Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Is Social Media Only About Popularity? Or is Bloomberg BusinessWeek Wrong About the Need to Be Popular

The current issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek has a cover story on popularity.

The thesis of the article is:
Popularity is not a state of grace. In business, it is treasure hard-won on the battlefields of product development and marketing, then leveraged or squandered or stolen back. Most of the products and ideas showcased here—the stuff we buy, sell, and otherwise consume the most—owe their status in part to aggressive sales tactics, from knocking on doors to strong-arming grocers to gain the best shelf space. In its most potent and permanent form, however, popularity transcends sales pitches, advertising, fads, and maybe even conscious choice.
Yet I found I didn't like the article. True, it was filled with interested factoids about which brands or more popular -- Jif or Skippy, vanilla ice cream vs. chocolate, bananas vs. apples -- but there's not much in the way of useful, actionable lessons from the extended article.

We know that Jif outsells Skippy, than vanilla ice cream is more popular in-home and that Americans buy more white-colored cars than other color (black is the second most popular). But in my reading of the article, there was limited value in knowing which brands, products. etc. are more popular.

We learn that "With nearly a billion dollars in annual sales, Lay's market share dwarfs that of its rivals," but not why so many of us buy so many of Lay's potato chips.

The article seems to suggest in an age of social media, being popular is the end goal. That would be llike living in a perpetual high school environment.

Yet Bloomberg BusinessWeek acknowledges in passing that it's not all about being popular. In a separate, online only article, "Popularly Unpopular," Arik Hesseldahl reports makes an important point about popularity: "Why does the most popular social network rank next to last in a customer satisfaction survey?"

In other words, you don't need to be popular or well liked to be necessary.

I know we're all trying to get as many followers as possible on Twitter, the largest number of fans of Facebook, and links to our blogs. But I think if your goal is merely to sit at the cool table in the high school lunch room in the social media cafeteria, you're focusing on the wrong variable.

Let me know what you think. Is my take a popular or unpopular perspective?

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New York Times Urges Truth in Online, Offline Advertising

Pointing out that marketing to consumer-generated (i.e., blogs) and social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace but not, as yet, Twitter) is expected to grow 20 percent in 2009, up from $1.01 billion in 2008 (which had increased 25% from 2007), the New York Times believes that "a lot of it is paid advertising masquerading as bona fide endorsements by celebrities, well-known bloggers and even ordinary people — honest comment, free from pecuniary considerations."

According to the Times, "In 1968, an F.T.C. advisory demanded that advertorials disclose that they were advertising, not editorial...The rules offline should clearly apply online. This is a matter of principle, not medium, and the new rules are not an excessive burden."

I certainly agree with that.

The Times also urges the FTC to "focus enforcement on the advertising companies," not the bloggers."

The Times also feels that "advertisers are the drivers of this new trend. The onus should be on them to ensure that blogs pitching their stuff warn readers about the commercial motivation of the endorsements."

As a blogger, I'm not sure I totally agree with that last point. I have urged clients to work with credible bloggers, who disclose potential conflicts of interest. But as a PR executive, I know we have little control over bloggers, and would not want to be held responsible for them. That said, we're just providing information or trial software for reviews. We're not engaging in some of the problem issues that the Times rightly cites (such false testimonials).

It's not clear from the Times' editorial whether its editorial board understands how bloggers work.

At the same time, we do provide trial software for product reviews to print reporters. I think there needs to be a disclosure page for tech reviewers to let everyone know their policies. The Journal has a code of conduct that's easily found, but you can check it out here. Kara Swisher, a former Journal reporter who now works for All Things D, posts her ethics policies here. And Walt Mossberg posts his ethics policy below his bio here.

I think more online and offline reporters and bloggers should post codes of conduct. Now, I don't review or endorse products here, but I have posted in my bio that if I do mention clients, I will always disclose that fact. And I do so here and on Twitter.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Do You Suffer from SNF -- Social Networking Fatigue (NSF)?

Social networking will continue to grow in 2009, but expect a social networking backlash to start.

After all, with Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Plaxo, how many ways do we need to connect to the same people?

We’re feeling social networking fatigue (SNF) based on getting contacts on two different sites from someone we don’t know.

Meanwhile, the challenge for some sites, like Twitter and Plaxo, is that they have yet to monetize their communities, user base, etc.

How long can Twitter survive without generating a revenue stream? The backlash will also affect sites designed to help with lead generation but contain wrong information. There are a number of such sites like Spoke.com, Lead411, JigSaw.com. Spoke.com included a number of people as Birnbach employees who actually work at an acquired client of ours; that’s the most egregious, but most of these sites contain misinformation. (Since they’re for lead gen, we have not corrected most of the mistakes we’ve found.)

Friday, January 9, 2009

Top 14+ Media Trends for 2009

At the start of each year, we look at the media trends that we think will have the most impact. Here's our list of more than 14 trends we think significant.

We've also cited in #14 a few from media critic Jeff Jarvis from his BuzzMachine blog, in particular his article "A scenario for news." BuzzMachine is a very interesting blog, and we highly recommend it.

1. We will need a new definition of “newspaper” as many shift to an online-only format, thus losing the “paper” part of their business. We suggest calling them “newssites” (based on the soon-to-be outdated newsstand). Calling them “dailies” isn’t appropriate either, given a 24/7 news cycle.

2. Mainstream Media (MSM) will experience at least five changes:

o Dozens of secondary newspapers and magazines will shift to an online-only model in 2009. Already this year, FinancialWeek announced that it is shifting over this month. The benefits of the online-only model include substantial savings now that they no longer have to print, mail and deliver content (to newsstands and homes). The downside: they lose three revenue streams – display and classified advertising from the print edition as well as subscription fees – and now rely on online advertising to fund their operations. Online subscription fees have worked for only select media – even the New York Times couldn’t make a fee-based plan work. Expect some surprises as some larger market papers find themselves in real trouble (for example, the Times' cutting its dividend). Addendum: The day after we posted this, the Times reported that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a good, large-market paper in a two-paper town, may go online-only or shut down within 60 days.

o Traditional media that continue to publish print editions will update their formats to include more maps, graphics, lists, ranking and stats, along with shorter articles. These print editions will also be shorter, with some papers – including the Denver Post and Boston Globe – having shed stand-alone business sections. The same holds from magazines. As Fortune tech reporter, David Kirkpatrick wrote on Twitter: "an indicator of the sorry state of the economy – and the magazine industry: the new issue of Time – a mere pamphlet." (Don’t forget: Time and Fortune are published by the same company! And Fortune’s current issue is pretty thin, too.)

o These smaller floating business sections are not likely to achieve their publishers' goal because the sections are more difficult for readers to find and these sections provide less coverage of business at a time when the economy is in turmoil and undergoing seismic shocks -- a time when people need to more closely understand what's happening and how it impacts them. These smaller sections will also be less interesting to advertisers, too, because readers may easily skip over them.


o The value of content is changing. Traditionally, the value of the entire newspaper or magazine was worth a lot. Now, individual articles (available often by RSS feeds, Tweets, Google or other search engines) are worth more than the newspaper as a whole because technology has enabled us to consume only that which really interests us. It’s more efficient this way, but paging through a newspaper ensures you get a broader sense of what’s going on. It’s a more niche world.

o Stringers and civilian journalists will become more important. Because of staff cutbacks and bureau closings, MSM may not be able to find and send reporters or crews to cover breaking, important news outside their immediate region. The tragic shootings in Mumbai is an example where MSM, including some of the biggest names in journalism, relied on first-hand local reports. For example, CNN uses footage from iReport, and has been posting citizen video footage since Hurricane Katrina. Expect this trend to continue.

3. Expect to see fewer launches of new magazines, and to see some struggling media to call it quits in 2009. Remember that circulation is irrelevant to the publisher’s decision to discontinue a magazine if its ad pages/revenue drop. Over the past 18 months, some magazines with circulations in the hundreds of thousands closed because the advertisers stopped buying space.

4. Online newssites are not immune to the ad slowdown. According to ValleyWag, the Gawker-owned Silicon Valley gossip site, “LiveJournal, the San Francisco-based arm of Sup, a Russian Internet startup, has cut about 20 of 28 employees — and offered them no severance, we're told.” Expect more layoffs from this part of the sector.

5. Local coverage continues to be the name of the game for regional news organizations. Hyperlocal is the new local, with news about communities operating within a local market being the forefront of hyperlocal coverage, some say.

  • Local competition in the online space will heat up. Circulation figures for local weeklies probably will remain stable, but online competition will increase. In New England, Boston.com is competing more aggressively with Gatehouse Media’s WickedLocal.com – to the extent that the latter is suing the former for having too many pointers on Boston.com to WickedLocal.

6. Broadcast media will continue to see significant changes:

  • Niche is the new normal, especially for broadcast. This will make it difficult for marketers to reach broad audiences. In fact, that’s why we predict that Jan. 20th will be the single biggest media event this year – everyone will cover the Obama inauguration. On the other hand, according to Portfolio magazine: "There's something for everyone, but nothing for everyone." It's partly due to the shift to cable and the Internet.
  • Increasingly, people will access TV shows with their computers as opposed to watching the shows when they air. For example, there were 1.4 million viewers of the Couric-Palin interview on YouTube and more than 4 million of the SNL skit – that’s the power of YouTube and Hulu.com. NY Times’ David Pogue already suggested consumers could save money by disconnecting cable, and logging onto the Internet instead to get network feeds and local news coverage.
  • Local cable/TV operators will have a bumpy road because of a significant double whammy: Both advertisers and viewers are fleeing. Local broadcasters will need to find a way to cut costs – which means more layoffs – while stemming the tide of departing viewers. One way may be to follow the lead of NBC, which realized that airing the new Jay Leno show five nights a week at 10pm is cheaper than airing five original 60-minute dramas (even with Jay’s $30 million salary). Local TV may find that whatever time they have can be best/inexpensively filled by talk shows.

7. More organizations will jump onto the Twitter bandwagon. However, many will encounter the same problems as with corporate blogs:

o How often to maintain them?

o Who should maintain them?

o How do you measure a successful program?

o What’s the proper balance between communicating the company’s interest vs. being so self-serving that no one “follows” them?

We recently saw a Twitterite whose job is audience development for a major media outlet whose tweets consisted only of featured articles in the publication. The person had 1,612 tweets, but only 44 followers. In comparison, the magazine’s official Twitter feed has more than 12,000 tweets, and more than 600 followers. It’s a lot of effort with not much payoff. What companies need to understand is that Twitter and social networks are about engaging in conversations.

8. Social networking will continue to grow, but expect a social networking backlash to start. After all, with Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Plaxo, how many ways do we need to connect to the same people? We’re feeling social networking fatigue (SNF) based on getting contacts on two different sites from someone we don’t know. Meanwhile, the challenge for some sites, like Twitter and Plaxo, is that they have yet to monetize their communities, user base, etc. How long can Twitter survive without generating a revenue stream? The backlash will also affect sites designed to help with lead generation but contain wrong information. There are a number of such sites like Spoke.com, Lead411, JigSaw.com. Spoke.com included a number of people as Birnbach employees who actually work at an acquired client of ours; that’s the most egregious, but most of these sites contain misinformation. (Since they’re for lead gen, we have not corrected most of the mistakes we’ve found.)

9. Online reputation management will become more important and much more in-demand function due to the proliferation of sites and ways that people can post information, reviews, etc. about their experiences. For some companies, including Dell and Comcast, online reputation management becomes part of the customer service function. In fact, while understanding and working with social networking sites has been the purview of PR departments and their agencies, there will likely be more of a push by sales and customer service departments and HR departments to be in charge of social networking. In fact, because of media, customer relations and recruiting needs, all three functions (PR, HR and sales) should be working together to maintain and enhance their online reputation.

10. The Kindle will continue to sell to early adopters, but it’s still more like a beta of what’s ahead: bigger, more colorful screens, easier ways to share articles to other users, even a text-to-speech or audio book option so you can throw your book in the car. We expect e-books to become bigger in 2010.

11. The New York Times will survive, but will have a tough 2009.

o The Times will be faced with two obstacles as it seeks this year to solve its Boston Globe problem, since the Globe is losing an estimated $52 million per year:

§ Internal problem: The entire company is now worth less than the $1.1 billion it paid for the Boston Globe. (As of Jan. 6, its market cap is $1.09 billion; it had been less than $900 million in Nov. 2008). It’s difficult to write off that much money, but the company has taken other drastic steps such as cutting dividends to conserve cash and taking out a mortgage on its new headquarters. How much is it worth to them to unload the Globe?

§ External problem: Even at a distressed, Times-financed purchase price, who will want to takeover the Boston Globe? After all, if the Times can’t make the Globe profitable, who can?

o In terms of the Times itself, the challenge is that its attempt to sell online-subscriptions failed several years ago. It’s going to need to find ways to increase the value it provides its advertisers, such as its new ad across the bottom of the front page. That said, we don’t think the Sulzbergers will sell the Times, as the Bancroft family sold the Wall St. Journal to News Corp.

12. Rupert Murdoch will make more changes to the Wall Street Journal in 2009. So far, Rupe has not corrupted the Journal entirely. (The dire predictions from News Corp critics have not been fulfilled.) Despite initial murmurs, don’t expect the Journal to give up its lucrative online subscription fee; in fact, it just raised the fee last year. We don’t see much value for readers of the new WSJ Magazine; it seems like a high-end lifestyle concept in search of advertisers.

13. The Associated Press will consider substantial changes to its model.

o A number of papers have given the AP notice that they want to cancel their participation in the AP. Most of these are smaller papers – like the Bakersfield Californian, Idaho Falls Post Register, Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World – seeking to renegotiate down the fees they pay. But some big papers like the Tribune Co. (parent of the LA Times and Chicago Tribune) and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (no relation) have also given notice.

o On the one hand, many papers seem to rely on wire service coverage even more in 2009, thanks to closing bureaus in Washington, DC, and foreign capitals. On the other hand, the renewed focus on local coverage means that one article appearing multiple times no longer makes sense. After all, when searching on a topic on Google News, how many links to the same article do you need?

o All this means is that the AP needs to re-evaluate who it serves and how it serves them.

14. Journalist and media critic Jeff Jarvis will be right about a number of the predictions he made.

o Citing content from others will continue in 2009 – it’s part of what makes Twitter useful. In his BuzzMachine blog article, “A scenario for news,” Jarvis predicted several interesting things we thought worthwhile to cite:

§ News will emerge from networks…No one believes that a 35-person staff can cover Philadelphia as the 300-person newsroom did; they will have to collaborate with the community, with, we hope, a network of a thousand or thousands. Some people will freely contribute to the news network’s efforts, recording school-board meetings for podcasts, say.

§ Editing will change. Editors will become more curators, aggregators, organizers, educators. Their jobs will be less about controlling a flow than encouraging and improving creation.

§ Do what you do best and link to the rest will be a foundation of the future architecture of news. This is a necessity of efficiency – no one can afford to waste resources on commodity news – but also a necessity of the link economy, for it is through others’ links that original journalism will get attention and audience and the opportunity for monetization through advertising. Linking to journalism at its source - rather than matching it or rewriting it, as we have done - will become an ethic, a moral imperative of the new journalism.

§ Specialization will take over much of journalism. We’ll no longer all be doing the same things - commodifying news – but will stand out and contribute uniquely by covering a niche deeply. Local newspapers, I believe, must specialize in being local and serving local communities.

§ News will find new forms past the article, which will include any media, wiki snapshots of knowledge, live reports, crowd reports, aggregation, curation, data bases, and other forms not yet created.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

When Social Media Stars Complain...About Information Overload

When people whose careers are based on social media/Web 2.0 start complaining about information overload, what does that mean for people who have, um, real jobs?

Anna Marie Cox, the former Wonkette blogger, recently wrote a Tweet that struck home with me on what is otherwise supposed to be a vacation week:

"I have 390 unread msgs, 91 friend requests, 2 deadlines, an unholy outstanding expense acct & a blog to feed. Def time to clean the kitchen."

Social media certainly makes it easier to keep in touch than traditional media, but it also significantly adds to my information overload.

I probably shouldn't post this -- but -- I am checking email during vacation as a defensive measure. Which means some people will expect me to respond to their emails. (Of course, I could claim that I posted this entry earlier in June, had it scheduled to be published today, and once on vacation decided against checking email. Ya never know.)

Yet if I don't check email, I will be inundated with a thousand unread messages -- and it's hard to relax knowing that's what awaits you after vacation.

I'd love to hear better suggestions as to how to cope with information overload.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Businesses, Virtual Worlds don't mix

Interesting Wall St. Journal article about virtual worlds and businesses. Apparently they don't mix.

The article, "Businesses Take Avatars, Go Home," (available at http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/15/businesses-take-their-avatars-and-go-home/?mod=WSJBlog), found that 90% of businesses fail within 18 months, according to Gartner.

I'm not surprised that so many virtual world initiatives fail. Most people go to virtual worlds to avoid the real one. There was an amazing Journal profile last year of a man who spends hours and hours in Second Life, spending time with a woman who is not his wife -- even though he's married, in fact something of a newlywed. (His real-life was none too happy about his past time.)

What I did find surprising is that Gartner predicts that 70% of businesses will have their own virtual branded worlds -- and that these will be more effective than placing a brand in the context of some other company's virtual world.

Makes sense from a branding perspective. But that means there are more virtual worlds trying to grab people's attention. There are already too many social networking sites.

My prediction: the future will belong to mashups that combine social networking sites with virtual worlds.