Blog :: Social Fluency

California PR firm Gets Spanked for Paid Reviews

Posted by Bob Geller on August 27, 2010 with 0 Comments

Social media and the the Web at large offer myriad opportunities to be deceptive and “game the system.” In the world of PR, we run into ethical dilemmas every day. The Internet gives PR people more ways to either get themselves (and employers and clients) in trouble or prove that they uphold high moral standards.

As I explain to our teams and clients, there are so-called black hat and white hat techniques for getting attention and elevating content (of course, it is not always so clear cut and there are gray areas). We always advocate shunning black hat methods that can include spamming of any kind, anonymous posting (sock puppetry), etc.

The dangers of engaging in questionable behavior became apparent to California-based Reverb PR, which just settled a lawsuit with the FTC regarding reviews that its employees posted, according to an article in the NY Times today. As the article reported:

The Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday that a California marketing company had settled charges that it engaged in deceptive advertising by having its employees write and post positive reviews of clients’ games in the Apple iTunes Store, without disclosing that they were being paid to do so.

According to the commission’s complaint, Reverb employees… posted positive reviews about clients’ games from November 2008 to May 2009. The reviews were posted under account names that would give readers the impression that they had been placed by ordinary consumers….

The action against Reverb is apparently the first under the FTC’s new guidelines (introduced last year) that prohibit deceptive social media and Web content and advertising – i.e., material interests must be disclosed (see the Flack’s Revenge posts on the FTC rules To Catch a Blogger and FTC Rules on Blogger Endorsements ).

ShareThis

Filed Under: Blog, PR Business

Social Networks: Go Small or Go Home

Posted by Bob Geller on August 20, 2010 with 1 Comments

The last posts in the “What’s in a Number” series focused on online privacy and Twitter followers.

For this post, I turn to the size of social networks and the implications of this.

When it comes to social networks, most people tend to focus on the largest ones; Twitter and Facebook quickly come to mind. People also seem to enjoy handicapping the horse race between the various networks, and tracking which ones are ahead or behind at any given time, based on sheer numbers and rate of growth.

So I was not surprised why some people have wondered why I spend time on Fried Eggs – a micro blogging platform that I have blogged about and enjoy quite a bit.

The site is small fry when compared with Twitter – I don’t know exactly how many users it has; my guess is in the thousands (indeed the word “micro” could be applied to both what it is and how many people are on it). I have 67 followers on the site – a number that is substantially less than my number of Twitter followers. So why spend precious networking time here?

One of the answers can be found in my referral logs. They show me that more people come to my blog, spend more time, and take more time to comment from links that I share on Fried Eggs than from Twitter.

The more significant reason (after all, networking is about more than flogging links and driving traffic) is the quality of interaction on the network.

This has something to do with functionality, but also relates to the size of the network. Due to its sheer size and ubiquity, people tend to communicate in larger groups on Twitter (it is fairly easy to find friends and people to follow); information flies by quickly and it feels a little bit like you are standing in the middle of Grand Central Station.

Communicating on Fried Eggs, on the other hand, is like a leisurely chat at a cafe. There is less traffic and hence noise and distraction: and the site makes it easier to follow the threads of conversations and expand on thoughts.

There are many other factors to consider when planning where to build social networking equity. I just wanted to point out that size can in fact matter, although not in the way that people might expect.

ShareThis

Filed Under: Attention, Best Practices, Twitter

Social Fluency is Mentioned on the Cision Navigator Blog

Posted by Bob Geller on August 5, 2010 with 0 Comments

I had a nice conversation with Lisa Larranaga at Cision earlier this week. It was for an article she was writing for the Cision Navigator blog, about the future of social media and implications for the PR profession.

The article is out today, and you can find it here: All Ears. Lisa writes:

Online talk isn’t cheap. More and more people are building an online presence to share opinions on brands, events and life. The rapid explosion of online tools and platforms and the constantly evolving scene make for a fast-paced lifestyle. What can users do to find an online identity, and is it just a passing trend?

Please visit the link to read the rest – and thanks, Lisa, for taking the time to speak with me for your story.

ShareThis

Filed Under: Blog

I’m from the Media and I am Here to Bill You

Posted by Bob Geller on August 4, 2010 with 0 Comments

We have noted an interesting phenomena recently. It is a byproduct of a number of related trends:

Growth of social media and decline of traditional (especially) print media
To adapt (or survive, or as a shrewd business move, take your pick) many in the media are building out their personal brands. They are launching blogs under their own names, or blogging under their publications’ banners. They are speaking at conferences and consulting – meaning that they write and consult and sometimes offer billable services to the same people you work with – your clients.
These newly empowered and independent or (pseudo independent) individuals still may take a paycheck from their publishing employers. Or, they may work as independent contributors and write for a number of outlets.
To make things even more confusing, you have traditional influencers – e.g. analysts – involved in some of the same types of activities. And you have the new influencers, independent bloggers doing the same.

The upshot of all this is that the lines that used to be neatly drawn around well defined roles like “media” and “analyst” are now much more fuzzy. The rules of engagement are not nearly as clear cut as they once were. Alliances and motivations may not be obvious. The result of any interactions with them is hence less certain.

Given these factors, we have taken to simply referring to the people with big social media megaphones as “influencers.” We try to take the time to know each one individually – to better understand what topics they like to cover, their hot buttons – and to learn about their possible agendas and associations.

An unfortunate byproduct of this is that it is sometimes harder to understand the motivation of someone who seems to be all too eager to take a briefing.

If you don’t do your homework, you might be surprised to get a pitch and even a bill for the time and help.

ShareThis

Filed Under: Best Practices, Influencer Relations

What’s Your Online Privacy Number?

Posted by Bob Geller on July 19, 2010 with 1 Comments

Just thought I’d continue with another post in the “what’s your number?” series (see my last post on the topic, which focused on the the number of Twitter followers one has).

I have a theory that people who use online social networks fall into two groups: those who are really obsessed about security and privacy, and the ones who don’t give too much thought to it.

While I believe there are actually more people who don’t lose sleep over it, if you are like me you have a vague unease that all this sharing might not necessarily be a good thing, and might come back to bite us (see my post about a world in which everyone is watching everyone else online)

These thoughts occurred to me as I read Learning not to Share in Bostonia (the Boston University alumni magazine), which reports on researchers at the school who are attempting to boil online vulnerability down to an equation that can generate a score for anyone (I was in a B.U. frame of mind as I had just visited the school, see my post Time out for Fun). According to the article:

The problem… is that information that most people consider perfectly safe for sharing can, in mathematically skilled hands, be puzzled together to reveal things that few people want others to know.

In a recent experiment, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University were able to deduce the Social Security numbers of five million Americans born between 1989 and 2003, mining information that is typically shared on social networks and other data from publicly available sources.

It further reports:

A recent study in Consumer Reports found that 52 percent of social network users disclose information that could leave them vulnerable to cybercriminals. Information considered dangerous by the magazine includes a full birth date, which can help identity thieves get access to bank accounts and credit card accounts and other information; disclosing vacation dates and other absences (3 percent of Facebook users reportedly advertise when their homes will be unoccupied); and posting a child’s name with photos or captions.

The B.U. team is working on an app that computes privacy scores, which people can use to compare with others and assess online vulnerability.

I will follow this and report back on any updates I see; it seems like a great idea, and one which can raise awareness about this important issue and lead people to be smarter about the info they share.

The tag cloud in the illustration shows the relative sensitivity of various types of info based on user perception about this.

ShareThis

Filed Under: Best Practices, Social Networks

Y? Because we Love You, and We love short and Endearing Names

Posted by Bob Geller on July 13, 2010 with 1 Comments

I am sure I am mangling the quote, and I don’t know its source, but it has been said that acronyms and initials are the last resort for unimaginative and lazy product and company namers. I work in tech, and that advice generally falls on deaf ears, as the tech world is rife with acronyms.

These thoughts occurred to me as I read the NY Times article that reported the Y.M.C.A.’s plans to downsize its brand identity to the single letter “Y”. The article also explored the various factors behind the decisions of companies to use initials, and sometimes legally change their names accordingly.

According to the article:

“It’s a way of being warmer, more genuine, more welcoming, when you call yourself what everyone else calls you,” said Kate Coleman, the organization’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer…

Soon a special dictionary will be necessary to help navigate all the abbreviations being adopted as formal names by companies and charities alike: KFC. BP. Xe. AARP. A few months ago, National Public Radio sent a note to all its staff members asking everyone to refer to it as NPR…

Jonah Disend, chief executive of Redscout, a brand strategy company in New York, said adopting abbreviations in lieu of long names could make sense in an era of Twitter, with its 140-character diktat, and apps for mobile phones.

Brand experts say a new name can make sense when a company has outgrown its name or offers services that go way beyond what its name describes…

…most organizations that adopt abbreviations as names do so only for marketing and branding purposes. Legally, for example, NPR remains National Public Radio. Procter & Gamble, too, is still, for legal purposes, Procter & Gamble, though it has used P&G for branding purposes since 1999.

Conversely, the KFC Corporation is now the legal name of the restaurant chain formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken, but the company uses both names in its marketing…

BP, formerly British Petroleum, adopted its initials after acquiring companies including Amoco and ARCO. ARCO itself used to be the Atlantic Richfield Company. The Obama administration’s use of the old name in chiding BP after the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has annoyed a number of British publications and political leaders.

While the public seems to have no trouble embracing abbreviated names, the news media often remains stubbornly attached to old names.

Now is that so Mickey Mouse?

ShareThis

Filed Under: Blog, Branding

What is your Number?

Posted by Bob Geller on July 2, 2010 with 0 Comments

374. There, I said it!

It is my number of Twitter followers. What is your number? (The question kind of reminds me of that ING commercial about retirement funds, where people are walking around with super-sized dollar amounts that represent the funds they need to retire comfortably)?

It is a question that is very relevant for social media influence, and ties in with a broader theme we will be exploring on this blog: size and quality of social networks.

When did I first start obsessing over my number of Twitter followers? Awhile back, a friend of mine took time off from her high flying consulting career to write and focus on building her social media presence full time. I spent lots of time guiding her in ways to build her blog presence, use Twitter, etc. – only to see her numbers quickly eclipse mine (well, she was spending all her time writing, blogging and tweeting).

More recently, I spoke with a new business prospect. He mentioned the importance of social media for his upcoming PR launch, and I proudly listed our skills and accomplishments in that arena. The conversation quickly turned to Twitter, and the prospect asked for my Twitter name. In turn, I asked for his. It turned into a real showdown moment as it became clear that he was browsing over to my Twitter profile while we were talking.

“300+ followers?” he asked, the derision fairly dripping off his words. When I had the chance to check out his profile after the call (it ended pretty quickly after that exchange) I could see why – he had roughly ten times the number of followers.

So, does size matter with Twitter and other forms of social media? While many counsel that quality is important, there is no discounting that quantity can count too, and there are certain bragging rights if nothing else that come with a large number of followers.

In a never ending quest to maximize my social media moxie I am taking steps needed to improve the depth and breadth of my Twitter following. I found these links below, which have some excellent tips.

TechCrunch: 10 Ways to Increase Your Twitter Followers

DoshDosh: How to Get More Twitter Followers

TwiTip: How to Get More Followers on Twitter

One of the tips you see time and time again is to not be shy about sharing your Twitter name. On that note, I will do the same here and will now shamelessly request a follow from you: just click here to follow @rgeller and do your part to make Bob Twitter famous!

ShareThis

Filed Under: Best Practices, Twitter

Chasing the Buzz?

Posted by Chris Michaels on June 23, 2010 with 0 Comments

By, Chris Michaels

I recently had a conversation with the Director of Technology at a leading interactive firm, where we discussed the gap in adoption rates of various technologies. So much to-do has been made about the iPad, iPhone apps, HTML5, Flash, and other emerging technologies. His thought – brand managers are often too quickly jockeying to get there first. Of course there’s a need to be perceived as “the innovator” or the first brand to have a stake in the ground on a new platform.

But is that a wise course of action? The answer lies in adoption of the technologies.

For example, the iPad sold 3 million devices, and the iPhone 4 has a lot of pre-orders, but APPL only owns 2% of the entire mobile market. HTML5 has been written as the cure-all for interactive developers, but a vast majority of today’s browsers don’t yet support it. Considering the audience that adopted the technologies needs to be the primary qualifier of the platform decisions; and the keyword for immediate focus and should be, “ubiquity.”

So, that brings me to my real question: is social media just another ‘buzz word” in the blitz of emerging technologies? I don’t think so.

About 7 months ago, the authors of Socionomics came out with a video detailing the influence of social media, its pervasiveness and how it can’t be ignored. A revamped version recently launched (see video below), with revised statistics that make the case for social media as the ubiquitous platform, even more compelling.

Social media has permeated into our culture, so much so, that it outweighs traditional forms of PR, advertising, and marketing. Of course, there are reasons that someone would want to consider antiquated models of getting the word out, but we’re not in 1960 anymore. Heck, we’re not even in the first half of 2010 anymore.

Mobile devices are launching left and right, designed to connect our social lives with the utility of a phone. Newspapers and media outlets are integrating with Facebook to provide content to you, based upon what resonates the most with your entire social network. Even brands are actively using social media to aggressively find people, rather than trying to “be seen.”

Social media is going to be here for a long time, because it’s integrating into our lives with a far greater sense of utility. No longer is social media just a place to find old friends, but it’s becoming the platform through which we consume content, and participate in our digital lives.

If the gentleman I spoke to is right, ubiquity is definitely the key to successful digital campaigns, and nothing is more prolific as social media.

ShareThis

Filed Under: Blog

Decline of the Talking Heads (Pundit Pinball)

Posted by Bob Geller on June 22, 2010 with 3 Comments

The NY Times took a look at how things have changed regarding mainstream media talking heads, or news pundits, within the context of the recent Obama speech on the Gulf oil crisis.

Although it seems that both the left and right-leaning commentators alike were not impressed with the speech, writer Adam Nagourney asks the provocative question:

Does it really matter if you lose the pundits anymore?

There was a time when the after-action takes of big commentators were sought out by Americans trying to assess the latest news coming out of the capital. They helped drive public opinion.

But tracking influences on public opinion has become greatly complicated now that the once-exclusive club has been joined by the vast multitudes blogging or posting Twitter updates or otherwise opining online, with a select few doing so after offering instant analysis on television. Mr. Obama had barely begun his speech when various commentators began a running review on Twitter.

It is not just the number of commentators or the abundance of platforms that is diluting the influence of the mainstream media, but their speed. Opinions are being served up so fast that in this case many of them were stale by the next morning.

There is no denying that the punditry still has some impact – their opinions get recycled and repeated endlessly. Indeed, their near universal agreement on Obama’s speech became part of the evolving story line.

But it is pretty clear that we are becoming a nation of pundits and news publishers. Every time you share a link on Twitter, Facebook or in a blog post you are publishing news. Add some analysis, and voila! You too can become a talking head.

This levels the playing field when it comes to influence. It can also make news more closely resemble hit-driven arenas like movies and music, because instead of information being driven from top down, like the waterfall that it used to be, information ricochets, clusters, ebbs, flows and sometimes gushes when enough people jump on board.

ShareThis

Filed Under: Blog

B2B and Social Media: Hit or Myth?

Posted by Bob Geller on June 18, 2010 with 0 Comments

We were in a new business meeting yesterday, discussing blogging and social media, and the prospect brought up a common misconception: that social media has less relevance for businesses that market to other businesses. Although on the face of it, this may mean to make sense – many equate social networking with social media, and the largest networks like MySpace and Facebook seem to be more about fun and games than serious business – if you dig a little deeper, it just does not hold water.

Regardless of whether you are a B2B or B2C, you can rest assured that your business prospects go online to find information related to your business. Isn’t this the way that just about anyone finds info these days? Yellow pages and other paper directories are quickly becoming anachronisms, as are trade magazines.

So, you need to consider search engine optimization and online industry media, that much is clear. But it is also true that people are increasingly discovering and sharing content through various forms of social media. Bloggers buzz about topics and share links. More and more people are doing the same on Twitter, including people in your industry segment, in all likelihood.

Business and tech stories that originate in traditional media can be buzzed about endlessly online, and this can effect future coverage and the trajectory of the story. Bloggers are increasingly becoming sources for stories and breaking news on their own.

While it is true that the networks and forums might vary – and you simply need to take the time to understand these – in my experience, in just about every tech industry (and non tech, too, I would guess) there are forms of social media that are very important for B2B. It is also true that your goals and strategies will almost certainly be different for a B2B social media program when compared with a B2C play.

Right now, while you are reading this, people are buzzing about issues related to your area of business – and very likely about you and your competitors (don’t just take my word for it; you can go ahead and plug the right key word or brand name searches into the following social search sites: Social Mention, Same Point, uberVU, Twitter search, Google blog search, etc.)

Don’t you want to take part in the conversation?

ShareThis

Filed Under: Blog

Older Posts »

Blog

Recent Posts