Archive for March, 2009

Something new here at The Harte of Marketing…a guest post from Steve Cunningham! Don’t know Steve? Well, you can get to know Steve on Twitter just like I did. In a nutshell, Steve is a CEO of digital marketing agency, Polar Unlimited, in Ontario, Canada, a songwriter, an ex-lawyer (which apparently he’s happy about) and a lifelong entrepreneur. And for fun, Steve reads & reviews business books at: Read it for Me. This is Steve’s first guest post and I think he did a bang up job! Let us know what you think.

Social Media is like Recess

Yes, it’s an odd analogy…but bear with me here. I believe that (unless you were a grade school dropout) you already know all you need to know to be successful with social media. Why’s that? In a nutshell: times may have changed but people fundamentally haven’t. The structures and interactions of a grade school recess are astonishingly similar to those of most social media communities.

The same people that show up in your Twitter stream and your Facebook feed are the very same characters you caught eating glue in kindergarten. Here are only 3 of the ways I believe that social media is like recess:

#1: The big group is made up of lots of small groups. There is no single Twitter community: it’s a collection of tens of thousands of small networks of ‘followers’ that share some commonality. There is no single Facebook or LinkedIn community: just thousands of networks of friends and affinities hubbed around an individual. These networks (or circles of friends standing around on asphalt) are made and stay together by shared interests, where each member of the group has actively made a decision to participate. And this is the interesting part:.you can’t join a group by just standing on the sidelines. You have to get in the game.

Lesson: Find your place in a smaller group. Some people play football, some play with dolls. Recess is too short for both.

#2: Every group’s got a leader. Every teacher knows how to quickly identity the ‘troublemaker’ in every group. At recess, these troublemakers usually decided what sport they would play or who the topic of the latest gossip would be. When they grow up, these kids will be re-branded “passionate” and “motivated”, but until then, they’ll be visiting the principal’s office frequently. Similarly, most successful social media operations reflect the personality and interests of one individual: Chris Brogan, Gary Vaynerchuk, Leo LaPorte, Mike Arrington, Seth Godin, Robert Scoble, Jason Calacanis, etc. These e-celebs have fostered their networks (and generated gigabytes of monthly traffic) by identifying and holding true to the field in which they love. They also share one other trait: they aren’t afraid to stir the pot every once in a while.

Lesson: If you want to take a leadership position in that smaller group, you need to be willing to stir the pot every once in while, even if it lands you in the principal’s office.

#3: Your actions have consequences. Whether it’s on the playground or on Twitter, everyone loves to watch a good meltdown, right? There’s a not-so-secret thrill in seeing other people publicly self-destruct. (Evidence here). The difference is that online, those meltdowns stay in the public domain forever. Your friends might have forgotten that time you cried when your 6^th grade girlfriend dumped you for the older, more sophisticated 7^th grader, but the Internet never forgets. Worth remembering the next time you want to fire off a zinger reply to some snotty comment troll.

Lesson:  What happens at recess, does not stay at recess. Remember that.

My point? You’ve seen this all before: on the playground, in your home and at the office. Success in those arenas, as well as social media, comes down to how well you relate to people. You’d be much better off reading Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People” (written in 1937) than any of the “Secrets of Social Media Success” crap.

Man, I loved recess.

[Photo: iStock]

Customers and prospects searching the Internet for products, services-and conversation-and the world of marketing has changed forever. Your company, brand and industry are being discussed online… Are you prepared? We know times are tough, but we also know that business owners and marketers/communicators need to get a leg up on competition (whether you are competing for business or that new job). Now is your chance! We have three tickets available…will you be the lucky winner?

The Online Media Boot Camp is April 9^th, 2009 in King of Prussia, PA. The three lucky ticket winners will be picked on March 20^th!

For more details visit: www.onlinemediabootcamp.com

1. Want a chance at winning a free ticket to the Online Media Boot Camp (a value of $349 before 3/16 & $449 after 3/16), you have to be nominated by someone else.
2. A person can be nominated in one of four ways: a blog post, a video, on Twitter, via an e-mail sent to OMBC (beth [at] onlinemediabootcamp [dot] com). All four must include: Who you are nominating and why. You must include a link to the Online Media Boot Camp (www.onlinemediabootcamp.com) in your post. If you tweet it, use the #OMBC hashtag.
3. If you nominate someone, you can buy a ticket for $349 after 3/16. A savings of $100! (Code: OMBCFTW)
4. f you are nominated for OMBC and you want to go to OMBC, you must do one of the following to accept the nomination: a blog post, a video, or send an e-mail to OMBC accepting the nomination (beth [at] onlinemediabootcamp [dot] com).You must state that you will cover all travel costs, that you will attend and why you deserve to win. You must include a link to the Online Media Boot Camp (www.onlinemediabootcamp.com) in your post. If you tweet it, use the #OMBC hashtag.
5. All posts, videos and e-mails of those nominated will be posted to the OMBC blog too.
6. The three winners will be selected by the OMBC speakers. Criteria includes: creativity, passion, honesty, statement of how online marketing/social media will help you as a business owner or marketer/communicator/etc. and any other items that you think make your case to win a free ticket.
7. If you are nominated for a free ticket, but don’t win, you can buy a ticket for $349 after 3/16. A savings of $100! (Code: OMBCFTW)
8. If you win a free ticket and have already purchased a ticket, we’ll refund your money. Or, if you are feeling generous, you could give your purchased ticket to a friend…

It’s that simple! Have questions? Contact Online Media Boot Camp on Twitter: @onlinemediabc

Added 3/6: And because people don’t read…here’s a video to make the process a little bit easier to understand. ‘Cause, really, they are pretty straightforward.

I embrace social media 100% and as a business owner social media has been proven for me. But, I know that a lot of marketing and PR professionals who are now just sticking their toe in the proverbial social media pool have questions; especially around the meaning and implementation of transparency.

As social media evangelists we talk about social media transparency and the importance of being forthright, authentic and honest. We also discuss that it’s about the “who” (people) not the “what” (brand or company), an important part of being transparent when it comes to social media.

That said, recently two incidents have happened that are making me re-think the term transparency.

As a business owner the first one is personal, but I think it’s important to share. In early February my father-in-law passed away and I was offline for over a week. A lot of people were contacting me because it wasn’t the norm and they were worried. When I jumped back online, I finally left a comment on Jason Fall’s blog (Kevin Palmer’s guest post) that I had told Kevin weeks before that I would write. Kevin might not have even notice that I hadn’t commented, but I wanted to keep my word. In commenting I apologize for the delay “due to a family situation.” And in retrospect, that was probably a mistake. Honestly, I didn’t want to be transparent…it was a private family matter, not for public consumption (even though there was a very public obituary). But, in trying to be transparent, I might have ended up seeming non-professional. I should have just said “sorry to be late to the party” the usual comment for tardiness. The thing is, people did know what had happened and offered their condolences online, it wasn’t a secret if people were paying attention to my Twitter stream. I have talked about my family before on Twitter, but this was different for me.

The second incident happened just yesterday. During the ghost writing debate, I was publicly annoyed because I felt that Heather and Mike Whaling were not being transparent in their use of social media (Twitter) while debating me (i.e. meaning that they were tweeting as two representatives from two agencies versus a married couple). I found out after the fact from Mike’s client, Eric Brown, that Heather and Mike were actually married. When I learned that, I just felt that the situation was disingenuous (not that they are  disingenuous mind you, there’s a difference and I don’t believe that at all). Mike left a really nice note in which he explained that he didn’t think it was necessary to mix personal with professional. I totally get that, but I stated that in this particular situation I thought it was indeed very important to be transparent. But at the end of the day, it’s Mike’s personal decision to determine the level of transparency that’s best for him, his business and his family, right? Not all of us are on the same page for how much transparency is appropriate.

For a brief moment, let’s think about these situations from a non-social media perspective. Would they have happened in a traditional, offline environment? I bet they would, but would have been handled differently. We understand business conduct and yet we are still trying to work out how social media best works for business when we all have a voice and the desire to be “real.”

Here’s the one way we could potentially look at the spectrum of outbound communications (I am basing these loosely on light transmission definitions since we are talking about transparency):

• Opaque – where most companies lie in the spectrum. One-way conversations (i.e. normal marketing/PR)
• Translucent – Forthright, not revealing all, but still two-way conversations. (Ex: a person can be very professional on Twitter, engaging, but still not discussing his/her personal life)
• Transparency – Crystal clear, real two-way conversations (you know about this person’s personal life, business experience, product/service they market/brand, etc.).

From a business perspective is being translucent okay when it comes to social media? Are we using the word transparency correctly? Do we need to know everything? Do we care or not care to know everything? Do you want to feel like you have a transparent relationship with a brand/company? What happens when transparency goes wrong? What works?

Who decides what the appropriate level of transparency is? Who makes the rules? The person, the company or the community in which they interact? Where are the boundaries?

Lots of questions here…