Understanding the New Language of Social Media
July 31, 2008 | 8 Comments
If you're new here, and interested in the latest news and insights on social media marketing, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting Ignite Social Media.
Face it, there is a new language evolving as a result of Web 2.0, and you’d better learn it if you want to be a part of the future. If you want to be on the bleeding edge of Social Media Marketing, you have to be familiar with all the latest tools and trends available, so why not get a jump on the game and know just where to look and what to say. If you are reading this, then I probably don’t have to tell you about the ridiculously named sites Twitter or Plurk. And you already know about Sphinn, Mixx and Vimeo, as well as the blogs DoshDosh and Gizmodo. But did you know about Scrumptr or Blingabble? No, you didn’t, because I just made those up. But they sound real, right?
Our language is changing as a result of our use of the web, but is there any rhyme or reason to why things are called what they are called? Probably not, but here are a few things I’ve determined if you are looking for a way to name your new tool or site. Say you have just developed a great new application that allows users to post pictures of their favorite things into some sort of social feed. You could call it something arbitrary like Gleepglap or Bintsy, or you could use my simple method to garner a little bit of usefulness behind it.
First, try summing up what your application does in a single verb. For instance, our hypothetical tool feeds photos of things to your friends, so it’s a glorified slideshow. The inclination would be to just call it Slideshower, but wait, that’s not “Web 2.0” enough.
The next step is to screw up the spelling: SlydeShowwer.
Still too long, though, so we take out some of those pesky vowels: Sldeshwwr.
It still sounds too common and “old school,” though, so we’ll just swap out some of those traditional letters and replace them with new ones. Try to use fricatives or sonorants to jazz it up: Slzswwr.
There we go. But now I know what you are thinking: How the heck am I supposed to say that? Here’s a tip, just sound it out and pronounce it like the closest word it sounds like: Slzswwr = “Scissor” with an “L” = “Slcissor”. (Checks can be made payable to Jeremy Griffin)
There are probably easier ways of doing this if you are looking to name a blog or even your start-up. You might want to be careful, though, or you might end up being a bit perverse sounding like the unfortunate Utterz or Profilactic. When in doubt, just take whatever word you want and spell it differently (i.e. Cuil) or drop the “e” (Flickr, Tumblr, Zooomr, Twitxr, etcr.). Or lastly, you can just take two or more blog pertinent words and smoosh them together to get a great blog title with instant popularity. You are welcome to try any of these: DailyBlogThoughts, BlogLifeWorld, BlogPageLife, DailyThoughtBlogJournalWorld. For more on naming your blog, check out this article.
The new language of Social Media isn’t difficult to understand, young grasshopper. All it takes is an open mind, a sense of humor and a remedial understanding of semantics. It really isn’t any harder than catching a fly with chopsticks.
As an added bonus, here’s a list of Social Media names. Some are real, and others I have made up. Can you decide which ones are which?
• Rcrdlbl
• Zkout
• Grazr
• Blippr
• Fapplr
• Tarsus
• Lunchr
• Frbbr
• Glurgelet
• Pubaer
• Strklet
• DngDng
• Bizak
• Yakkle
• Dunklr
• Jiffr
• Gwap
• Blurpr
• Hombrly
• Blist
• Baagz
• Smorbitn
• Daphodyl
• Spongefish
• Collagr
• Yigg
• Glunk
• FrogGlasses
• Jamendo
• Krompter
• Cluztr
• Fawnt
• Puzzr
Would You Create a Video About Your Lip Balm?
July 30, 2008 | Leave a Comment
According to Forrester’s Social Technographics Ladder, only 13% of the U.S. adult population are social media “creators”. That means that only 13% actively publish or upload to blogs, web pages, or sites like YouTube. But as social media marketers, it’s our job to encourage people to participate with the brands we are marketing. So how much do you ask people to “create” on their own? Would you create a video about your lip balm?
Carmex’s Share the Tingle Video Contest
The idea is that you send in a video about a “unique Carmex story”. They ask that you have a Carmex product in the video or that you use some of the Carmex Artwork that they provide. They have some great prizes. The grand prize winner wins an HD Camcorder, 5 years worth of Carmex, and $5,000. Three first prize winners win the same five year supply, camera, and $500, and five second place winners win a five year supply and a Canon PowerShot Camera. The contest started on June 9th and runs until September 30th. Right now there are 9 videos in the YouTube group Carmex is asking people to submit their videos to, but at least two seem to be ads for the contest.
Granted it’s only half way through the campaign, but as of now they have more prizes to award than videos submitted. But with this type of campaign, seven videos is a huge accomplishment. That’s because they are attempting to find fans of Carmex who would be willing to make a video about how much they love Carmex. And according to Forrester, that is a very small percent of the U.S. adult population. In fact of the thirteen percent of creators, only 48% of them upload to YouTube, the others seem to strictly publish to blogs and web pages.
It would also be interesting to know what Carmex plans to do with these videos after the contest is over. Will the winning video be shown on TV? Or were they hoping to increase their presence on YouTube? It’s always a great idea to do so, but I would love to know what else Carmex is doing in the social media world to accompany this YouTube presence. It’s important that every part of a social media campaign support each other and that each are designed to meet overall brand objectives/goals.
I think it’s great that Carmex was willing to give away such great prizes for this campaign, but I hope that they were aware of the difficult in getting people to be creators in social media, or somebody may be disappointed in the results.
I would love to hear what others’ expectations are for “creators,” as well as whether or not you find the Carmex videos to be interesting enough to watch!
Widget Optimization Demystified - 16 Experts Weigh In
July 29, 2008 | 15 Comments
Widgetbait gone bad sparked intense controversy about the utilization of anchor text within widgets. Google has expressed concern with blatant attempts at manipulative anchor text insertion inside the widget itself. Here is Matt Cutts latest quote:
“Some of the criteria that I mentioned included whether the links were hidden in the widget, how off-topic the widget was (a zombie-themed widget pointing to pay day loans and cash advance sites would be pretty off-topic), whether the target of the links went back to the original widget location or to some completely different third party, whether the anchor text was simple (”example.com”) vs. spammy or keyword stuffed, whether the publisher received clear disclosure that the widget would include extra links (burying the disclosure that a widget would include links down in subsection 29a, paragraph 5 would be poor disclosure), the number of links in the widget, etc.”
Where is the line here? What actions constitute running the risk of penalization?
I decided to ask some of the leading experts in the industry their thoughts on the following situation, in an attempt to unearth what is kosher and what is not.
The Situation
A site that sells chairs decides to build a widget. The widget shows the top 10 selling chairs on their site.
The chair selling website is called : chairsunlimited.com
At the bottom of the widget the following text is displayed: “Grab your Chairs Widget”
The phrase “Chairs” links to chairsunlimited’s widget page on the site, which explains how to “grab” the widget, for use on your site.
Should chairsunlimited be penalized in Google for deploying the tactic described above?
In that specific case there’s no reason chairsunlimited.com should be penalized for the widget. The individuals that add the widget to their site know where the widget came from, what it’s promoting and see the text with a link pointing to the site. If the title text is the same and there isn’t anything fishy going on behind the scenes the site appears to be “playing by Google’s rules.”
If the link is going back to the site where the widget came from and relevant is probably ok.
I’d put it in a disclosure, but as long as it’s not manipulative then I think it’s still a good strategy.
1) They should not and likely would not be penalized.
2) It’s not a line but a spectrum, as Matt Cutts discussed at SMX Advanced. Ontopic, linked to widget-originating page is OK. Offtopic, linked to widget-originating page is so-so. Offtopic, linked to another page on same site as widget-originator is meh. Offtopic and linking to non-originating site/page = you’re gone.
It is a fuzzy line, indeed. On the one hand, you spent your time (and money) creating something fun/beneficial for others to use, shouldn’t you get credit for it? Part of me feels that no matter what kind of link bait you create (which is almost always off-topic, anyway), you should be able to get the full benefit from it being a success. However, I can see where Google is coming from and the spam that it can generate.
In the example you provided, however, I think Chairs Unlimited has every right to benefit from the anchor text. They provided a relevant tool for their users, and because their users benefited from it, they linked back to it. Isn’t that the reason links are incorporated into the algorithm in the first place? So that when other related websites endorse you for your great site/widget/resource, you benefit from it?
Another example of Google dictating internet protocol. Shrug. Specific to your example, I think it’s perfectly legitimate.
You first of all have to define which type of technology is being used for the widget, and whether that in itself justifies the text link.
1. A simple graphic with the link purely for viral purposes, and optionally some CSS - How Much Is You Blog Worth is a great example.
2. Raw javascript - it could be argued that a text link to the information or the company serving the widget is justified for accessibility reasons within noscript - Bidvertiser use this approach.
3. Javascript / flash / html using an embed - if it is likely that the widget will also be distributed by people forwarding via email or RSS readers that might not support that kind of embedded code, it is very reasonable to include code within noembed tags - used by many embedded widgets such as Scribd.
4. A text link that is styled using javascript replacing it with a graphic - think this isn’t legitimate? Technorati use this approach.
As for anchor text, why be greedy? Just use “Top 10 Chairs Widget” which is exactly what it is, and when someone clicks through, have a raw html version of the contents, instructions on how to share it for different platforms, and mention that you include a simple text link in the widget for accessibility reasons.
The examples I gave above are still taking a risk in most cases, and for blogs it is worth thinking about not just Google, but also Technorati.
Ultimately any site that gets burned or a penalty for widgets is stupid, or has hired someone who needs to learn some fundamentals of viral marketing such as I covered in Viral Marketing Safeguards
I think the example that you gave is pretty safe even under Matt’s criteria (though I’m not sure why you’d link to the “grab widget” page).
Let me put forth the following theory: A successful widget campaign will overload the amount of inbound anchor text to the site for whatever anchor text is being used in the widget, likely tripping a filter. One would think that the filter has an exception for words in the domain name of the site. So, it would be likely desirable to have “chairs” in the domain name of a site where a “chairs” widget strategy is employed.
However, the open question I pose is whether in Oatmeal’s case he’s much worse off just using the name of his site in the link text (as opposed to his chosen keywords) so long as the remainder of his on and off page factors are ideally aligned for his particular keywords. I don’t know the answer to this and I haven’t researched it at all…but if Google is smart enough to know the topic of his site and decides to reward Oatmeal for widget baiting successfully, Google doesn’t need to be told ad nauseum that Oatmeal’s site is about “Online Dating” even though Oatmeal followed conventional wisdom in his strategy.
Jordan Kasteler - Utah SEO Pro
No, ChairsUnlimited.com should NOT be penalized. Providing quality content (like Google says) is a great way to get links. A viral widget is quality content to share. As long as your link isn’t hidden then there should be no penalty on which anchor text you choose to use.
Technically, it shouldn’t matter if you embed another person’s link in that widget either. If someone chooses to put that widget on their site it’s their problem, not yours. So as long as the link is transparent then all is fair in war with Google.
It’s unfortunate to see people get penalized for this just because they’re an online media icon or their company is pervasive.
Will Reynolds - SEER Interactive
No way, they shouldn’t be penalized! I would even think that the widget page could in many instances be the WRONG page to send a user to. Lets say I have a top 10 chairs widget, and at the bottom of the widget I have something that says “get more information on our other chairs” as a text block with the word “chairs” or the whole thing linked to a page on my site about chairs…that should be fine right? If you say “get this chairs widget” and you link chairs to some page other than the page to get the chairs widget then in my opinion that would be red flag worthy.
Personally, I don’t think they should be penalised as such, I think the question is should they benefit from the widget. Because they have produced content that people like to use on their websites, does that make them a better result for searchers in Google…probably not.
There are ways they could make it less optimised, such as:
- Link through with the whole text
- Change it to ‘Get this widget’
Or what I would see as being more ethical in Google eyes and still with the possibility of good results would be saying get this widget at ‘Chairs Unlimited’ which would be linked to the website. I don’t think Google would be right to penalise anyone for linking to themselves with their website / brand name. Chairs Widget doesn’t seem too bad as anchor text but then where do we draw the line, it’s definitely an interesting debate but a question that I don’t think anyone can answer fairly that would cover all bases.
Hugo Guzman - Zeta Interactive SEO
ChairsUnlimited should definitely not be penalized. The same rule that applies for conventional web page anchor text should apply to widget anchor text. If it’s on topic and describes the widget in question, then Google should let it ride.
Dave Snyder - Search & Social
This type of “widget bait” should not be penalized.
Why?
Because there is no deception here. The text is displayed, the site owner is making a conscious decision to make that “editorial vote” for that widgets page, and the anchor text is completely related to the site and the use of the widget.
If these types of widgets become penalized regularly , are press releases and article submissions next. Marketers shouldn’t be penalized for creativity and filling a market need.
Well, because there is some hazy language (as always) from Google we are always left to guess at where the lines are. They seem pretty fluid and moveable to suit the ultimate needs. But as I see it from what you’ve quoted, that if just the word ‘chairs‘ was linked, it is a whackable offence. If we linked the entire phrase, “Grab your Chairs Widget” then it should not be a problem.
RE: Matt Cutts “whether the anchor text was simple (”example.com”) vs. spammy or keyword stuffed, “
This leads me to believe that simply targeting a single word in the phrase is an outright manipulation whereas the entire phrase is merely a veiled one… ha ha ha… sad, but this is what we live with.
No, if the link is clearly visible and disclosed, I do not think that they should be penalized. I would, however, advise to use “Chairs widget” as the anchor text, in stead of just “chairs”. After all, you don’t want the widget page to rank for “chairs”, but a different page (probably the homepage?). Trying to direct as much link juice to the homepage (or multiple important pages) from the widget page is probably the best -and safest- option here.
With widgets, as with any SEO technique, it’s all about “perceived” intention. In a recent video, Matt Cutts discussed how after spending so much time spam fighting, the G-Team can’t help but see the intention of everything they come across.
I would say your example with “Char Widget” as the anchor text is on topic and accurate enough to pass a hand check. That said, all of the site’s marketing techniques are sure to be considered by any spam fighter. Keep it clean overall and don’t make a fool of the engines by openly discussing your success and you can sleep good at night.
Or you could do what I do. Put on a Matt Cutts mask, pet my kitty, and pretend to see things through his eyes. Creepy yes, but effective!
There has to be a line drawn somewhere if you are going to penalize certain types of links. I believe that the “line” should be drawn when a link (or the advertising) is off-topic or not. The search engines are sophisticated enough to know whether something is “on topic” or not. I would actually go a bit further and say that it would be “okay” of the link is in the same general category. For example, one technology-related link on another technology-related site. I don’t think it would be okay for a telecom site to advertise on a site about chairs, for example. I would categorize telecom as technology and chairs as furniture or even shopping (the shopping category as a whole).
In this chair example, I would fully expect that if it’s a chairs or even an office furniture or furniture widget then the link would point to a chair, office furniture, or furniture website. I think it all ultimately has to do with usability and what the user would expect when they saw the widget and the landing page they’re taken to when they click the link. I would liken this to the Google AdWords Quality Score. Your “score” would go up if someone clicked on the text link and found something useful and didn’t immediately click away from the landing page. If the link on the widget would have a good “quality score” then I believe that the link should “count” and it should be okay.
Summary
The general consensus seems to be that you should be ok. However, it is still somewhat granular, like most things with Google. They do what they want, it is their search engine, and there has been clear evidence of increased policing as of late. To be on the safe side, I think the best route to take is to simply link the entire phrase in this case. In all honesty you would probably be fine with the above example, however a hand check, or undesired attention could push you over the line.
Ignite Needs an Intern…
July 29, 2008 | 1 Comment
Hi all! Just wanted to pass the word around to those of you who may read this that are looking to get into the field of social media marketing, or who know some college students who need to make something of their lives - that yes, Ignite is on the hunt for an intern (or two, depending). 
I know it may seem like working at Ignite is a dream job that would have young folk lining up at our doors for an interview, but I suppose right now we are in the in-between phase of summer ending and school beginning. I’ve posted on Duke, UNC’s, and State’s job boards - and have even stalked professors to pass the word around - still no luck!
So what exactly are we looking for? In short, a person with a passion for social media (personally or professionally) with a healthy dose of writing and organizational and time management skills. (We also want an intern who is local, so that we can see their bright and shining faces
Working with us won’t be a typical internship - we make our own copies (with the exception of Gene who is 100% paperless), we make our own coffee, and we all work really hard and laugh really hard. If you require a formal job description, please don’t apply- I can assure you that we’ll give you experience in all areas of social media marketing, it is really up to you and your initiative.
If you or someone that you know might be interested please pass the word along and send a resume (as well as any helpful links) to: lisa@ignitesocialmedia.com.
5 Predictions on The Future of Social Media
July 28, 2008 | 22 Comments
All we do here at Ignite Social Media is social media marketing. So we watch it carefully, looking for trends, what’s coming next, what’s likely to bubble up. And it’s got me thinking. I believe that social media is in its infancy. Not everybody does.
But I’m quite sure we don’t have it all figured out yet. FriendFeed is a perfect example. What could be an interesting utility is a lengthy stream of noise so far. The design is not very friendly. That’s just one example.
So, based on the assumption that we have a long way to go, here are 5 predictions on the future of social media, ranked from shortest time horizon to longest.
1) Ratings will become an expectation. This one is really short-term. I regularly talk to large brands, with deep, consumer-facing websites that don’t have rating systems installed. Consumers who are shopping online are shortly going to expect it. The ROI of adding ratings to e-commerce sites is well-established. I believe that we’re about to go beyond ROI for sites with ratings. Shoppers will actually penalize sites that don’t have consumer rating systems installed by shopping elsewhere.
2) Content aggregation will boom. In the early days of social media marketing, people wanted to do “sexy” things. Viral video contests. Build “our own” social network. But content is king, right? And searching for content takes a lot of time. More and more corporate types are going to figure out that they can benefit from investing in content aggregation. Companies are spending millions creating mediocre stuff with their name on it. For a fraction of that, they could aggregate the most important content in their field, provide a valuable service, and get tremendous brand equity.
3) New tools will replace some of the first movers. Twitter’s problems are well documented, but they are not the only social tool to have it only half-right. (I mentioned FriendFeed, but most Ning-based social networks and even Google Reader, among others, could be much better.) Some of these will get fixed, but most likely the next generation of tools will be better, and we’ll get new social media buzzwords. Could Twitter be the Friendster of microblogging? Quite possibly.
4) Social networks become portable. Looking out a bit further on the horizon, I see social networks becoming portable. Open Social is a good start, but I think (hope?) it’s going to go much further than that. Perhaps building on Open Social, someone will build a persona utility that lets you travel easily among the social networks without re-friending everyone. The power of the network becomes the utility of the network. LinkedIn for jobs, MySpace for entertainment, Facebook for friendship updates, etc.
5) Virtual worlds gain traction. I wrote a long time ago the reasons that Second Life will never work for social media marketing. But virtual worlds aren’t going anywhere. Second Life continues to grow slowly, but my children have grown up in a world where Webkinz and Club Penguin are normal. I’m sure it won’t be Second Life that we’re all logging into, but we’ll be bouncing into and out of virtual worlds before too long. It will improve the user experience and increase sales, so it will happen. Likely the longest time horizon on my short list here, but I’m confident in it.
Let’s add to this list together. What do you think? What should number 6, 7, 8 be?? What’s the future of the social media agency?
Which way is this bus heading? Either way, I’m enjoying the ride so far.
Join me for NCTA breakfast in Winston-Salem
July 27, 2008 | Leave a Comment
On Wednesday, July 30, I’ll be serving as moderator at the North Carolina Technology Association’s Intersection Breakfast. The topic is “Get Online: Trends and Tools in Online Marketing.” Following the breakfast, the NCTA is offering a tour of the Dell facility in Winston-Salem, but you need a reservation for that.
The panelists at the breakfast include:
- Mark Dirks, President, Beacon Technologies
- Jon Beard, President, Internet Community Action Network
- Rick Harrison, President & CEO, GET Interactive
Breakfast is from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., not including the Dell tour. Hope to see you there. If you read our blog, be sure to come up and say hello.
Here’s the info on the breakfast. For more information, click here:
- Is your website missing something?
- Interested in Web 2.0 or Google Analytics?
- Could your company benefit from a social platform?
- Are you a shopper who demands immediate gratification?
If so, then come share a cup of coffee with us and enjoy this dynamic event, featuring NCTA member companies that have developed unique marketing technologies - a great opportunity for you to get out and network with other leaders from across North Carolina and check out some of the latest innovative products and services.
Breakfast will be hosted at the Piedmont Triad Research Park facility in Winston-Salem, with a special chance to tour of the Dell facility afterward. If you are interested in the tour, please let us know as soon as possible, as space is limited.
Intersection Breakfasts are designed to showcase new technologies and advancements of our corporate members, while providing a forum for technology executives to explore business issues and emerging technologies vital to the development of North Carolina.
Breakfast in Rotunda (7:30 – 8 am):
Panel held across the street in auditorium (8 - 10 am):
$20 Member, $40 Non-Member, $40 at the door
Limited Spots Available! Register today!
Social Media Marketing Posts that are Igniting- 7/25
July 25, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Here are some of my favorite finds in the social media marketing world this week. Enjoy guys!
Should every company have a corporate blog?
This post by Mario Sundar is a great conversation about whether or not a company should have a corporate blog. We believe that most everybody should be blogging somewhere for all of the reasons/benefits that Mario lists (and many more), but I completely agree with his point that all parts of your company’s social media strategy should support your existing marketing goals.
10 Fantastic ways to f*ck it up
This post on Sam Lawrence’s blog is big, bold, and concise- and it HAS to be because it’s so important and so true. All CMOs, advertising companies, PR firms, and even social media agencies need to read this list.
Are You Letting Your Employees Out on the Green in Social Media?
This post by Brian Wallace is great on the subject of benefits of allowing employees to actively engage in social media. Just earlier this week Jim and I discussed how great the Zappos employee twitter page is .
Everybody should allow their employees to be a voice for the business. If they’re not your ambassadors, who are? If you’re worried about time, examine Google’s approach, compare your income with theirs, and chill out.
How to Combat Complaints Sites in Google : Open Discussion
This post by Loren Baker gives great suggestions for how to manage online reputation. I also completely agree with one of the comments that says all of these things should be used BEFORE your company/brand is in “damage control” mode. SEO builds off of many things, and if you think it is easy to push damaging sites off of the homepage of Google, you need to read this article. It’s possible, but much more manageable if you tap into your assets before you find yourself desperately needing them.
10 Aspects of an Effective Social Media Campaign
Part 1 of this post is so dead-on that if you only get that from this post, I would be happy. But the other 9 points also provide the start of a sort of “check-list” for looking at your social media campaign.
Google Knol Review - Has Wikipedia seen its last day?
July 23, 2008 | 1 Comment
Google Knol just launched. If you have not been keeping up with this, Knol is Google’s user generated content competitor to Wikipedia. Here is a quote I pulled from technologyreview explaining it in more detail:
“a new experimental website that puts information online in a way that encourages authorial attribution. Unlike articles for the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which anyone is free to revise, Knol articles will have individual authors, whose pictures and credentials will be prominently displayed alongside their work.”
The main question I have with regards to Knol is the effect it will have on SERP domination . How well will these articles rank? I have a gut feeling it will rank well, really well.
According to some, the article will rank well organically, if it has many positive votes. The scale is on 1-5 and can be seen below:
If you are looking to Knol as a source of link manipulation then think again, links are NoFollowed and will not be passing any juice.
Not only is this going to be a great way to rank for competitive keyphrases organically, you can really create a presence in your niche via mind share tactics such as quality commenting.
Why is Google doing all this you might ask.
Google will start to mine this data, thats a given. The question is what are they going to do once they attribute you, the author, as an authoritative source on a particular subject matter.
This is where Friendrank might come into play.
I blogged about Friendrank a couple weeks ago you can read more here: FriendRank explanation
The possibilities are endless right now as to what else Google has up their sleeves with all this.
Cloud Computing: The Next Great Buzzword?
July 23, 2008 | 1 Comment
Tired of dealing with IT staffers who won’t speak to you and whose locations are always dubious at best (ie, can never find them when you need them)? Well, with cloud computing you can now hand off all of your IT needs to the “cloud”…which also won’t talk to you and will be just as difficult to locate as your IT staffers.
So what is cloud computing?
Definitions vary depending on who you ask:
Bob Buderi, founder and CEO of XConomy states that:
“There is a clear consensus that there is no real consensus on what cloud computing is.”
That wasn’t helpful.
Damon Edwards says:
“Clouds are the new Web 2.0. Nice marketing shine on top of existing technology. Remember back when every company threw some ajax on their site and said “Ta da! We’re a web 2.0 company now!”? Same story, new buzz word.”
Equally unhelpful, but I do tend to agree with his sentiment.
Ben Kepes offers a succinct:
“I view cloud computing as a broad array of web-based services aimed at allowing users to obtain a wide range of functional capabilities on a ‘pay-as-you-go’ basis that previously required tremendous hardware/software investments and professional skills to acquire. Cloud computing is the realization of the earlier ideals of utility computing without the technical complexities or complicated deployment worries.”
Now we’re cooking — a definition I can work with, but Ben makes it sound as if cloud computing is the best thing since sliced bread. Can it be true? I’ve heard everything from:
- “It’ll cure all of your IT woes”: Tired of spending gobs of money on Microsoft Licenses? Ditch M$ and come to the cloud!
to…
- “It’ll make the lives of consumers easier because all of your productivity services will be available whenever/wherever you need them. Plus, you’ll never lose anything because everything will be backed up automatically”: Use Gmail to manage your email and contacts. Create and modify your docs and spreadsheets in Google Docs or Zoho, etc.
That’s a lot of ground to cover for something that we can’t even define. What is clear is that there is obviously a lot of hype surrounding cloud computing and the promises that it holds. Fortunately, there are some real world examples of successful uses of cloud technologies to back some of that up. Bottom line, cloud computing, as we know it today, is still in its infancy and it’s still evolving. It’s too early to say whether it’s worthy of the hype, but it’s damn shiny and cool.
Where does Social Media live in the organization?
July 22, 2008 | 5 Comments
When I first started this social media agency, the question I was asked most often was, “What is social media?” In just a few months, that question morphed into, “What kinds of things can social media do for my organization specifically?”
Today, we’re onto a new most popular question. This one is often asked by people who work in large organizations, and that’s, “Where does social media live in the organization?” One company I talked to had a task force with dozens of people on it. Another had given the lead to CorpComm, but they were meeting regularly with the brand teams. There are lots of opinions on this topic and for a while I struggled with the answer–until now. Here’s the simple truth that is making it so hard for you to come up with the answer for your organization:
Social media is not a tactic. If it were, you could assign it to a department. It’s a phrase to describe a broad array of new tools that let you talk to, and hear from, your constituents in a variety of new ways. Asking who owns social media would be no more fruitful than asking who owns writing.
Each part of the organization needs to re-evaluate the way they communicate and see how social media opens up options for them.
- Brand managers can now use social media as an integral part of marketing campaigns. I lead with brand managers here because getting the right social media marketing plan developed and executed is an art–one that will certainly impact brand perception.
- Product developers can use social media for consumer intelligence. The idea that you have to spend tens of thousands to get limited information from focus groups is becoming outmoded.
- Public relations can look at the messages that they send and figure out how they can make them a) more interesting and b) more easily digested by the blogosphere and the networks. Typically (a) is harder than (b) for many companies.
- Customer service should be using social media to decrease call volume and increase customer satisfaction. Paying $35 per phone call to answer the same types of questions thousands of times isn’t helping anyone.
- Human resources can be using social media to convey what working at the company is all about, and they should certainly be using it to go find candidates with particular backgrounds.
The task force trying to get their “arms around” social media will likely spend a lot of time spinning in circles. The question is too big. Several small groups, each asking how these new tools can help them accomplish a specific objective will get much, much further.
Remember that line, “You can’t control social media?” It has more than one meaning…