Home

The Big, Fat Content Glut

May 14, 2013 by gfsnell3 4 Comments

ContentSnake2

Content is everywhere – and that’s the problem.

Content creators – bloggers, videographers, writers, artists, designers, musicians, journalists, directors, illustrators, actors, etc. – should be celebrating. The internet has opened up the world to them. Writers can sell novels and non-fiction directly to readers. Musicians can sell their songs right to listeners. YouTube and Vimeo have opened up huge audiences for film and video creators.

Check out these statistics:

  • 72 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute
  • Amazon.com sell 114 ebooks for every 100 print books
  • There are 65 million WordPress websites across the globe and they post 41.5 million posts each month

That’s just a small sampling of the content being pushed online every second of every day – posts, ebooks, status updates, tweets, videos, infographics. This should be the Age of the Content Creator!

But, unfortunately, it really isn’t. Not by a long-shot.

It’s actually the Age of the Content Aggregator – or the The Age of the Content Amateur. Because the sheer volume of content is causing a glut. This glut is driving the cost of content down. So while we can celebrate content – most of it is being created for free.

In fact, some content – even good quality content – has been reduced in value to zero. Like news stories, for example. Few people are willing to shell out money for news anymore.

Need the latest outcome of the big game? Google it. Thousands of results from newspapers, magazines, blogs, social networks, etc. will pop onto your screen with your game outcome. You can not only get the score, but you get analysis, play-by-play, photos and videos of the game. All for free.

This is why journalism is in its death throes and why professional news outlets are shutting down, laying off workers and trying to find a way – any way – to stay relevant during a period where their most valuable commodity has been reduced to being close to worthless.

This same thing is happening to other content.

The cost of getting hot new pop song used to be a $17.99 compact disc. It’s now $0.99 on iTunes – or a quick illegal download. Thousands of struggling artists are willing to give away their music for free.

That bestseller from your favorite author used to be $25.99 hardcover. Now it is a $9.99 ebook. And if you don’t want shell out money for a book thousands of bloggers give away their content for a click.

No doubt there are wonderful results to this democratization of content creation. But one result?

WE’RE DROWNING IN CONTENT.

And a lot of the content is rubbish.

Value comes from scarcity or at least a willingness to pay for quality. But we’re in uncharted territory now. This glut is beginning to hurt content creators.

What are your thoughts on this?

Content Creation, Social Media, Uncategorized
, , , , , , ,

Why “Likes” Matter

May 8, 2013 by gfsnell3 3 Comments

LikeKingNothing causes as much consternation as a Facebook “like.”

Marketers want to give it a value.  Sales guys want to monetize it.  Communicators want to measure it.

But the simple fact is that few people understand it.

So what is a like?  What does it mean when a Facebook user “likes” something?

First, you need to realize that “liking” is the primary language of Facebook. It’s the feature that most defines the social network and the easiest and fastest way to communicate en mass on Facebook.  In other words, it is what makes Facebook, well, Facebook.

Now let’s define the two different types of likes – pages/brands and individual pieces of content.

Liking a Page

When a Facebook users likes a page or a brand they are doing several things at once:

  • First, they are defining themselves. By liking a page or a brand, the user is rounding out their profile about who they are to their friends and family.  Revealing that they like “Starbucks” rather than “Dunkin Donuts” is a way people on Facebook put themselves into a specific  or camp. It is part of their personality – part of their profile about who they are or want to be.
  • Second, they are voluntarily opting in for content from the page or brand. They are saying they are open to receiving information (posts, videos, photographs, contests, deals, news, etc.) about the page or brand. It is much the same as signing up for a newsletter.

For a brand to get a like is a great thing. Not necessarily because the brand gets to brag about how many people like its page, but because the like strengthens its bond with the user. They have become a part of that users’ profile – a small bit of their Facebook personality. They have also been granted the opportunity to engage with the user. The brand now has permission to communicate and interact with that user.

Liking Content

There’s a big difference between liking a page and liking a piece of content. There’s also a difference between liking content and sharing it – but not as different as many people think.

But first things first.  Liking content means just that – the user likes it.  A like is an endorsement for a single piece of content – post, article, link, photo, app or video. The user is saying they found this content interesting, fascinating, horrifying, funny, disturbing, entertaining, etc. The “like” becomes a recommendation for others to check out the content.

No doubt there has been a lot of debate about whether a “like” is an endorsement and no matter how you slice it – it is. There is simply no other explanation for why people would like a piece of content unless they were endorsing it.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they approve of it, but they are bringing people’s attention to it – so that they in turn will consume it, read it or watch it.

Liking vs. Sharing

Liking something on Facebook – or a website connected to Facebook – is easy.  Click.  Done.

When a user likes a piece of content it publishes a short (usually a sentence) acknowledgement of the like on the person’s News Feed (with the thumb’s up icon) and allows friends access to the content. Liking content is a form of sharing – not unlike the retweet feature on Twitter.

But Facebook fans can also share content. Sharing is like the “like” feature on steroids. It allows people to customize the content and proactively push it out to friends.

Sharing, however, takes more time but most people would argue is better than a like. But not by much.

And regardless both features allow others to see the content.

And that’s the real point.

———-

What are your thoughts on likes?  About Facebook?  Would love to get your take on Facebook’s infamous like feature.

Links:

Ask the Experts: Like vs. Share via Gravity Search Marketing

Is Facebook Dead as a Marketing Channel?

Content Creation, Social Media, Social Media Consulting
, ,

10 Signs That You Need to Unplug

May 2, 2013 by gfsnell3 8 Comments

Unplug10

1. You use the word retweet instead of repeat in casual conversation.

2. You actually say to someone: “I just read something about that on Facebook.”

3. The distant sound of a mobile phone ring makes you check your own phone for an incoming call (extra points if you do this after hearing a mobile phone ring on a TV show).

4. When you stumble upon a new word while reading an article you calculate its value for Words With Friends.

5. When reading the last sentence you thought about the social aggregation company StumbleUpon.

6. You like things on a friend’s Facebook account to keep them in your algorithm.

7. Pins are content on Pinterest and not tools used in sewing or buttons with snarky comments on them.

8. You realize that many people you often “talk to” and “discuss” issues with are people who you have never met in person.

9. You have thousands of followers and you don’t know where the hell you’re going.

10. Bathroom time feels empty with your iPhone.

Got any nuggets to add to the list?

Content Creation, Culture
, ,

4 Myths of Social Media Authenticity

April 29, 2013 by gfsnell3 9 Comments

Happyroom2

One of the great big whopping lies about social media is authenticity.

Because – let’s face it – there isn’t much that’s authentic about social media. There’s lots of spin, cherry-picking, and bright-side propaganda from both individuals and brands going on. Few people and brands are truly genuine about their attitudes, personalities and opinions on social channels.

Why?

Because few people are authentic when they are being watched. When you are being scrutinized you put your best face forward. It’s only natural. And for brands social channels are for marketing and communications. In other words, “planned” content. Planned content, by its nature, is not authentic.

So let us count and debunk some of the most popular myths about social media authenticity:

Myth #1: Consumers demand that brands be authentic on social media

Reality: Consumers want brands to fit within their perception of what the brand stands for. What people really mean by saying they want brands to be “authentic” is that they want brands to be on message. To reflect their brand. If the brand strays outside of the boundaries of that perception – they are routinely punished for it.

Take last year, for example, when the American Rifleman magazine published a tweet that read in part “Good morning, shooters” right after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting.  American Rifleman - which is a magazine for, well, shooters – was savaged for it. Its tweet, while badly timed, was most definitely authentic. In the storm that followed the publication deleted not only the tweet, but also its entire Twitter account. Why?  It’s too risky being authentic when it means supporting guns and bullets.

A second example is Chik-Fil-A. It is a brand that is authentically conservative Christian. That philosophy is built into the brands DNA (the restaurants are closed on Sundays as a result). Chick-Fil-A found itself out of the frying pan and into the fire last year for speaking out against gay marriage. It’s a stance that’s about as authentic as you get, but no one was celebrating that fact.  Chick-Fil-A’s opinions led to boycotts and people demanding that Chik-Fil-A keep its authentic opinions to itself.

Myth #2: People are authentic on social media

Reality: People lie like crazy on social media.  And if they aren’t outright lying they are certainly painting their lives in the most wonderful light. Facebook has turned us all into our own private publicists. That’s why restaurant and vacation photographs are so popular – look at me doing awesome things!  Few people write about the daily drudgery of their lives or the challenges of being married or a parent. A recent survey about women and dishonesty on social networks was very revealing.

Here’s what the Telegraph noted in its story on the survey:

“According to the OnePoll survey, one-third of women surveyed admitted to “dishonesty” on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter at some stage.  Almost one in four admitted to lying or exaggerating about key aspects of their life online between one and three times a month while almost one in 10 said they lied more than once a week.”

I think it is safe to say men would likely rank about the same. Don’t we all what our lives to appear more glamorous or important to our friends, family and colleagues?

Myth #3: Brand authenticity is appreciated and rewarded on social media

Reality: Not even close. Do you want to know what is really authentic? Mistakes. We all make them. But if you’re a brand and you make a mistake on social media? Then you get a kick to the head for it – even if you retract it and apologize.

Look what happened when American Apparel tweeted out information about a sale they were having just before a big storm – just in case people got “bored” riding it out.  The storm, unfortunately, was Hurricane Sandy. Hundreds, if not thousands of people turned on American Apparel on social channels to rip them about their tweet – even though it was written before the storm struck.

Or how about Kenneth Cole’s tweet linking the riots in Cairo with a sale of his shoes? He was hammered for this error in judgement even after apologizing for it.

Myth #4: Authenticity humanizes brands and that behavior is rewarded

Reality: Human beings don’t run the social media channels at brands. Groups of people do. And those groups are usually PR and marketing experts and all they are trying to do is sell things: messages, brand identity and products and services. Brands are a lot of things, but human isn’t one of them.

But that doesn’t stop “human emotions” from occasionally making its way onto brand social channels. And when that happens? Trouble. Nestle is a perfect example of this. When its Facebook page was attacked by Greenpeace activists angry about the brand’s use of palm oil and its connection to destroying rain forests, the flustered community manager at Nestle reacted in a most human way: he become frustrated.

And when he vented this frustration through a few snarky remarks about the rudeness of the activists, he was, of course, roundly and loudly denounced and criticized for reacting like, well, a human being.

———-

What do you think about authenticity on social media? Another buzzword? Or do you think it is what makes social media social? Would love to hear from you in the comments.

Links:

Why Women Constantly Lie About Life on Facebook via The Telegraph

A Single Tweet Can Cause A lot of Damage

There is No Authenticity Online

Business, Content Creation, Culture, Social Media
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Technology in the Classroom Should Mean

April 24, 2013 by gfsnell3 1 Comment

ipadmaster

Public schools are adding tablets and laptop computers into their educational programs in record numbers.  One of the main reasons educators cite for this proliferation of technology is a variation of this thinking:

“The jobs of the future will be using technology and computers and students need to learn them to be prepared for the workplace.”

One educator had his sixth grade students create ad campaigns for cars they designed using apps on an iPad.  He told the Guardian about how the process worked in his classroom:

“Allowing the children to work in this manner shifted the learning from teacher-centred to child-centred. Children could work at their own pace without having to wait for further instructions from the teacher.”

Sounds great for the teacher.  But this is the wrong approach to integrating technology in the classroom.

As anyone with a three-year-old will tell you mastering an iPad, iPhone or iPod takes about three minutes – tops.  Apps – for the most part – are simple to use requiring an ability to peck, point and swipe your fingers.  And while you can create amazing things with apps, most of the work is done by the technology – not by the person.

This isn’t learning – or creating.

Technology in the classroom should not mean mastering hardware or current software – because by the time these students are ready for the job marketing the hardware and software they learned on is already obsolete.

What iPads and laptop computers add to the classroom is distraction.  Say what you will about a hard-covered textbook, but when you open it to read that’s all you can do – read it.  When you try to read or focus on an iPad or a computer there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of distractions: email, Twitter, Facebook, Google Searches, Wikipedia, Instagram, YouTube, iTunes, games (thousands of games!) and the internet.

There are bells, beeps, whistles and flashing icons on your screen – all demanding attention.  iPads are perfectly manufactured interruption devices.  Distractions everywhere that aren’t available with a piece of paper, a book or a chalkboard.

What technology in the classroom should mean is learning how to code.  Learning how technology works – both software and hardware.  It should mean math, problem solving and creating things from scratch – not learning how to use apps.  Teach kids to write software.  Teach them how technology works – the concepts and ideas behind using it solve problems.

That’s what technology in the classroom should mean.  We need to be teaching children to be thinkers.  They need to learn reading, writing, mathematics and science.  They need to learn how to solve problems and create things.

Learning how to use an iPad?  Or an app?

Really?

Links:

iPads in the Classroom via The Guardian

More High Schools Implement iPad Programs via U.S. News & World Report 

Culture, Technology
, , ,

Boston, Social Media & the Press

April 22, 2013 by gfsnell3 1 Comment

Media

During the horrific week of the Boston Marathon bombings – where the news seem to fly faster than even Twitter – one thing stuck out like a sore thumb:

The mainstream media remains the best place to get accurate news.

Despite all the cuts, all the closings and the sorry economic state of the mainstream media it continues to be more reliable and professional than online upstarts and citizen journalists.  Organizations like WBUR, NPR, the New York Times and The Atlantic deserve to be called out for responsible and informative reporting of the Boston bombings and subsequent manhunt for the suspects.

That’s not to say the damage done to the mainstream media the last few years – and certainly the ugly spectacle of watching news organizations desperately trying to compete with social media channels – didn’t lead to a lot of preventable and unfortunate mistakes.

There were some awful reporting decisions made by CNN, the Associated Press and the Boston Globe, especially when all three reported that an arrest had been made the day after the explosions and then later rather inelegantly retracting them.

But even the worst of the mainstream media didn’t come close to the display by many bloggers and citizen journalists on social channels.  Facebook and Twitter became clogged with unsubstantiated rumors, blatant misinformation, conspiracy theories, outright lies and most disturbingly displays of unfocused rage calling for death, destruction and blood (isn’t that what we’re supposed to be fighting against?).

At times my Facebook feed read like a parallel universe where people jumped to all kinds of strange conclusions about the bombing – based on nothing but emotion and rumors.

Most of the mainstream media showed the restraint and caution necessary to cover a story like Boston.  That professional judgement was not adhered to by many bloggers, upstarts (BuzzFeed and Gawker, for example) and citizen reporters.  It was the first time I ever turned off my Facebook and Twitter feeds to focus exclusively on mainstream media outlets.

What about you?  Did you find social media added value during the coverage of the Boston bombings?  What sources did you turn to?

* Disclosure: I’ve done social media consulting work for WBUR.

Uncategorized
, , , , , , , ,

You’re Not Married to Your Social Networks – You’re Just Dating

April 12, 2013 by gfsnell3 4 Comments

Teens

Because if history is any guide – social networks come and go.  Mostly go.

So don’t go off and get hitched.

As my astute colleague Greg Swan recently noted:

“You would think the track record of social network migration (i.e. users emigrating from Compuserve to AOL, AOL to Friendster, Friendster to MySpace, more recently MySpace to Facebook) would have established a trend of cyclical change which we marketers would anticipate and embrace. But for some reason it seems like our clients and peers are always surprised when online behavior changes, new destinations gain traction, and popular networks lose daily active users.”

What prompted his musings?

New research that teenagers are rejecting platforms like Facebook and Twitter in favor of newer and cooler social networks.  In other words,  social networks that their parents have yet to discover.

A new survey by Piper Jaffrey asked 5,000 teens to list their most important social networks.  The top five were:

  • Wangle
  • Vine
  • SnapChat
  • Kik
  • 4Chan

As you can see – not a Facebook post or an Instagram photo in the lot.

As Buzzfeed observed about the survey:

“It hints at what could be the beginning of an across-the-board teen rejection of traditional social networking as a whole.”

That’s because the services listed above, most notably SnapChat and Kik, are not even social networks in the way we think about them now.  In fact, they are really just instant messaging services – but with more functionality (primarily imagery like photos and video) and personality.

There’s no big profiles on these services – so they are more private.  There’s also the ability to be more selective in who you interact with.  Less fear about mom, dad, grandma and Uncle Bert reading your posts and commenting on your photos and likes and dislikes.

In other words, paradise – at least if you’re a teenager.

But anyone who has been working in digital and social communications for longer than a turnip truck ride will be able to tell you that platforms (i.e. specific social networks) really aren’t that important.  Does it really matter if you need to shift platforms from MySpace to Facebook or perhaps later to Vine?  Not really.

If you’re a brand and have a content strategy, understand your audience, and are developing multimedia and interactive content – that’s really all you need.  You should be adding and subtracting channels all the time – or at least when they change.  And change they will.

It’s one reason why having an online content hub – a home base if you will – is a crucial part of any digital and social strategy.  That’s where your content can live and breathe (and provide amazing SEO).  Social channels are just that channels.  It’s where you broadcast your content and engage with your audiences.

If you find your audiences have moved – move with them.

That said there’s no panic yet.  Facebook still has a billion people on it.  Twitter is still growing like crazy.

But change is always in the air…

How about you?  Any thoughts on these new networks or on the old ones?

Links:

Greg Swan’s post on Teens Ditching Facebook

Buzzfeed post on Teens Abandoning Social Networks

Business, Content Creation, Content Marketing, Social Media
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s Count the Ways You’re Screwing Up Social Media

April 9, 2013 by gfsnell3 3 Comments

Screw

Because the ways are many and varied.

If you needed any evidence that brands are doing social media all wrong then look no further than a recent survey sponsored by Ragan’s PR Daily and several partners.

The statistics are jaw-dropping:

  • Only 27 percent of brands have a dedicated social media team
  • Sixty-five percent of brands have delegated social media responsibilities to existing staff
  • Forty-two percent have one person – one! – dedicated to social media
  • Forty-seven percent of brands have hired a person with 1-3 years of experience to handle their social media

So is it any wonder that only 5 percent of brands are “highly satisfied” with their social media programs?  Of course not.  Basically most brands have hired a recent college graduate to be the point person for all of their social media programs.

Would you do that for marketing?  Or communications?  Heck would you do that for any other department?

The answer is, of course, no.

Brands need senior leadership for social media – which is quickly morphing into the primary channels for content marketing.  Social, digital and content need strategy.  They need ideas, direction, organization and structure.  There is no way junior person can accomplish all of that – they simply aren’t qualified to do so.

I would argue that social media will soon be driving advertising, marketing and communications.  That’s where the industry is moving rapidly.  Smart companies are creating teams to do this.  They are hiring senior leadership, platform experts, community managers and content creators to build strong internal teams that can be augmented by smart partnerships with outside consultants.

Are you a company investing in social and digital communications?  Or are you a company doing social and digital communications by strategically hiring interns to do it for you?

The choice is yours.

Links:

An Inside Look at Companies Social Media Teams via Raglan

Uncategorized
, , , , ,

Should We Block Big Brother Tactics by Companies?

April 4, 2013 by gfsnell3 8 Comments

cow

Gmail reads my emails.

… so they can serve me targeted ads.

Amazon analyzes my book buying habits.

…to serve me up ads via recommendations.

Facebook studies my posting habits and likes.

…to sell my profile to advertisers so they can target me with ads.

Google collects and analyzes my search habits.

…to serve me up contextual ads.

The New York Times tracks all the stories I read.

…so they can recommend to me other stories to read.

Nearly every website I visit mines me for valuable data.

…so they can sell it so companies can serve me up ads.

Some days you feel like a dairy cow and you’re tired of being milked.  It gets aggravating to poked, prodded, pushed, pulled, and plucked day-in-and-day out.  Some days you’ve had enough.

This is one of those days.

Our personal data (i.e. our privacy) has become the new frontier of marketing.  Our preferences, buying habits, online patterns and circle of friends and influencers is the new gold mine.  And we gladly give it up for convenience.

So here’s a question:

Should companies be allowed to collect your personal data when you visit their websites?  Or should they be required to specifically ask permission to mine this data?

And I’m not talking about asking permission in the form of pages long terms of service agreements that no one reads.  I’m talking about a pop-up that open as soon you arrive allowing you to either opt in or opt out of having your personal data collected.

And one follow-up question.

Should companies be forced to be completely transparent about what data they do have and have to share it with you if you ask for it?

Thoughts?

Links:

Why You Hate Privacy

Invasion of the Privacy Snatchers

Business, Culture, Social Media
, , , ,

What the Heck is Content Marketing?

April 2, 2013 by gfsnell3 5 Comments

AdverstingBelieve

Content marketing is when a brand creates content and shares it.

It’s different from “regular” content (whatever that is) because its goal is to attract and engage consumers.

Content marketing has been around since the beginning of PR and advertising.  It used to come in the form of company newsletters, advertorials, user conferences, company magazines and press releases.

But social and digital media have shifted content marketing into hyperdrive.  Content market now comes in many flavors:

  • An author who shares a sample chapter of his new book for free on his blog is engaged in content marketing.  He’s hoping to attract new readers and hook them on his book.  The next step, he hopes, is for people to read his chapter and buy his book.
  • A food brand that shares recipes and cooking tips on its Facebook page is practicing content marketing.  They are hoping their knowledge about food and the tips they share will lure customers to buy its products.
  • A technology company that offers insights and tips on how to use their software through a series of YouTube videos is in the content marketing business.  They are helping consumers optimize the use of their product and at the same time hoping to attract new customers through their approach.

Content marketing is all the rage right now and for a good reason.  It works.

Traditional advertising has reached the end of its effectiveness.  People don’t believe advertising anymore.

‘Today’s generation has always had TV and is much more media savvy. Research shows that younger people are more likely to believe a stranger in an internet chat room than a TV advertisement,” Rosin Donnelly, marketing director at Procter & Gamble, recently told The Guardian.

HubSpot, a marketing software company, recently published an infographic where 76 percent of the respondents thought advertising is exaggerated.  I’m actually surprised it was that low.

So what do people believe?

They believe in Yelp reviews.  They believe recommendations from their friends and family on Twitter and Facebook.  They believe blog posts.  They still believe news articles and features.  They believe in Internet searches.  They believe in real and authentic content.

Content marketing bolsters all of that.

It provides people with useful, entertaining, and informative content.  And because of digital and social media it releases that content from the confines of old closed platforms: like company magazines and newsletters.  It allows that content to be optimized for search and to proliferate on social networks like YouTube and Pinterest.  It allows people to share it and comment on it.

And best of all – done right – it works.

Links:

Young People No Longer Believe in TV Ads via The Guardian

76% of People Think Advertising is Exaggerated via HubSpot

Content Creation, Content Marketing, Social Media
, , , , , , , , , , ,
Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,021 other followers