Unorganized thoughts around marketing

Reading the New York Times article Are Metrics Blinding Our Perception started me thinking about the enthusiastic attempts to measure everything that permeates the social media world in particular. From there, it was only a short jump to wondering whether and to what extent is it necessary to optimize everything, from website content to how much and what you eat. Read the NYT article for more shining examples.

Measuring is difficult to get right. You may have a perfect tool for it, but there's always the danger that the basis of your measurements is somehow skewed, for example, not taking into account components that would affect the inferences. A case in point: social media ROI has been a hotly debated topic for some time, yet there seems to be a wide difference of opinion about what and how actually should be measured.

Another aspect of measuring is that it is, necessarily, based on what happened in the past. Drawing conclusions from history points you in the right direction most of the time, but as investment brokers are obliged to say, "past performance does not guarantee future results".

Optimization is another double-edged sword. I hate waste and unused opportunities as much as the next guy, but you should also think about the return on effort, to coin a new term. An example: it may take you 15 minutes to write a blog post, but to optimize it from all angles easily takes you an hour, even more. Is it worth the resource investment?

If you're producing a reasonable volume of quality content, it will probably appear in search results anyway. There's a saying in Finnish: best is the worst enemy of good—meaning that if something is working all right, the effort to make it work perfectly may take so much effort as to make the whole exercise pointless.

Quantification, it seems to me, is being applied to almost everything. Again, it certainly increases our understanding of what has happened and is happening, but it is impossible to attach a numerical value to everything, particularly if it is supposed to relate to the future. Take philosophy or inventions: how do you predict the "performance" of a thought or an idea?

Now I have probably annoyed some metrics proponents, but that's fine. I'm looking forward to having my thoughts poked full of holes. Go ahead. Just click the Comments link!

Loading mentions Retweet

It seems that among us marketers, a shift from enthusing about social media to taking a more sober look at it is taking place.

Just today, I read two blog posts that seem to give evidence to this.

In his blog {grow} Mark W. Schaefer asks Will economic recovery pummel social media? His main point is that as the economy is picking up again, people will have less time to spend on social media. First, they will be busier attending to customer needs, and second, many workplaces limit the use of social media platforms. Mark also provides an interesting hypothesis: there might be a shift of some advertising budget back to traditional media as people, for the above reasons, are less exposed to online advertising.

Christina Kerley writes in her CK's Blog how Social media gives people more control over brand messages but marketers (still!) ultimately influence what those messages will be. She alleviates the fear of many corporate marketers that they're losing control over their message out in the cyberspace by pointing out that "your company is wholly and fully in control of the quality of its brands, customer care efforts and marketing programs".

All this is good. What we need is not social media hype, but viable ways of putting it to work for us. After all, as many people before me have pointed out, social media is only a platform, it is up to us how to best use it.

What's your opinion?

Loading mentions Retweet

Hill & Knowlton Finland and the research company MPS today published the results of their survey How employers and employees meet on social media, conducted in October-November this year.

Main findings:

The opinion of 20 percent of employees was that they can criticize their employees in social media, but 73 percent are careful how they speak. Loyalty to employers is strong.

Almost 40 percent of employees were of the opinion that their employer's guidelines on social media behavior can bind them on their free time. However, 72 percent of employees say they have no guidelines for social media behavior. Every second employee says they would like rules for online discussions.

One interesting fact was that many employees were prepared to look for a new job through social media, but employers are not meeting this need.

The survey included about 700 employees and 500 employer representatives from both private and public sector organizations.

If you can read Finnish, you can find the original article here.

What is the situation like in your country?

Loading mentions Retweet

With the abundance of existing social media platforms - and new ones appearing almost every week - it is difficult to put together a mix of them that works best for you.

Just in case it might help someone, here's my system:

1. My blog: allows me to share content and comment
   
2. Twitter: daily follow-up of what's going on, one-to-one conversations plus driving traffic to my other "hangouts"
   
3. LinkedIn: discussion on topics that interest me in Groups plus a reserve of both talent and prospects
   
4. Posterous: low-threshold way of publishing content and opinion, allows cross-posting to other sites (I'm presently sending to Twitter and my blog)
   
5. My website: an information repository for those who are interested in the details of how I can help their marketing (I link to the site from all the other places I use)
   

Then again, with something like an average 5-10% uptake of social media platforms among businesses, perhaps it's no wonder. Content/engagement marketing is a relatively new phenomenon and requires quite a lot of work. Besides, if the traditional marketing methods are producing satisfactory results, many people may not consider extra participation all that necessary. On the other hand, maybe they should gradually start to learn how to put social media to good use.

Coming back to my own social media mix, I've recently considered adding Slideshare and Scribd to it, not least because of the additional exposure they will provide. I'm a little worried, though, about search engines penalizing for duplicate content.

Any views?

Loading mentions Retweet

I just read a guest post on Creative Freelancing touting the benefits of becoming a freelancer. Although much of what is said in the post is true, there's a flip side to most of those things. To save aspiring new freelancers from disappointment, I thought a reality check might be in order.

1. Freelance freedom – The writer gives independence as one of the biggest benefits of freelancing. True, you do get rid of office politics, unnecessary meetings and so on, but the point about setting your schedules yourself simply isn't true. Although you don't have a boss breathing down your neck, you have your clients breathing down your neck. Unlike your boss, the clients have the decisive vote on whether they will give you money or not. So, once you've agreed on what to deliver by when, you'd better stick to it. Failure to do so will have a lot graver consequences than your boss telling you off.

2. Liberty of choice and timings – Yes, you can decide which projects to accept and devote as much time to them as you like. Providing you have enough projects to do any choosing and clients who are willing to accept your schedules. The writer's point about "enabling a professional to work anytime, anywhere" can easily turn into "forcing a professional to work anytime, anywhere". Also, "full" control over projects, timelines and price is only a dream, in practice you play by your clients' rules.

3. Cost effectiveness – It is absolutely true that because freelancers usually work from home, their daily expenses are lower. No commuting, no gas, no suits, no restaurant lunches. But, and it is a big but, working solo entails a number of costs a salaried employee has never had to worry about. Unless you want to learn accounting yourself, you need to hire an accountant. You need to get the necessary equipment to do your job (space, furniture, computer, software, office supplies). You need to build an online presence (website, at the very minimum), which takes either money or time. Before taking the jump, do some hard math.

4. Opportunities to make more money – The writer's vision of putting your skills to worldwide use is, well, wishful thinking. Of course, you might hit pay dirt, but I would caution an aspiring freelancer against setting his or her hopes too high. Cultural differences are an efficient hindrance, unless you're quick to grasp what moves your foreign audience—who probably doesn't speak English. Social networking, given as a way of helping to earn "great profits", take months, if not years, to cultivate before any financial benefit transpires. The online project forums he mentions are notorious for their rock-bottom fees.

5. Less pressure and work stress – The level of frustration and resultant stress is relatively very low in freelancing? Come on. If you don't get assignments, you don't get money. Let me assure you, an annoying boss is a minuscule problem in comparison with $200 on your bank account, your personal and business bills to pay and not a single job in sight for weeks.

6. No job risks – While the economic slowdown has indeed provided opportunities for freelancers, you'd be naïve to think there's no job risk. Being employed, you may be fired, but being independent, the moment you don't earn, you don't eat. Calculate the risk.

At the end of the post, the writer lists things a freelancer must pay attention to in order to succeed: stay up to date with latest technologies, trends, demands and the market, and invest in continuous learning. True. And you guessed it, all this takes more time and money.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from becoming a freelancer. There are many great aspects in being your own boss and carving out your own niche in business—but you need to consider whether you have the personal qualities to do it and how much uncertainty you're prepared to handle. And you have your family to think of.

Loading mentions Retweet

We're all the time reading advice to the effect that one of the main reasons for and benefits of being present on social media sites is to "listen to what your customers say about you and your brand".

Yes, that is important. But if you're a brand or company that would like to make money out of those conversations (somehow sounds like the raison d'etre of ANY business) I would rather advocate listening to what your potential customers are talking about among themselves. This will reveal the problems they're grappling with right now, and will give you a chance to provide a solution.

If you're unsure how you can monitor conversations, let me recommend an e-book by Philip Sheldrake of Influence Crowd LLP, Social Web Analytics 2008. You can download it at no cost.

Loading mentions Retweet

In recent times, I've noticed that my Twitter feed gets mysterious @ mentions. They come from people with whom I've never had anything to do, and don't want to, either. The content of those tweets is usually either gibberish or pushing some follower scheme or other obscure software.

I resent this type of "hijacking" my feed. The followers I have are entitled to read my feed without being pestered by peddlers I have no association with.

I don't know where these people get the user handles. Up until now, the nonsense mentions have always included my handle, but today I noticed a new phenomenon: there was one such message in my feed that didn't even include my name (see image). Can anyone shed any light on how this is technically possible?

Loading mentions Retweet

My wife read my post about the communication levels of interruption and asked me whether I really thought I was such a guru that I can afford to be that cocky.

Oops. Seems I stepped on a banana skin.

In case you got the impression that I regard my schedule as sacred, I should have been clearer. Because phone calls are the most interruptive, I try to reserve phoning someone only for urgent matters. If getting a piece of writing done, for example, depends on one crucial number or answer to a question, then I think it's fine to call.

Similarly, when you're establishing connection, it's fine to call. Especially in today's business environment where many client/customer relationships start and flourish without the parties having face-to-face contact, the telephone is a wonderful medium for introducing a measure of personal contact and "feel" into the connection.

If, on the other hand, the subject of a phone call includes exact data, agreeing on schedules or something else that would require taking notes, it is better to use electronic means. For a number of reasons:

• Phone calls and voicemail require the recipient to use another tool for taking notes while listening
• Voice messages are prone to misunderstandings
• E-mail and other text-based communication document the conversation while it is being conducted - very useful for later reference
• Electronic messages are retraceable and searchable
• Electronic messages can be read at a suitable time allowing better concentration and more time to think, hence also more thorough and organized answers

From the above, I think we can conclude this: The more specific answer and the more urgently you need, the more you move up the interruption scale. The more detailed and exact information that is not time-critical you need or want to convey, the more you move down the interruption scale. Do you agree?

Loading mentions Retweet

Chris Brogan talks about communication tools and levels of interruption in his blog. He gives the following list:

1. E-mail - the least interruptive
2. Tweet - not interruptive, but requires recipient's presence on Twitter
3. Text message - fast, but more interruptive
4. Phone call - the most interruptive

I fully agree. That's why I often mute my mobile when I'm concentrating on work. Also, I'm not particularly fond of voicemail. If many voicemails pile up, it takes ages to wade through them, especially when the service calmly and slowly gives the phone number, time and other information on the sender.

That's why - shold you want to connect - I ask you to e-mail me, unless it's really important and timely. I like to be the master of my own schedule.

Loading mentions Retweet

While many people will argue, and are arguing, that Google strips site owners of all control of what is being said about them, their brands and their sites, this is actually not new.

AboutUs has allowed anyone to post comments to any site for a long time. Squidoo's recently publicized Brands in Public allows the same thing. On their site, you can see an example page.

Admittedly, Google's market domination helps their corresponding application a lot, so it is creating more buzz. And the capability of Sidewiki to add the comments in a sidebar next to the site you're viewing makes it a lot easier to use than navigating to another provider's site, searching for the site you want to comment on and writing your post there.

As far as message control goes, wasn't it just recently when annihilating control by the message sender was hailed as the true breakthrough of transparent marketing?

Again, enlighten me. Is it good or bad that message control is eroding?

Loading mentions Retweet