- In Social Media Monitoring, You Can't Always 'Trust Your Instruments'
- Give? In this Economy? In Minnesota! Today!
- When it Comes to Social Networks, Some Things Are Best Left Undefined
- Story...More Important Than Ever
- The Relationship Between Social Networking and Social Media from John Beardsley
- View Archive >
- About this blog
- Branding
- Corporate
- Crisis
- Healthcare
- Interactive
- Media
- PR
- Research
- Search Marketing
- Social Media
The Lead
| November 2009
|
« October 2009 | Main | December 2009 » In Social Media Monitoring, You Can't Always 'Trust Your Instruments'Posted by Jason Swartz on November 25, 2009 at 1:55 PMWe do quite a bit of social media monitoring for clients here at Padilla, using some fancy and some not-so tools in the process. However, one thing I've learned is that you can't always trust your instruments. While monitoring tools like Radian6 and others are great for gaining insight into a particular topic, you can't rely solely on their results. In addition to these tools, you also need to do a bit of hands-on searching. This is where you manually research sites such as LinkedIn (which by the way prohibits access by monitoring tools) to get a deeper dive into the conversations going on. This is especially true for LinkedIn's Q&A section, which we've found to be an untapped well of new business opportunities for ourselves and our clients. Another instrument included with the major social media monitoring tools is an automated sentiment feature, which provides you with an idea for whether a conversation about you is positive, negative or neutral. However, automating this process is difficult. I sometimes find that a very positive mention is rated as negative - simply due to the fact that a word like "sucks" appears somewhere in the conversation, but not necessarily next to your brand name. The automation certainly helps get you part of the way there. But you need to verify. Finally, monitoring tools don't provide you with a list of next steps or strategic recommendations based on the data, which is why you're monitoring in the first place. It's great to know what's out there, but even better to know what to do with it. At the end of the day, these tools are an absolutely necessary component for gaining insight into the conversations about you, your company and/or your brand. However, it's equally important to look beyond these tools and do some investigating on your own. The extra time you'll spend will definitely be worth the effort. Give? In this Economy? In Minnesota! Today!Posted by Tony Morse on November 17, 2009 at 4:15 PMYoubetcha! Today, if you live in Minnesota, you've heard of GiveMN.org. It's not just because we're known for leading the nation in charitable giving it's because every non-profit and anyone connected to those organizations is promoting a great way to amplify giving through "Give to the Max." Full disclosure - as our client, we're doing our best to promote GiveMN.org, too. The goal was to raise as much money as possible in 24 hours. The clock started at 8:00AM today and as of 4:20 nearly $8 Million has been raised by more than 21,000 donors supporting 2,500 non-profits. So how much is possible? Keep looking at the tally - it's amazing! The media exposure is great from the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, MinnPost, Business Journal, WCCO TV, KMSP TV and others. And it may be trending on Twitter, depending on when you read this.... In the end it's about the difference people make in Minnesota - nice going. When it Comes to Social Networks, Some Things Are Best Left UndefinedPosted by Jason Swartz on November 17, 2009 at 4:12 PMYesterday, I gave a presentation on leveraging social networks to help build your brand, during the Minnesota Society of CPA's annual tax conference. The audience was great and asked some great questions throughout. But one question in particular stuck with me. A gentleman in the front row asked, "What is Facebook?" My response was that it's a Web site, allowing people to connect across the globe, through instantaneous sharing of messages, pictures, videos and other info. I was met with a blank stare, followed by another attempt from the man, "Yeah, but what IS it." The man asking this question gave me the analogy of a car, and how you could explain what a car is in 30 seconds to someone who didn't know what it was (a box, with four wheels, a steering wheel and an engine that transports you from point A to B). While somewhat true, I heard a great follow up to this analogy from another audience member. The man following up said, "Trying to explain Facebook to many people would be like trying to explain the color television to someone living in 1800." Great point. To give a more current example, take out your cell "phone" and try coming up with a definition for what it is, considering that the "phone" function is probably the least used of all its features. Can't come up with a definition? I'm sure there's an app for that. To me, there really isn't a one-size-fits-all definition that's going to explain exactly what Facebook is. The same holds true for its counterparts such as LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, etc. That's because we, as a community, are constantly defining what social networks are through the innovative ways in which we're using them. The man with the car example wasn't interested in how people are using Facebook, he wanted to know what IT is. But that's just it. Our personal usage defines what these sites are. To my step-mother, Facebook is an online photo album to show off her grand kids, which is probably how she'd define it to friends unfamiliar with the site. To my clients, Facebook might be defined as a multi-faceted communications platform allowing them to build relationships with their customers. I heard a term a while back called "perpetual beta," meaning something that will always be tested and revised. I like to think of Facebook, and other sites like LinkedIn, Twitter, etc., as sites that are stuck in perpetual beta. So many people are using these sites in new and interesting ways that one definition won't suffice. I'd love to know how you or your company uses these sites and get your take on what Facebook is. Or, how you might define any of the popular social networking sites. Feel free to leave a comment and let me know. Story...More Important Than EverPosted by Lynn Casey on November 12, 2009 at 5:05 PM I'm sharing the next few days with 250+ of the most successful emerging-growth CEOs in the U.S. They're competing for Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur of the Year award, of which Padilla is a sponsor, and listening to the likes of Howard Schultz of Starbucks, the head of newly public Rosetta Stone, and a who's who of investment bankers and VCs about what's in store on the growth curve. Their energy and optimism is impressive, especially in light of the economy. So maybe I shouldn't have been surprised to see the two sessions dealing with initial public offerings so well-attended. I was there because investor relations has been a core competency of our firm since we opened our doors more than 40 years ago. Partnering with investment bankers and attorneys to take a handful of companies public was business that we could count on year over year, most notably in the go-go '90s.
Not so today. Money is tight, investors are conservative. We celebrate every new IPO client that we're fortunate to support - not only because we get to flex our expertise muscles, but because we know they'll be economic growth engines for the future. If you can believe some of the best brains in the business that were on stage today, the money is coming back, although it's still very cautious capital. How to get a piece of the smaller public-offering pie? Act like a public company in every way at least two years prior to your target date. Choose your advisors wisely; not by their brand name or how many people they send to a meeting, but whether your gut tells you they'll support you throughout the deal and after it's done. And, whatever else you do, perfect your story. Nearly every panelist emphasized the need to make your company's story simple - really simple - to understand. Concise. Compelling. Crystal clear. And - as any good IR counselor will tell you - for heaven's sakes don't bury the lead! (I will, with a certain amount of bias, submit that this last piece of advice is critical no matter how your company is funding its growth. Even more important if you're turning your employees into brand evangelists or selling products and services in crowded markets.) Gotta go. Magic Johnson's up next. "Not only is he big," says our emcee, "he THINKS big..." The Relationship Between Social Networking and Social Media from John BeardsleyPosted by Matt Kucharski on November 2, 2009 at 7:03 AMHad a chance to spend some time recently with Padilla's former Chairman and CEO John Beardsley. He along with our current CEO Lynn Casey have had the most influence on my professional career. I asked John for his thoughts on the distinction between Social Networking and Social Media. After a 5-minute discussion (if you've ever met John, you know that's a SHORT discussion), I asked him if he'd like to contribute a guest blog post. So here it is: "It's amazing when you think of it. A mere 200 years ago, most human communication moved no faster than a horse. Now we can reach one another anywhere at nearly the speed of light. That's how fast electrons and photons skip along wires and fibers and through the air. Arguably, today's computer-assisted technology is redefining the communicative nature of human sociality, just as writing and printing did in ages past, and as telephones and radios and television did more recently. Suddenly, public relations is awash in new techniques for reaching people and sustaining dialogues in almost real time while eliminating the impediment of distance. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Digg) abound, and everyone is busy social networking with joyful abandon. The world has become a vast school-yard playground. But it's not all just play. We humans evolved as social beings. Social networking is in our genes. It's as natural as breathing. Social media make social networking easier than ever before. Maybe not better (face-to-face is still the ultimate), but certainly easier. Frankly, the arrival of social media should have come as no surprise. It's pretty much a fact of nature that all systems evolve toward greater efficiency. (Check out Constructal Theory to learn more.) This means that flows of information, just like flows of water in rivers and air in our lungs, seek the most efficient paths to their destinations. Once the Internet was established, the emergence of social media followed as surely as day follows night.
Networks abound in nature, not just in human society. Networks of DNA make life possible. Networks of neurons in our brains make thought possible. Trading networks make commerce possible. And trophic networks in a marsh tell us which creatures are being eaten by which other creatures. The science of SNA has arisen in the last 20 years or so as the principal tool for studying the dynamics of networks, especially social networks. Sadly, for those of us in the PR dodge, SNA is taught mainly in graduate programs and is therefore beyond the scope of the usual undergraduate curriculum. And that's too bad, because SNA just might be one of the most powerful tools available for those of us who are regularly hired to use communication to "alter the probability patterns of behavior" in the publics of interest to our employers. Why so? Because once a network is defined and can be analyzed, it becomes possible to draw inferences from the patterns of connection between "actors" within the network. Obviously, the inferences of principal interest are those regarding influence and behavior. Analysis of the network thereby makes it possible to design communicative activities that are likely to be more effective because they can be targeted to capitalize on key elements of the network's structure. A fundamental theorem of SNA says that within any network the relational ties of actors are primary and the structural attributes of actors (the age, sex, and ethnicity of persons; the size and reputation of companies; etc.) are secondary. A person's (or firm's) network ties are a more accurate predictor of future behavior than any other attributes. That said, the task ahead is to "operationalize" SNA for use in public relations. The US military has taken the lead in putting SNA to work, and this has greatly improved its recent successes in counter-insurgency operations in Iraq. Using SNA, the military identifies insurgent networks, defines their "density," discovers who are the "connectors" and who display "centrality" and "betweenness" characteristics in the network. Those folks are then "taken out," destroying or diminishing the effectiveness of the insurgent group. (To see how the military does it, follow this link and go to Appendix E.) The same techniques can be applied in determining the principal targets for communicative programs in benign networks. But it's not easy -- yet. Naturally, those who get there first will reap the most fees. That should be an incentive." Why I Can't Share This Great Star Tribune Article With You...Posted by Matt Kucharski on November 1, 2009 at 6:38 AMThere's an excellent article in this morning's Star Tribune by Jim Spencer highlighting a very interesting and controversial campaign to increase public support for animal research. The article includes perspective from both sides of the issue, and a really great description of the $1 million plus campaign. Here's the link to the Star Tribune. Problem is, you won't find the article. See, the Strib, in an effort to get people to buy more papers, has designated Spencer's article with a little subhead that says "Only In Your Sunday Paper." This is called the "Law of Scarcity" and it's used in marketing all the time. You've heard it before "Only available for a limited time at Wal-Mart." "Supplies limited -- get them while they last." "Sale ends Sunday." But does it work for news and information? Personally, I think they're cutting their noses off to spite their faces. Imagine if General Mills came out with a great new cereal and then only made it available at the Target in South Milwaukee. Okay, let's be real -- we're not talking thousands of readers on our modest little blog, but the Strib is neglecting to recognize that I, and thousands of others like me, are now capable of distributing news and information -- THEIR news and information -- if we're empowered to do so. Journalism's not dead -- but yes, newspapers in their current form are certainly dying. Taking your best content and only making it available in the least accessible and share-able format seems like the wrong strategy to me. |
