Social Flare

The right tools for the job - choosing a Social Media app that will help.

So, I did a bit of consulting, again in retail. This concerned an internal project, and the consultation was casual and precursory, fitting the state of the project; it hasn't really gotten out of the paper napkin stage.

The idea is this: many very smart MBA-types at this large company sense of see real value in social computing, and would like to introduce some concepts to their company for very good reasons: to effect a cultural change by introducing a social computing app that demonstrates clear value to not only decision makers, but also to the masses. The MBAs themselves are young Facebook-grads newly minted from college, and so they maybe swim in the sea of social computing.

But swimming here, or being native, and developing implementation strategy are two different things.

THe MBAs have access to a wiki solution, and see a lot of potential value in the tool for their organization. Their plan is ( was? ) to introduce it to the higher-ups, let the value speak for itself, and then have use trickle down from the top to the masses.

I advised against this, for a number of reasons:

I have never seen a working example of top-down, mandated social computing. I've seen plenty of grassroots stuff, starting from teh bottom and getting a critical mass of obvious value. Ive seen a few examples of partnered effort, developing a solution that works. But never top-down. It might work, but I get this feeling that mandated social computing ( "now we all need to use the wiki" ) is not a recipe for success. It seems to me this kind of technology needs adoption that can't be mandated.

This is accepting the premise that the MBAs could -get- the higher-ups to adopt the technology. I was not convinced of that, but why strike at pride, when you can appeal to practicality?

Also, and much more important, I opined that it seemed to me that the group had it's heart int eh right place, but might be going about their goal the wrong way. I asked what goals are you trying to acheive? Meaning, what problems are you trying to solve? When you know that, and who you are trying to benefit, then which tool ( wiki, or something else? ) becomes a much easier question to answer. Deciding that you're going to use a wiki because you can afford to keep it up is kind of like going into a hardware store, telling the clerk you have "some work" to do on your house, showing him or her $20 and asking what you can get for that?

You might get a spiffy hammer. But what if you really need to drill some holes, or paint a wall, or grout some tile? Your hammer might not be all that useful.

The same applies for social computing, of course. Except instead of $20 for a hammer, you spend thousands and thousands of dollars in capital, time and other resources chasing after a hazy goal with the wrong tools and a tactical ( as opposed to strategic ) plan.

The ideas of effecting social change, or implementing social media and computing, and solving a tough problem with amazing solutions are all admirable goals. But the planning and thinking things through before hand, with someone who knows how, is essential.

Now, where did I put that hammer...?

You see, I have some pctures to hang. In doing this, I know I have nails to pound. And although I could use the side of a drill, or the flat of a saw, or the bottom of a paintbrush to drive the nails,  a hammer really is the best tool for that.

More Babyfoot is Less

( this is a posting I wrote for another blog, but which is apporpriate. The original appeared 12/07 on Sears's internal User Experience blog )

More Foosball is less, and how it applies to UE

 

My cube neighbor Jenn, who is not in UE but who is still pretty cool anyway, tells me that the Canadians and French call foosball a word that translates out to "baby-foot" in English.

 

Presumably this is because foosball is a baby version of soccer, a miniaturization. For those of you living on desert islands and reading this blog through your Kindles, foosball is a table top version of soccer for two players where each player tries to score goals by spinning multiple handles and yelling loudly, just like the real game. Here in UE West we have a sort of group area decorated by furniture raided from Sears of Christmas Past, as well as several baby-foot tables. We had two, yesterday we got another one.

 

That makes three baby-foot tables, for the math challenged. And we don't call them baby-foot tables, of course. We call them foosball tables. And on an extremely busy Foosball Day we use one of them, a couple times. Having three tables in the same small space seems a bit excessive.

 

Meet a need

 

It’s possible someone thought “well, people like foosball; our one table is going over well, lets put more down there.” Or maybe it was a matter of Someone Important deciding that for true happiness, our unit needed three tables. Or perhaps the solution was meant for scale; at some point in the future, we might –need- three tables. Then again, maybe we just have a surplus of tables… and like my mom never wanting to throw anything out, we jam them into 2G’s common area on the assumption that we’ll need them someday. Like that old sweater, or a margarine bowl you automatically wash and save.

 

The thing is, we really don’t need three foosball tables. They languish, taking up space so that ironically it’s tough just to play on just the one table. If we only had the one table, and by some bizarre chance more than two people wanted to play at one time, then maybe they’d have to wait five minutes for their turn to turn the handles and yell. But this never happens, and I’ve been here nine months. I think one table would meet our need just fine.

 

More is less

 

I am pretty sure no one has ever put these next words together in a sentence before… we should certainly be careful not to put three foosball tables into our web experience.

 

What I mean is everything we do on our site should address a need, something we can concretely speak to. We have a pretty dense web environment, from the Home page to the Thank You at the end of checkout. It can be tempting to put something in because we might have a need down the road. Or because they’re doing it over Somewhere Cool. Or just because.

 

This helps lead to a cluttered environment, a confused visual or task hierarchy and people using none of our cool widgets, even though we have plenty of them. More is definitely not always better. We should take care to remember that more foosball is less.

 

Now where did I put that sweater…? And that margarine bowl. Hmmmmm.

Participation in Communities is Key

Joining Reddit or StumbleUpon or Digg to surf is one thing. Joining because you're trying to acquire business intelligence is a good step up. But to truly reap the rewards of accessing such social media, participation is key.

To benefit your business or organization, join one ( or more? ) of these sites with a non-personal account, one created under your business's name. They are free, by the way. Set up filters or search for articles relevant to your business, post them in your account area, and discuss them; leave comments in the article trace, and discuss what you find on the site, on your site, and your blog.

Being part of the discussion is part of being an expert. If you're a surfer, you're just taking up time. If you're discussing the relevant topics of your business, and can point to this discussion, your status rises.

Paul Chaney at Practical eCommerce puts it very well:

"A basic rule of thumb in social media marketing is that, in order to gain influence, you must actively participate in the communities of which you are a member. That means commenting on blogs, participating in forums and message boards, joining fan groups at major social networks like MySpace or Facebook, and dialoging via online chat on sites like Twitter."

Mr. Chaney brings up a very good point... beyond the social bookmarking sites such as Reddit and Digg, there is ample opportunity for the same participation on the more general social network sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

Small Businesses Starting to Use Social Media

Anita Campbell at Small Biz Trends asked a good question of a group of social media gurus... 

“If your goal is to grow a small business online, and you had time for only one social networking / social media site, which would you choose and why?”

The answers are definitely worth the reading, but the standouts appear to be Facebook, Twitter, and a sense of "it depends".  Overall, my recommendation follows pretty closely along these lines. For baby steps, use Facebook; especially if your customers are the Gen Y set. Also participate in at least one social bookmark site such as StumbleUpon or Reddit.

Niche Communites - Bigger not always Better?

Facebook. MySpace. Bebo. Orkut. Livejournal. Multiply.

These are all names of well known, heavily-trafficked social network sites. Hundreds of thousands of members and up. I once worked for a startup in Madison ( I believe I may have mentioned this once or twice  :  ) where Bigger was Better. If we could reach more people, that would be great. If we could build a Bigger community, that would be awesome and we could then sell it for Bigger Money.

In theory, sure. Maybe. But as social networking evolves and the masses settle into patterns, the old marketing thoughts along the lines of more-is-better for a message is not always the way to go, I think.

Consider niche communities.

If you're looking to sell your new gloves to beekeepers, you could certainly market on Facebook. There are zillions of people there, and some small amount of them love to keep bees. Probably. You could spend the money or make the effort to learn how to market there yourself, and draw the Facebook beekeepers into your message and brand with the power of your awesomeness. Or...  you could find the niche community MyGenYBeekeeperSpace.com It would be much easier to find many more people interested in your whiz new gloves, in this space; and your marketing pennies or effort would go much further.

I made this community up, by the way. But you get my point.

There are niche communities for triathletes, fisherman, lapsed Catholics, golfers, doctors, and canoe enthusiasts. These communities are -much- smaller than the biggies but the people who sign up there are -much- more into the relevant pastime, occupation, or niche.

When developing a marketing strategy that includes a market you can narrow down ( and yours should; who can really market to "everyone"? ) find the communities that cater to your target niche. Sign up, poke around, have some conversations. Then start doing some really effective messaging to people who care about your bee-proof gloves.

Or, if you're building communities, find an under-represented niche, build it up, and sell it. Or advertising.

Hmmmmmmm. There's an idea.

   

Starting a community - things to keep in mind

A small list of things to be aware of, steps to follow, when starting your community. More on each of these will follow.

Plan – know your purpose of your community, know your intended reader. This might change, but have it in mind, before you set the community up. this also informs your choice of community type ( blog, threaded discussion, etc ).

Provide value – I say this over and over again, and I don't mean just putting your stuff up there. Make it funny, novel, or -really- worth my time to look at it. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

Seed it from other communities you have access to. Being the first in a new community is -not- like being first to a hot new restaurant. People will notice no one where, and they will leave.

Keep it current – update every day for a month, then every other day for a month, then every third day… and never go below that. More if you want. Call this Pete’s Law of Effort.

Plan to spread the word – physical channels, other like-minded communities, press releases, corporate blogs, and so on should be considered. More to follow.  Have these action items in mind -before- you open your doors.

Know how you'll handle problems - they will come up, and having a list to go by ( even if the situation isn't exactly covered ) is many times better than dreaming up a course of action on the fly. this is true for any disaster.

 

Myth - retaining community members

"If you build it, they will come."

This is the hallmark line from the movie "Field of Dreams" resounds on the web today. Everywhere you can find a website or a community or social network effort that seems to embrace the above ethos as its primary marketing strategy. With websites it's bad enough, but communities are entirely another level of effort, a different kind of beast. And it bums me out when I see folks who have the fire to start a community make mistakes that will insure its demise.

Back in the late 90s or so, The Line might have been true; having a website was novel and just putting one up meant that you could be assured of people finding you and visiting. This is not the case anymore... your site needs to provide -something- to retain anyone at all. And retention is what you need. "Visitors" or even "registered users" is no way to measure success, regardless of what the marketing folks might tell you. Sift a list of registered users through a list of purchasers, and you have the beginnings of a glimpse at how effective your web presence might be.

For Communities, the issue is even more intense. The deeper we move into Web 2.0, people expect more from the web, and the things they find there. They are more savvy, and just putting up your community ( a blog, a threaded discussion, or a full-on social network ) is not a guarantee that people will be there, flocking to your brand.

You love your brand. You're excited about it. You see communities forming online, and you go to the effort to build your own community. How in the world could anyone -not- come to your community, post on your forums, follow your blog just as devoutly as you do?

The answer of course is the simple reason most communities fail. People aren't invested. They show up to the door of the blind date with your community, but when you answer, they see what you have to offer, and beg off that blind date. Wonderful advertising, killer SEO and brand recognition might be enough to get people to the front door...  but absent compelling content, the above is all wasted effort.

So, maybe we should tweak that above statement a bit, to really fit the fallacy:

"If you build it, they will stay."

This is no truer than the first version, of course.

People need a reason to stay. They do not feel the same way you do about your brand; they are not drawing a paycheck from it, and they did not build it up.

...

To follow, I'll be posting about some of the basics to keep in mind when you're getting your community off the ground.

Web 2.0 in the nutshell

Paul Graham said:

Web 2.0 means using the web as it was meant to be used, and Google does.  That's their secret.    They're sailing with the wind, instead of sitting  becalmed praying for a business model, like the print media, or    trying to tack upwind by suing their customers, like Microsoft and the record labels.

Google doesn't try to force things to happen their way.  They try    to figure out what's going to happen, and arrange to be standing there when it does.

Found this quote in the book The Long Tail. It speaks to using the web the way it's meant to be used... that is, the way thousands and millions of people use it; not the way you'd like it to be used, maybe.

communities for conferences

A year ago, we spoke about using communities for conferences and symposiums; just as it's possible to have a blog that has a finite lifespan, it's definitely possible ( and practical ) to have a conference who's days are numbered, so to speak.

Imagine that weeks before attending a conference, you were able to "meet" and speak with other attendees, vendors, and speakers. How much time is wasted now on setting up meetings or demos on the fly, while at the event?

The way it woudl work is simple: you'd set up a temporary community for your conference, in much the same way you'd set up space for it at the convention center you're renting out. Attendees and vendors and speakers and other interested parties could friend up, form interest groups and demo products, create buzz or give previews of material to be presented. Contacts could be established before feet hit the ground and ID badges got affixed to lapels.

Your community could last for a month after the conference, to solidify ties made before and during, to post materials, and to end things on a good note. Then you could laythe groundwork for next year's conference.

As it happens, the folks at MacWorld is doing just this...   using Ning, of course. Check it out here. Sadly, we didn't have anything to do with this, but it's nice to see that kind of validation of a good idea, eh?

Ning is our tool of choice when it comes to rapidly creating a community; there are most costly out-of-the-box solutions if your needs are more proprietary, but Ning does rather nicely for many different  needs.

Social Network Profiles - How much is too much?

Yesterday the Washington Post Online featured an article about Barak Obama's footprint on the social network sites. Sen. Obama has the big two ( Facebook and MySpace ) more than covered, but has also established more than a toe-hold presence on various racial/culturally-themed networks. Jose Antonio Vargas writes:

And as of Friday, he's the first candidate to have profiles on BlackPlanet.com and MiGente.com, popular soc-nets in the black and Latino communities, and also on newer soc-nets such as AsianAve.com (for Asian Americans) and GLEE.com ("GLEE" stands for "Gay, Lesbian and Everyone Else").

How much is too much?

At what point is an individual's online presence just advertisement, and how much is genuine expression, leveraging the power of the community in question? Is "just advertisement" okay for individual's profiles? Businesses savvy and not-so-much alike have leveraged the potential ROI these networks afford, should individuals?

Different points of view, here. Traditional marketing and advertising thought is to saturate the market to a point of providing maximum exposure, while not diluting the brand; use the power of very-minimal-cost exposure opportunities to grow the brand. Is this a violation of any network's stated purpose? Is it a breach of what the network's community "expects" as far as authenticity goes? Also, all of the networks mentioned above are businesses, run for a profit. It's probably not a stretch to say that even if use this way stretches the intent of the use agreement ( I don't know that it does ) or sidesteps the feeling of a particular community of members ( again, maybe, maybe not )... these networks are still benefiting traffic wise ( and thus dollar-wise ) from Obama's presence.

At what point is it a wiser decision to utilize the power of one community, rather than attempting to develop a coherent presence on many of them? Do the "rules" of traditional marketing apply here, where so many of them don't in other aspects of social marketing?