Posts Tagged facebook
Posted on December 30, 2009 by Miller
Redundancy - image by mlcastle
We’re all part of multiple social media networks now. Maybe it’s Twitter and Facebook, with a little Ping.fm thrown in with FriendFeed and LinkedIn on the flipside. Don’t even get me started on public Google Waves.
And as we’re all getting on more and more networks, our paths are bound to cross at more and more points. Which is why I think it’s more important than ever to know your network and know your audience.
I’ll only post certain types of content on LinkedIN. Twitter gets a bit more loose, and Facebook is more of personal likes and funny stuff. Not a lot of business content there. But that’s because most of my ‘friends’ on Facebook aren’t following me on Twitter or aren’t connected to me on LinkedIN (emphasis on the MOST in that sentence). As we’re migrating, more people are starting to use Twitter or LinkedIN (using those big 3 as an example because it’s where I spend most of my time) and are getting my favorite links, blog post notifications and recommendations on multiple platforms.
From a marketing perspective this is kick-ass… right? More people consuming messages (even duplicate ones) on multiple social media channels from a trusted source is a good thing, if I’m digging your website or movie, or blog, or whatever.
But flip the coin over and I think there’s a point where pushing the same content through duplicate channels now becomes an interruption as opposed to a conversation. If you’re following me on Twitter, as well as being friends on Facebook and colleagues on LinkedIN - there are times where I’m sure you’ve seen the same piece of content across all of your media streams from me…… sorry. Maybe this post is one of them.
The problem is that I want to be able to tell my whole network about something I think is cool, and since we’re not all consolidated onto one channel, some people are getting double doses. At the root of this is the notion that I think we all want to be influencers. We all want to be the person that found that next cool thing, and so hitting everyone in our own network seems like an easy way to share content.
But I think that this will start to come at a price. I’ve already un-friended people from different networks because I haven’t found their content useful or that it’s been too repetitive or spammy. While I hope the same thing hasn’t happened to me, there’s no guarantee that it hasn’t. I also recently was intrigued by my friend Rob Bluey’s post on how he’s going to be treating his Facebook network in 2010. If 2009 was a planting year for social networks, 2010 may be a year of pruning or at least shaping.
What’s the point? I think its that we need to tailor your content to fit the network and be conscious of the people who may be receiving multiple forms of the same message. Trust that if you’re putting out good stuff that people will use a different tool in order to receive that content. You won’t need to force feed them. Chris Brogan does a fantastic job of this. His FB posts are different (not always, but enough) from his Blog posts. Most importantly though, if you want some really useful content, he’ll only offer that through his newsletter. He knows that his content has value and that if people want that premium content, well, they’ll just have to deal with subscribing.
Posted on November 18, 2009 by Miller
I got a chance to check out a service called TinyChat this past week. It’s a very cool platform that lets you build disposable chat rooms for events or meetings but also integrates up to 6 live video streams via webcam where you can have your presenter essentially streaming out the content while the audience can participate via chat (similar to Ustream - which also is a damn great service). And I got to log in with my Twitter credentials.
Then came news that LinkedIn was linking up with Twitter (or was Twitter linking up with LinkedIn?) and it got me thinking…. While we’re still seeing an explosion in social platforms and tools that people use to connect, we’re also seeing consolidation.
More and more platforms are using the robust APIs from Twitter and Facebook to let users log into and use services with their Facebook or Twitter IDs. I know Google is doing this to a lesser extent as well but mostly with companies they’ve bought or services they’re starting.
The point is… I think that FB and Twitter are positioning themselves for the long term not just in their own platforms, but by using their accounts as a sort of ‘passport’ that’s accepted throughout the different social media sphere. They’re becoming the big daddies of social data (read: my information) in much the same way Google has become the big name in search data. And I think that platforms which make it easier on their users to connect (without having to create yet ANOTHER username / password / secret question / demographic form) are the ones that are going to have a leg up because it’s a lower barrier of entry for me to participate.
What do you guys think? Are you more likely to use 3rd party services that let you connect with existing credentials or doesn’t it matter? On the flip side, does the centralization of your social data bother you? Leave a comment and let’s chat.
Posted on October 14, 2009 by Miller
Chris Young chats with Ryan Miller at BOLO 2009 about an experiment he did involving Facebook Fan Pages that built a good sized fan base and even caught the attention of Disney. He found a resource in Art The Greeter that Disney missed…. What rockstars and resources do YOU have in your business that you might be overlooking?
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?
Posted on March 6, 2009 by Miller
I was fowarded (and reminded of) a great blog that I used to read quite regularly, called Girl At Play, run by Alex Beauchamp. I always enjoy her writing style and have an immense amount of respect (bordering on envy in some cases) for her experiences in blogging, traveling, and general outlook on life, all expressed with elegance and eloquence. If you haven’t checked her out, you certainly should.
In any case, Alex had a great post about Negotiating Technology and talks about how with all these social networking tools to navigate, have we shifted from using technology to ‘do more’ to simply ‘monitoring.’ And its true, its really easy to get swept up in participating in the digital conversation, posting to a blog, keeping track of friends on Facebook, etc. When do we unplug? And how much of the information that we consume over these different networks is REDUNDANT?
Alex says it better than I ever could, so here an Excerpt:
With the addition of Twitter, RSS Feeds, and Facebook, I’ve found myself receiving the same bits of information several times over. For example, I used to just subscribe to a blogs feed and access their info that way. But if that person is on Twitter, they’ll also tweet about their new post and link to it. If they’re on Facebook, chances are their Twitter hits their Facebook profile and I’ll get an update there, too. LinkedIn now offers the same. So instead of getting one piece of information one way, I’m getting the same information 3 or 4 different ways which results in an overload.
But what happens if you then remove that person from your Twitter feed? Will they think you aren’t their friend? This has happened to me. People have equated my Twitter removal with a friend removal even though in real life I did a lot more and gave much more support than just clicking “follow” on Twitter. So once you incorporate technology, removing it becomes really hard because of social and sometime business consequences.
So that makes me ask how and when we should unplug, and to what degree? I was thinking the solution may be similar to solving our energy crisis…. I’ve read different articles and heard statements by the likes of Al Gore who talk about how instead of waiting for the next groundbreaking technologies to arrive at our doorsteps, we can solve so much of our energy problems through efficiency.
I wonder if that’s one of the keys to keeping up with the ever expanding sphere of social networks. I know there’s not a huge incentive for networks to ’standardize’ their information or services, but I think there’s a huge business opportunity for someone to build an app that eliminates digital redundancy.
For instance, as Alex said, I obviously want my network to know about this post, so I’ll send a tweet, which will also dump down to my Facebook profile, and I may supplement that with an e-mail blast (I won’t really, but let’s say I wanted to). Now if I have friends on all three platforms, they’re consuming the same information three times.
I want a service that will know what networks I use and if I’ve read the tweet, delete the update in my Facebook Feed, or delete the e-mail. Or if I get the e-mail with the update, don’t put the tweet in my list, or send me an RSS notification. Its the same problems that were created by having AIM, MSN Messager, ICQ, GoogleTalk, etc. I know there are clients that aggregate all the IM networks, so why not one that would take care of all my social networks?
I think this would go a long way towards helping people be smarter about the ways they publish content and communicate digitally.
What do you think? Would something like this work, and more importantly, is it a viable business model? And what is the breaking point for you? Is there a cap on how many social networking tools you will use or participate in at any given time? Would love you’re thoughts.
Posted on February 27, 2009 by Miller
I read an article today about how a 16 year old office worker from Essex was fired after she described her office job as ‘boring’ on her Facebook page.
Details were passed to her employers after she allowed colleagues access to her page, Miss Swann said, adding that she was not given the chance to explain.
Her mother, Janette, 41, said: “I think she’s been treated totally unfairly. She didn’t mention the company’s name.
“This is a 16-year-old child we’re talking about. She says Clacton is boring but we’re not going to throw her out of the house for it.”
Mr Ivell said: “Ivell Marketing is a small, close-knit family company and it is very important that all the staff work together in harmony.
“Had Miss Swann put up a poster on the staff notice board making the same comments and invited other staff to read it there would have been the same result.”
This got me thinking and it folded in nicely with a chat I had with @KristinNeher about employee access to Social Media tools. I’m wondering if employers have any right to influence or police what you say off premises, and off hours using social media networks. Personal networks. I get the argument that your facebook status is shared with a lot of people. But, its not completely public unless you have it set up that way. Additionally, why should your boss have anything to do with what you can say on your own time and who you can say it to?
I get the argument that its akin to putting up a sign somewhere. Trust me I get it. I wouldn’t want my staff talking negatively about me or my business online either. But is there a difference between frowning upon it, and taking away someone livelihood because they didn’t drink the Kool-Aid?
I’m honestly on the fence with this. On the one hand, I don’t think anyone has the right to tell me what I can and cannot say or do in my off time. But putting the shoe on the other foot - if I was a small business owner I think I would take issue if my employees were constantly talking negatively about what they do for a living. I just don’t know if its my obligation to find new employees, or to try and make the work experience better for our existing staff.
Is the answer to have ask people to keep their profiles semi-private or to talk about work problems first with a supervisor before taking it to the net? Is it something that can be solved with a ‘policy’ Tough stuff.
Krista said that she knows a person who is not allowed to even post where he works online and is obligated to delete comments that reference it. That seems a bit extreme to me. One of the greatest things about being involved in social media is being able to share ideas and opinions, and in general be yourself.
So where is the line? Is there a line? And how should companies address the fact that employees as well as customers are plugged in to the social web, and that they will share their feelings as well as ideas. More importantly, how can companies turn employees activities on social media networks from liabilities into assets?
« Older Entries
