricably linked to personal profiles.
Apparently there are some issues with pages being able to add people to Circles. I honestly do not get Circles so I can't weigh in on that either way--I just created the page to see how it worked; I'm not worrying about fans/followers/circles at this point.
The only thing about Google+ pages that seems promising at this point is the hangout feature. I could see that being useful.
For now the only way to create a custom url for your Google+ page is via gplus.to http://gplus.to/

That's all I've got for now; what do you think of Google+ page functionality? A game-changer or a yawner?

Associations' 15 Minutes of Fame Courtesy of Herman Cain

2011-11-04T16:26:00.000-04:00

So even a total political non-participant like me (read: I do not vote and think politics as a whole is a crooked, crazy mess) can't help but pay a tiny bit of attention to this Herman Cain thing because of the association tie-in. I mean, seriously--how often do associations get huge news coverage that talks about governance, staffing, internal politics and more? Not too often. I constantly have to explain what an association even is, let alone the whole bit about volunteer leaders versus staff, etc. But today, there it is, above the fold in the Washington Post: an article detailing Cain's time as first head of the National Restaurant Association's board then as the association's chief executive. The article talks about the challenges of running an association, balancing the needs of staffers, board members and state associations. All real challenges for association execs, and good for the general public to know about to better understand how associations run.

But obviously the point of the article isn't to give the average person an overview of how an association exec's job works, nor just to detail the inner workings of an association. Sadly, this whole Cain scandal is shining a very unflattering light on associations--the lavish perks Cain enjoyed at the expense of members, including a lavish DC apartment, weekly first-class trips back to his wife in Omaha, schmoozing poolside and wining and dining--oh, and allegedly sexually harassing female colleagues. Hopefully not an accurate portrayal of most association execs, but there it is--the association world's latest 15 minutes of fame, and it's pretty much all bad.

Bad PR for the association industry as a whole, and especially bad for the National Restaurant Association. Their Facebook page is being slammed with complaints and demands that the women who signed confidentiality agreements in exchange for accepting (huge) monetary settlements for their sexual harrassment claims against Cain while he was head of the association be released from those agreements. Aside from being a PR and social media nightmare, it's also an association nightmare. I mean, legally, can an association even release people from confidentiality agreements that have already been executed and paid? Is it even up to the association to decide to release the women from the agreements? Not being either an executive, a lawyer or a CAE, I don't know the answer to that question...all I do know is that I don't envy the job of the social media or PR people at the National Restaurant Association right now.

I'm sure the posts are coming--if not already out there--about how the National Restaurant Association is failing in terms of crisis response to this situation. They are still posting to their Facebook page--but not about Cain. They are not responding to any questions or comments. As a fellow association social media person, I get it. Sticky situation, social media person not empowered to act or speak on behalf of the organization, this is a VERY sticky legal situation and not something they're allowed to comment on--from their POV, I get that and I sympathize. But it doesn't change the reality that social media is a give and take proposition. An association, company, brand, person--you name it--can't launch a Facebook page just to tick the "we have a Facebook page" box and not be prepared to deal with situations like these. Situations like these happen--this is happening right now. And unfortunately in terms of social media, the association is getting an F in terms of handling the crisis.

At the VERY LEAST, a canned statement about how they're working on it, discussing with lawyers, can't comment, appreciate the input, SOMETHING...anything would be better than what they're doing which is worse than nothing: continuing to post to the page but not anything about the Cain situation. At the barest minimum, just abandon the freaking page while you're waiting this situation out. Continuing to spit out daily posts like "Industry posts more job growth, figures show" (today), "SFCI pilot program at ATL airport wins green award" (yesterday) and "Illinois Dennys franchisee dishes up conservation" (Wednesday) is just adding insult to injury. It's like blurting out "how about them Redskins?" at a funeral or something. If you have to go to radio silence because the situation demands it, that's understandable, if not great...but silence is better than nervous chatter that nobody cares about right now.

Why I Know the Kardashian Wedding Was a Sham

2011-11-02T18:00:00.000-04:00

The beauty of having your own blog is that you can blog about whatever you want, whether or not it's on topic. So, while technically this blog is about social media, who's to say I can't blog about Kim Kardashian's divorce? Nobody! So here I go.

If you read this blog you know I'm obsessed with movies. I go to the movies usually at least once a week, plus watch a decent number of them at home. What you may not know is that I'm a particular fan of documentaries--much to the chagrin of my husband and kids, who are not fans. Pretty much doesn't matter the subject matter is--I just like them. Even though I am a fast food indulger, I loved Super Size Me (makes me crave McDonald's food every single time I watch it--go figure). So when I heard a while ago that Morgan Spurlock was making a new film about product placement, I couldn't wait to see it. Sadly I missed it in the theater, but luckily it's now at Redbox.

By the way, I'm getting to the Kardashian part...this is relevant.

So anyway, a few weeks ago I watched--and loved--The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. I loved it because I like knowing how things work behind the scenes and, as you know if you read this blog, I like to know when I'm being sold to. Don't get me wrong--I'm a marketer's dream and buy a ton of stuff, but I like to know when I'm being marketed to. That's why I'm rabid about transparency and disclosure when it comes to blogging. If you haven't seen The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, I highly recommend it.

So onto the Kardashian part. Yes, I watch Keeping up with the Kardashians and every spin-off show they spew out. Hey--I have a 15 year-old daughter and she watches it--it's her fault! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Kardashians are the epitome of product placement and non-disclosure. I mean, who could forget the whole $10k per tweet thing, totally undisclosed and totally untouched by the FTC, despite their regulations? Is it really such a mystery that the whole Kardashian empire is about product placement--some disclosed and some not? While I suspected that the whole wedding thing was just a big commercial and the actual marriage would last mere months, I chided myself for being jaded and figured I'd be proven wrong.

But I wasn't. If you watched the two-hour wedding show--not to mention the several part Bora Bora episodes leading up to the wedding--you could tell the whole thing was fake and just a mechanism for raking in some huge bucks via product placement. The Bora Bora trip? Basically a commercial for the Bora Bora Nui Resort & Spa. You think they paid for that trip? Please. Then the $10 million wedding. I know I don't have to tell you that they not only didn't have to spend a dime of that $10 million, but MADE money off the deal to boot, right?

So seriously--the whole thing was just a ruse to add to the Kardashian's already crazy making-money-for-doing-nothing lifestyle....as reported by my trusty Us Magazine, Kim Kardashian brought in $65 million in 2010 alone off product endorsements. So sanctity of marriage my ass--the marriage we're all so shocked is over after only 72 days (and yes, even though I called it, I admit I, too, was shocked to hear I was actually right and they were already divorcing) was never a real marriage to begin with; it was one huge, very lucrative real-life commercial.

Oh, and be forewarned...apparently the younger Kardashian girls are all set to step into their big sisters' ways....Kendall's sweet 16 party will be paid for--I mean broadcast on E!

Please Help Me Raise Funds for The Children's Inn at NIH Through Give to the Max Day

2011-11-01T20:06:00.000-04:00

I blog because I love writing. Period. Through blogging I've met cool people and been offered cool opportunities, but have never had a chance to use my blog to give something back. Until now, that is.

Enter Give to the Max Day. Give to the Max Day is a one-day fundraising event on November 9, 2011 that will unite local Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC communities to support nonprofits serving the area. The goal of the event is to get thousands of local residents to support their favorite regional charity, in hopes of raising millions in donations and grants in just 24 hours.

I'm lucky to be involved with Give to the Max day as an "activator"--an online advocate who has volunteered to help raise awareness of the event, and to help spread the word about both Give to the Max Day and some of the participating nonprofits. I have chosen to try to raise funds for an area nonprofit that I feel is deserving of some major attention and funds: the Children's Inn at NIH.

I know how blessed I am to have two healthy kids, and I know that not everyone is as lucky as I am. Way back in February I read this article in the Washington Post about the Children's Inn at NIH. It talked about how the Children's Inn is a place where kids with rare, often deadly diseases can come in a last-ditch attempt to be treated and, hopefully, cured. It's a place where their families can stay while the kids receive treatment, where they can live in much more comfort than that afforded by hospital and/or hotel rooms, and where they can bond with families going through the same horrible struggles. Some kids recover while being treated at NIH; some don't.

So, do me a favor if you would be so kind: please visit my fundraising page for the Children's Inn at NIH. Watch the video. Share the link. And, if you are so moved, please donate. On Give to the Max Day there will be prizes awarded to fundraisers who garner the most individual donations--together we could win up to $10,000 for the Children's Inn!

Blogging and Busy-ness

2011-10-24T09:51:00.001-04:00

I love writing, which is why I love blogging. Which is why it makes me sad when life gets too busy to keep up with this blog, let alone my personal "fun" blog. When I started blogging over six years ago, it was for pure enjoyment. Nobody read it...well, except my mom. My job at the time had nothing to do with blogging or social media, and after recently "on-ramping" back to the work world after an eight year hiatus, I was basically in an entry-level position and had plenty of time to blog.

Fast forward to the present. Blogging has gone from being a fun, creative hobby to a career for me. I manage my org's blog and social media presences, and frequently speak about blogging and social media. While it's great that I've come this far after having to start over career-wise at age 35, it's stressful. My kids and husband do plenty of grumbling about how much time I spend online. My son, who is 13, doesn't understand why I don't have the kind of job that you just do at the office from 9-5, and he doesn't see why I would "waste time" blogging. Well, unless I get some kind of swag out of it--he is an even worse swag whore than I am and loves him a free t-shirt, thumb drive or, best yet, Wii game. And yes, I do shamelessly ply him with any swag I receive in an attempt to assuage my guilt over the amount of time I spend on this "hobby."

At any rate, I have a lot of cool things coming up, all related to blogging. Later this week I'll be writing about Give to the Max Day and kicking off my first-ever fundraiser. In a few weeks I'll be participating in DelCor's Progress U Blogger Summit. Then I'll be heading to San Diego for ASHA's annual conference, THEN presenting at ASAE's Technology conference at the beginning of December. Yikes...maybe my son has a point....

Facebook Changes and What They Mean for Associations

2011-10-09T11:23:00.000-04:00

Facebook making changes is hardly news; they constantly change things. But my personal feeling is that two recent changes will significantly affect the impact of Facebook Pages, especially for organizations whose primarily use Facebook Pages to reach members/fans/supporters, as opposed to using Facebook ads. A few weeks ago, Facebook changed the way updates appear in people's news feeds, taking away users' ability to choose between seeing top news or most recent news. They of course billed it as an enhancement, "Taking the burden of choice off of users by showing them both relevancy filtered and a raw stream of updates at the same time will ensure there is always something compelling waiting on the home page"--in reality what it is is a disaster. Top stories are "pinned" to the top of people's news feeds, and the crazy new "ticker" is annoying and unhelpful (I personally hid it using a browser extension and highly recommend that solution). What it amounts to for Facebook is users being forced to spend more time on the site searching in vain for the news they actually want--their friends' updates--while scrolling past a sea of what they don't care about--stories with the most likes or comments or whatever. And what it amounts to for Pages is a severe decrease in the number of people seeing their updates.

Again, Facebook glosses over this fact in their usual way, pointing out how, while impressions are down, "engagement" is up. For associations, though, whose Facebook strategy may well be to drive traffic back to their website, engagement could well be useless. I know for the pages I admin the past month has shown a 25% drop in impressions, which means a very significant drop in click-through. Even if engagement were up (which it is, per post, but aggregate "People talking about this" is down; go figure), that would be meaningless since the way Facebook determines engagement is the percent of people who see a post and do something (like, comment or share). So, sure, if you have 25,000 impressions it's going to be a lot harder to have a higher engagement score than if you have 2,500 impressions, but since clicking an outbound link doesn't count in the engagement score you still benefit more from 25,000 people seeing your post and being able to click the outbound link. The bottom line is, for associations using Facebook to drive traffic to a website or as a call-to-action with a link to a donate or advocacy page, to put it bluntly, they're screwed.

Add to the news feed changes the fact that Facebook is about to remove the discussion tab from Pages, yet another functionality that Facebook has decided isn't important but may well be important to associations, and things are looking kind of bleak for Facebook Pages remaining a useful tool for associations. For companies with big Facebook ad budgets maybe it's not as bleak, as they can buy ads driving people to their Page, but for companies for whom the primary way of reaching Facebook users was by having their updates appear in users' news feeds and for whom $10k a month or more in Facebook ads is not feasible, I don't know how they'll be able to combat this decrease in update visibility.

If you're the admin of a Facebook Page that relies solely on posting content--as opposed to buying ads to drive traffic to the actual Page--have you noticed a drop in impressions and click-throughs? Do your fans use the discussion tab and will its disappearance have an impact on your users' satisfaction with your organization's Facebook presence?

Employers are Liking and Hiring Social Media Workers--Except Associations

2011-09-30T17:14:00.001-04:00

Yesterday I spoke at Digital East about the challenges and opportunities of association social media. A lot of the information I presented came from ASAE's new report, Benchmarking in Association Management: Social Media. I still need to post my slides (not that they'll be super useful to anyone, as I went all Slide:ology and only used images, which resulted in a furious few hours the night before realizing I wouldn't be able to read from my slides so needed to basically memorize the whole thing) but a few findings from the report:

Associations are mostly still in the "information gathering" stage of social media adoption
Most (68%) of responding associations have either no staff dedicated to social media or less than 1/2 of a FTE devoted to it
While social media staffing in associations is projected to increase over the next year, spending on social media is not budgeted to increase. Go figure.

I couldn't help but think what a stark contrast this is to the non-association world, as portrayed in this recent LA Times article. Contrast, for instance, the association hiring stats above with this quote from the LA Times article:

The number of social media-related jobs on Monster has surged 75% over the last year, O'Reilly said. About 155 positions are available a month, up from an average of 88 a month a year ago.

155 social media positions a month? Wow. Who wants to place bets on when there will be 155 social media positions TOTAL in the association world? I'd say the safe bet would be "not anytime soon."

Digital East

2011-09-28T09:02:00.001-04:00

This afternoon and tomorrow I'll be attending Digital East in Tysons Corner, VA. Tomorrow morning I'll be speaking on a panel about association social media with Danielle Brigida, the digital marketing manager from the National Wildlife Federation and Stacie Saunders, social media strategist from AICPA. My topic? Social Media Opportunities and Challenges for Associations. (I'll post a link to the slides once the presentation is over.) I promise I will be speaking not only to the "challenge" part of that topic! ;)

You can follow #deast11 if you're not there--and if you are there, please find me and come say hi!

Innovation and Lone Dogs

2011-09-26T17:06:00.000-04:00

I've been wanting to write a post about innovation since I started hearing about ASAE's Innovation Talks. But I have to say--I'm a bit burnt out on innovation. As one of the few association staffer's dedicated solely to social media and community management, I feel like I've been eating, drinking, sleeping and playing "innovation" for three and a half years now. It's definitely cool to be in a position of being able to try new stuff and watching things succeed--or not. Of being able to be in a state of constant learning, and serving as a resource to others looking to go down the same path.

But I have to say my main thought during all this innovation talk is "when does innovative become mainstream?" That is to say, as the person working on the bleeding edge, when does what the people on the edge do become just part of the regular mix? The mix that includes budget and other staff people and stuff non-innovative functions get to take for granted.

Take the job webmaster. Once upon a time, organizations didn't have websites. They didn't have web pages. Each one had discussions and meetings and votes about whether they should set up one of these new-fangled web pages. And one by one they all did. And once they set up the pages they needed someone to oversee them, keep them running, make changes to them, troubleshoot them when things weren't working right....and the position formerly known (or actually still sometimes known) as webmaster was born. As in one webmaster, the sole participant in all things "web." Then as the internet evolved and web pages became more than mere brochures and the workload around their upkeep grew, more web positions evolved. Budgets increased, headcounts increased...suddenly there were web departments. The lonely webmasters had others like them who they could bounce ideas off of, learn from, collaborate with.

What if that evolution had never taken place? Well, actually, in some organizations it hasn't...and there are plenty of horrible looking and non-functional websites out there to attest to that fact. But look at the organizations whose web presences started with one page then grew and became part of the overall fabric of the larger organization. There's a lot more there than one lonely webmaster with permission to set up a web page and then...do that ad infinitum.

I have to say I sometimes feel like the dog who yearns for another dog to keep me company. And I know from others in my same position--or in positions that are nothing like mine but are in other ways new and different--that they feel the same way. It's one thing for leaders to allow some experimentation and innovation--but there also needs to be a process by which those innovative efforts are routinely evaluated and, if they are proving to be successful, are reclassified from innovative to just regular. Like payroll and member services and meeting planning and publications. Established departments with budgets and more than one staff person (assuming a large enough organization). Because being innovative is about more than just letting innovative projects or initiatives to kick off--it's about making sure to either cut them loose if they prove to be failures or reeling them into the regular mix if they prove to be successful. Because innovation left out on the bleeding edge to fend for itself will, in time, wither and die.

So, bottom line: association leaders, it's great to allow for experimentation and innovation, but please...don't just think it's enough to check off the innovation box; keep your finger on the pulse of your organization's innovative efforts and don't let them stay experiments forever.

Are we Being Gamed by Gamification?

2011-09-25T20:32:00.001-04:00

I've blogged about Foursquare before and how it doesn't have much value proposition for the user...yet here I am, over a year after my "Foursquare fatigue" post and I'm still using Foursquare. Still fumbling around with my phone while trying to juggle my wallet and coffee at Dunkin Donuts so I can reclaim my mayorship. Still spending--no, make that wasting--time reloading and reloading every time Foursquare doesn't want to connect--which is frequently. Sharing more and more details about myself--not just what movie theater I'm at but what movie I'm seeing.

Why? Is it because all this effort has paid off and I've started getting free stuff? No. Is it because of the super-fun badges? Hell no. For one, they're not super-fun and for two, I hardly get badges anymore (not like I was counting to begin with or anything...). The specials Foursquare offers are negligible, at best, at least in the area I live in.

Someone asked me why I use Foursquare the other day and honestly, the only reason I could come up with was because it's become a habit for me and seems to somehow hold the promise of some great reward at some future time. What reward I don't know; what future time I don't know. I honestly could not tell you why I continue to use Foursquare...yet I do.

I get what's in it for marketers, and for businesses--but what's in it for users when it comes to location-based games like Foursquare? I know about tips and reviews but, speaking of gaming, we all know those can be gamed just as well, so I'm talking about personal value in exchange for taking the time to check in. Because I'm feeling like a chump for buying into it and would be relieved to have an answer better than "I'm not really sure" to the question "why would you take the time to use Foursquare?"

Biggest Mistake My Ass--and Other Facebook News

2011-09-19T16:50:00.000-04:00

I know I already blogged about this, but I couldn't help but smart when I saw this headline about the Biggest Facebook posting mistake you can make. (With all due respect to Brian Carter, who I know and like, and who happens to be super smart in all things Facebook...but I remain unconvinced about the travesty that allegedly is posting to Facebook from anything other than Facebook.) While I get that yes, if your Facebook posting strategy begins and ends with connecting your Twitter account to your Facebook page and autoposting Tweets to the page as your only updates, you will not have much success on Facebook, there are ways to "autopost" to Facebook that will not result in the world ending or your page's engagement value plummeting. Especially if you are using a third party app that allows you to format the way your link appears on Facebook and include an image. And as for the idea that you'll get maximum interaction posting from the crap Facebook mobile app...well good luck with that. Currently, despite the recent Facebook iPhone app upgrade, I can't even get the page I manage to SHOW UP--forget posting to it.

Speaking of Facebook, though, the past few weeks have brought a flurry of crazy Facebook changes. In case you haven't noticed, here are some of the recent "upgrades":

Subscriptions--I honestly don't really get this subscribe feature so I'll just let you read about it on Facebook's blog and try to make sense of it. Basically it's a way to let people read/see what you post without having to let them friend you. Whatever. Oh and they also rolled out a handy suggestion feature--reminiscent of Twitter's "who to follow" feature. Hm, it's almost like they're trying to copy Twitter...more on that to come.
Privacy changes--honestly, I can't keep up with Facebook's crazy ongoing privacy changes so I didn't even try to understand this latest batch. I'm sure in there somewhere is at least one loophole which benefits Facebook more than it does users, as is always the case with their privacy "upgrades."
No more updates to group members--If you chose a Facebook group over a page because you wanted to be able to send members updates, you have about another week and half to enjoy that feature; as of September 30, Facebook will be disabling it.
Facebook/Twitter integration is apparently coming. So much for Facebook's historical hatred of Twitter and subsequent blocking of Twitter features; in the wake of Google+'s increasing popularity, Facebook has decided that Google+, not Twitter, is the enemy, and they're suddenly buddy-buddy with Twitter.

Did I miss anything?

Should Vendors be Industry-Specific?

2011-09-12T20:43:00.000-04:00

Even though it's been over a month since ASAE's Annual Meeting, I continue to get occasional emails and regular mail from vendors who exhibited at the expo. Did I mention that I had a blast in St. Louis? ;)

Something I've been thinking about since then is whether businesses that cater to associations need to be focused exclusively on associations, or whether it's possible to provide a good product and good service to both associations and for-profits. I guess I mean association tech vendors specifically. There seems to me to be such a vast difference between associations and for-profits when it comes to technology that I tend to think that an association technology vendor needs to be specifically focused on associations in order to both get the tech right and be able to adequately support clients.

For instance, association management software (AMS) is, obviously, specific to associations. Ditto for online community platforms that integrate with AMSs. Ditto again for learning management systems and who knows how many other tech products that are specific to the association world, and for which for-profits would probably have little use. However, it seems like several association tech vendors are now either dabbling in or just plain moving more towards focusing on the corporate/for-profit space. I can understand this--there's a LOT more money being earmarked for social tech in the corporate sector than there is in the association sector. Corporations are hiring for social media and community management jobs in droves while associations are...well, not. I get that this is where the money is and if you're a business, that's where you'd want to be.

But what if where you are is actually in the association space? With clients who often have very small staffs and look to you for support and guidance. Can you adequately market to/support/provide a great product to both associations and corporations?

I honestly mean this as a question that I don't know the answer to but am curious about...