Posts Tagged brands
Posted on February 21, 2011 by Miller
I wish we’d stop getting caught up on platforms when it comes to social media and community interaction. Do you HAVE to be on Facebook? Do you HAVE to be on Twitter? That depends. Where is your community?
Lots of different businesses want to drive the conversation to their blog or website, but they may not be seeing a ton of traction, do to inconsistent content, or promotion, etc. That’s the downside – the upside? They may have a very active Facebook Community. Twitter isn’t far behind. That’s a win.
I’m asked all the time what platforms businesses should invest their time and resources on. The real answer is…. it depends. I think it’s important to put up listening stations on as many platforms as you can manage, because a user on twitter is just as valuable as a user on Facebook or a blog commenter – and we need to meet those users where THEY want to be met.
That’s one of the dilemmas of social media. Brands don’t get to control where people will talk about them, or where like minded people will set up shop. You don’t get to decide to drive them through one communication channel anymore. In short, you are always the Away Team.
That shouldn’t scare you. It’s just a fact. I really believe that to run an effective social media campaign you have to be comfortable being the away team – interacting and playing on fields that are not your own website. That includes, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Quora, and forums. (By the way, forums are still most definitely a part of social media, and in my opinion hugely under served by brands. Big opportunities there, but that’s another post.)
So, get on the bus. Listen. Then listen some more. Help people solve problems on their turf and maybe, just maybe you’ll be invited back.
Posted on October 6, 2009 by Miller
If you haven’t heard about Google’s SideWiki – you’re not alone. While it’s gotten a lot of ink type from SM bloggers and some traction on Twitter, lots of people still don’t know what it is, what it does, and what its implications are for your website and your brand.
Basically, Google SideWiki is a huge way to annotate the web. Think of it as seeing comments, additional links, and wikipedia style annotations alongside every webpage you visit. According to Google’s Video, you can link up additional text on the page to point to your annotation, or leave a comment on the page as a whole. Dont want to leave your mark? You can still view everyone else’s comments and rate whether they’re useful or not, or share a comment via Twitter or Facebook.
Is it useful? I think it’s too early to tell, but if it gains momentum and hits a critical mass of users (which could be likely since its now part of Google Toolbar) than I think it could be a massive game changer. What I’ve seen so far when I’ve checked out major brand sites such as Wal-Mart and Apple (screengrab)- and found some interesting things. On the first few entries you’ve got some informative information – how the company wars formed, a link to a past version of the site, etc. But under that (comment 3) you’ve got someone who’s highlighting some of the not so great things that Apple does. Keep in mind that this is all on Apple’s official webpage via the SideWiki.
First, I should note that you need Google Toolbar to use, view, and contribute to the Wiki. So just by going to Apple.com you wont’ see the entries. But I think this has huge implications for brands in particular.
One of the first things I always hear when I talk to businesses about social is that they are hesitant to get into the conversation because in many cases they’re afraid of things that users, competitors, and detractors will say about them on Social Channels. But the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil doesn’t cut it anymore. Peeps are already talking out there, you might as well engage. But here’s where the game changes. With Sidewiki, there really is no longer an option to stay out of the social sphere. It’s gone off the reservation and right into your front yard. That’s the difference. The conversation has been moved from taking place exclusively on Twitter and FB, to your webpage.
I’m torn on this to be honest. I do think it’s cool that users can add info about a page that may not be obvious and share content that people would find really useful. But Jeff Jarvis brought up a good point:
Google is trying to take interactivity away from the source and centralize it. This isn’t like Disqus, which enables me to add comment functionality on my blog. It takes comments away from my blog and puts them on Google. That sets up Google in channel conflict vs me.
And even though I’m a firm believer that you engage your users on their platforms as much as possible, I think could be seen as a power grab to encourage people to comment using Google’s tools instead of on my site or other tools that we’re already having to monitor such as Twitter, FB, etc. It fragments the community into those who choose to comment with Sidewiki and those who choose to comment through a site’s internal comment system (or Disqus). On the other hand it gives everyone the option to comment on any site and any story, whether there is an existing comment system or not. Censorship be damned!
But at the end of the day, when / if this hits critical mass, companies, bloggers and news sites are going to have a new set of forces to contend with. You’re now by default participating in social media, albeit on Google’s terms.
What do you think about all of this? Will it spawn a new gold rush of online ‘curators’ who post tons of comments on sites they frequent to position themselves as experts? Will it encourage brandjacking, flame wars, or just be a dumpster for comment spam? Or does it give power to the people through the use of comments throughout the web? I think it remains to be seen. But in the meantime… I’d highly suggest you check out the SideWiki, play around, and most importantly, Claim your Sidewiki space. As an website owner, you’ll be the first commenter on your OWN site. Offering a brief welcome message . Use the space to talk about your business or what people can expect on your site. There’s a great post from Bill Hartzer with a step by step for claiming your space.
Oh and if you feel so obliged, leave a message on my page using the comment section OR the SideWiki.
Posted on June 16, 2009 by Miller
photo by megandavid
So the Facebook vanity URL goldrush is on… In case you don’t know what I’m talking about, Facebook has basically announced that since this past weekend you could log in and get a username. Instead of getting to my FB profile with a long-ass url, you could hit up. www.facebook.com/ryanmiller315 – easier to remember, right? It fits on a biz card, or an email signature.
That’s the upside. The downside is that its first come first serve (not really a downside I guess) but once you choose your url, that’s it. You can’t change it. EVER. So before you decide you want your FB url to be BigSexy99, think again. Its like getting a really bad tattoo. My friend Katie has a good post on this as well that I caught as I was writing…
But inevitably there are going to be lots of Ryan Millers out there so the chance that I would get my own name was slim to none. Alas, I’m stuck with something less than ideal.
Where there has been a lot of excitement is when it was announced that brands (fan pages) can also get a vanity url. I could hit up www.facebook.com/cnn – again, easier to remember. The downside? You need to have at least 1,000 fans to qualify. So I really can’t get the hook up for my indie music fan page. That sucks.
But is this huge news for brands? Gary V. did a quick video about this announcement and thinks its a game changer. But I have to disagree. Sure, its convenient and for brands that are already playing in that space, its a nice addition and a welcome tool for establishing a presence on the network. But I don’t think its earth shattering.
Here’s why…
First of all, I think FB is a much better platform than MySpace was, in terms of organization, applications and visual layout. One of the reasons I think people left MySpace in droves was because it was almost too open. I couldn’t deal with dancing hamster backgrounds and Tide Detergent adding me as a friend when I wasn’t a fan to begin with. Facebook however, isn’t nearly as customizable as it could be and while its a good platform to interact with fans that are already on that platform – as a brand I have much more flexability for design and features on my own website (should I have the time and budget to invest in building what I want).
I’ve also read that this will be great from a marketing standpoint… But why would I market my facebook URL as a brand? I know its the next ‘cool thing’ but if you’re a business that is doing work in social spaces, marketing on Facebook alone isn’t going to cut it. Maybe you have a blog, a Twitter account, and a Facebook account… Why then would you market the Facebook page? I think its a better idea to get people to your website and link them off to the platform that they prefer. That’s not to say you shouldn’t be doing outreach on EACH platform, but to pimp your FB page on a billboard isn’t a battle plan.
So how could a brand still capitalize on this if they dont’ have 1000 followers or got beat in the gold rush? My advice is to standardize and redirect. If you’re a business and don’t own a domain name, (ryancmiller.com) spend the $10 and get one. You’ll be glad you did. Then I would make sure that all my pages on social networks are easily accessible from my main website or blog. And finally, if you want to pimp your facebook url but didnt’ get a vanity url – just build a simple redirect page (here’s how) that takes you to the Facebook Fan page when you hit www.yourdomain.com/facebook . Its simple. You can change it. and It Works.
What do you guys think? Does having a FB vanity url matter for people or brands? Is it a game changer? Am I full of crap? More importantly, did YOU get the url you wanted?
