Why bother measuring Twitter Influence? Measure Reach Instead.

There are a ton of websites that attempt (all of them feebly) to measure Twitter Influence, including Klout, Edeleman Digital's Tweetlevel, Twinfluence among the crowd. It is an open and accessible network. So it lends itself to attempts to measure. So I will posit here the limitations, then bring reality into the discussion which is to measure Reach not Influence.

First of all lets discuss Twitter. Its very conducive to sharing links and information. Many people who use Twitter favor it over Facebook, People Use Facebook, but they Live Twitter. And most users tend to be higher of intelligence, more friendly to technology, and I personally believe in the Top 50% of Earners in the US (or future Earners). But there are some drawbacks. Based on the Tweet Volumes there are between 8mil-15mil people on Twitter World Wide at any given moment. Over half of the 100mil Twitter accounts are rarely used.

There are 250mil Consumers in the US age 14 and over. So obviously scale and influence across that group is limited from Twitter with only 40% of users being in the US. Influence only measures whether people share things on Twitter. Not who they are. Which is a HUGE contextual hole in the data. Or why people share something, which is content of the Tweet. There also seems to be an effort to also measure Tweeter's expertise, yet they base it on repetitive key words. If I tweeted about the BP Oil Spill for months every day incessantly that does not make me an expert on BP, the Spill, or the Oil Industry! And lastly if I am a Marketer I should only care about driving Sales for my client. It is almost impossible to know this from Twitter.

Who cares about getting a message out Viraly if no one acts on that message, other than Re-tweeting it?

I have observed all forms of Tweeters. From high volume users with very small networks that share among a few friends, to Follower Sluts who follow thousands of people. Since you will only see and read a very small percentage of Tweets in your feed influence must be looked at realistically. The chance of someone Re-tweeting or taking action will depend on two key factors:

1: Did they see the Tweet (most people will see only between 5-10% of the tweets in their feed if that!)
2: What is the content of the Tweet. (is it worth Retweeting?)

Lastly since outside influence can not be measured realistically and the 'who the person is' is unknown why even try to give a measure. I can be the CEO of a Company with 100,000 employees. I can have 5 people in my network on Twitter and see a Tweet sharing a new Calendar App that is incredible. I like it so much I send an internal Corporate Email telling 100,000 employees to start using this software. Or I can be rich and famous with a million followers, and maybe I get a Tweet that leads me to buy something at a store that I am then photographed wearing on the Oscar Carpet for 90mil people to see, but never Re-tweet or Tweet that I bought the item?

Yes I know what you are thinking. In both cases there could be a viral response such as the employees sharing on Twitter with their network this great App that came from their CEO (most likely without crediting the CEO). And there will be Tweets saying 'Did you see what that Star was wearing?. That is all fine and part of Social Media. But remember we are measuring influence on Twitter. Not in Life. In both cases the true influence originators would of gone unmeasured.

This is why I posit measurement should be focused on reach. You can determine the potential for a Tweet to spread based on the web of connections. But you will never know the quality of those connections, ever. You can estimate based on an average chance of 1] seeing a Tweet and 2] how often they Re-Tweet but that is it. This will allow you to give yourself realistic expectations, because that is what this is about. Expectations. As a Brand or Agency you can then not over promise to the CFO or VP of Sales or CEO like so many Marketers like to do.

Are Brands Scared of Social or is Social over Hyped

The attached link from Clickz.com highlights 5 great Location Based Marketing Campaigns and 5 bad ones.

LINK

The reason I am using this link is it highlights location based campaigns that are very similar to campaigns run on Twitter and Facebook. They are all big brands. What it really shows is that Brands are kind of being forced into the Social Media and Location Based Marketing before there is a true need for it. I have discussed in this blog before reasons major-mega brands do not need Social due to lack of scale and potential downside.

I want to discuss the value here of Social and Location Based Services if done right, then some reasons not to be Social or use Location Based Services.

Done Right:

Where I see the real strategic value of Social Media and Location Based Services is when you use these technologies to steer a prospective customer your way. When they are in the decision making process. But the key is access, respect, and opt-in call to actions.

Creating a Geo-Fence around a store so that when I drive by you contact my phone is not going to change my behavior. You already have Sunday Circulars, TV Commercials, Digital Ads, Email Contact, Print Coupons, and I haven't come in to buy. Why would a Geo-Fence chance my behavior vs annoy me when I drive by to get Gas or Milk.

But what if I could tie in Print, Social, and LBS? When I come to your store I see a poster saying if I take action via and LBS I get a sweet deal on something? Or tie purchases into a real loyalty program that gives a reward for actual repetitive patronage. That is respectful and since I am already there I don't need as big a bribe.

Done Wrong:

Why do I want to participate? Do you need to truly bribe me? Won't that lower the value of your product in my eyes? Will you annoy me? Will it become Push Advertising after I sign up for the SMS Loyalty Program you promoted.

Do you feel such an ego that you think everyone wants to talk with you when out and about or online? Do I want to be a fan of my dog's food or the company I buy most of my soup from? Do these Brands need Social or LBS when they are already reaching me or when Point of Sale in a market might sway me between brands because of what is on sale?

In Wrap Up:

Don't be cocky. Think of what value you will bring to me so that I want to engage and have no remorse once the engagement starts. Be creative. Don't reduce your value in my eyes. But be enough of a value for me to want to engage with you, or patronize you. Be respectful. My time is precious. So is yours. Don't waste either. Think of what makes me want to connect via these media channels vs the already established ones.

The Next Coming Facebook Shit Storm?

I saw this article on AllFacebook.com and it has me concerned. It is already impossible for Businesses to Market on Facebook using Fan Pages. The Live Feed has so many posts only 5-10% of someone's Feed is ever read. Which inhibits viral activity significantly. Now Facebook wants your feed filled with Spam from outside of Facebook if I read this correctly:

LINK

Here is why I think this is going to become a shit storm. The goal of Open Graph was so that Facebook users could 'Like' something off Facebook and that will tell their Network they Like this web page and go check it out. This of course added to the volume in the Live Feed.

Now Facebook is allowing whomever owns that page (NY Times, Apple, whomever) to publish in the users Facebook Stream opening you up to tons of spam. And eventually you will never see anything published by friends and family thus reducing Facebook to nothing valuable for you and your life.

But that isn't my concern since I am surely not a fan of Facebook's ownership. I think they are scumnozzle weasel's and this could be the nail in the coffin!

1] Will they begin this opening of your personal page to the outside world via awareness and notification? If I click 'Like' will a message pop up telling me the implications?

(Here is where I need to include the caveat that I have never clicked 'Like' off Facebook, nor will I ever, so I will have to ask the suckers who do what happens).

So if they fail to notify you this is Shitstorm Level 1, could include having to change this later to save face. Possible congressional inquiry.

2] What if they make this retroactive. Meaning all this time you have been clicking 'Like' they open your Facebook profile to all these websites posting to your page without telling you?

Now that is Shitstorm Level Nuclear War. No one would ever trust Facebook again. Zuckerberg gets his tires slash, house gets egged and spray painted, never given a seat in a restaurant, class action law suits and congress steps in.

Just my opinion but how would you react if tomorrow you can't see posts from your girlfriend or best friend and all you see is 2500 ads for Denny's in your stream, all because 2 months ago you clicked Like on the Denny's website.

Social Media Scale: is it Right for Big Companies to Engage Customers?

Every business would love to be able to personally interact with every potential customer and make them feel like you care about them. their thoughts, any issues they are having or get praise from them. Social Media is great for a small business because one or two people can easily engage with everyone who tweets or posts on their Facebook Page.

But what if you had 500 million customers. And say just a small fraction Tweeted or posted on your Fan Page. Say just a puny 50,000 per day. How do you make every single person feel like you are engaging with them without hiring 50 to 100 people. You can't. Automated Response is cold and you will be exposed. Many Brands I follow on Twitter do not respond to my Tweets. Not because they don't like me. But they have one or two people doing Social Media and how many can one person respond too in a day? And we expect a business to respond 24/7.

Another issue is the value of this engagement for a Brand in determining how much they pay someone. Are they going to pay someone more than a person who works in a call center? And if your paid call center money how will your engagement come across.

This is a big issue for big business. All the Guru's keep saying everyone needs to be in Social Media. But reality is maybe not on Facebook or Twitter. And maybe it needs to be a form of public call center but how can 100 people share one Twitter account. It's not an ACD system (Automated Call Distribution).

I wish I had a solution but you risk people unfollowing you or unfanning you or ending engagement if they don't feel special and get interaction. So it is my position Big Brands should not be doing this. Why spend the effort to engage with such a small amount of people which doesn't move the needle and has bigger upside risks?

One thing I do recommend is having employees themselves be brand advocates and create their own networks. They can manage their own networks and they put a real face to your company. 'I like Nabisco because I know Sharon from Twitter and I love interacting with her'. Something to think about.

Facebook Porn & Brands Failing on Facebook

Facebook has been hijacked by Porn. Go to any Fan Page that is geared towards young men 13 to 30 and you will see many, many like this from the Dorito's Fan Page:

Laila Wensley I'm 23 and looking for a single man for some hawt encounter I just want to spend some fun night with anyone who wants to accompany me I'm not into something serious for now, have no time and patience for a relationship for now Let's talk in my personal page, I have chat widget installed ---> http://bit.ly/cKIsYu

So how many 'active' users on Facebook are spam accounts? And why aren't brands monitoring their Facebook Pages and scrubbing this? You can find this also on the Mountain Dew page. And its not just one or two posts. Its pervasive and constant. And any 13 year old can see and click.

I recently saw a Freelance Job post asking for 1000 Facebook Pages with real photos, real friends, and real high school to be created for a client.....I am sure you can connect the dots for what those accounts will be used for. So Facebook..how many of your accounts are frauds. How many of the actions from these spam accounts do you count in your numbers. And do Brands know they are being connected with porn on their Fan Pages?

Social Media Authenticity

Social Media is a bonanza for those with limited budgets hoping to promote and market themselves or their businesses. Its a great way to network, to discover and learn, and even to scope out the competition.

Too many big Brands use Social Media just because they think they should be there. And there is also a lot of deception with Social Media. Plenty of services to buy fans and followers by the 1000's. Where they get these fans/followers I have no idea. How the client can keep them I am not sure.

I think it is very important to be as honest and transparent as possible. You also need to have great content or bribes. I mean seriously now. Think of what you offer, your reason for being involved in Social Media, and why should someone engage with you. We are all busy. I know Kraft would love for me to spend 30 minutes a day engaging with them about their products. Why should I? I see their stuff once a week in the market. I see ads on TV. Why should I engage with them online or in Social Media. What is in it for me? A free box of Mac and Cheese? I might take that...maybe not.

I am in the Advertising/Media/Technology Industry. There are many people I view as sources of new information and discovery. Others provide great mind candy discussions on philosophy and theory. Some are just plain funny.

But if your not bringing me value why should I follow you on Twitter or fan you on Facebook and have my stream filled with things I don't care to see. I am ok with you existing in Social Media and you will find people who feel your value and good for them. The great thing is you get to choose who your follow, engage with, etc.

But its important to be authentic. If you play a role like some folks do using Brand Fiction* on Twitter, people should know you are that role. If your being paid to send sponsored tweets, those should be plainly stated. And you can't be afraid to have disagreements, or potentially be attacked if your going to play in the sandbox. Its not pleasant but if your going to be a person or a brand that polarizes you must expect this. We all know no one person or business or brand is perfect.

If your only in social media to advertise and not engage you can pay Twitter to sponsor tweets or pay Facebook to insert ads. But you shouldn't be creating accounts and interacting if you want everything one way...your way.

*Brand Fiction is courtesy of Helen Klein Ross aka. @adbroad who plays @bettydraper from Mad Men on Twitter. She can also be found at the Brand Fiction Factory www.brandfictionfactory.com

Facebook's Crappy Business Model

Not sure who came up with Facebook's horrible 'Lets Exploit Our Users' Business model. Mark Zuckerberg? The VC's and investors?

Here is my question. Would you pay $3 month for a website that allowed you to interact with all your friends and family, sharing info, events, photos etc? If the network was locked down? If your privacy is #1? If no Brands could advertise to you? And if you knew the network was going to invest in making real conversations possible (vs short comment streams with no cohesion).

Forget Brands. Forget Advertising. Forget real time web where all your posts get shown on Google.

This business model would generate $7.2 billion in revenue immediately if you had 200 million subscribers. This would rank the network 314 on this years Fortune 500. It would generate probably 4x the profits if not more than Facebook currently is bringing in and piss off ZERO people, politicians, etc.

Would you pay $3 month? I would. And if you paid some money and invested in your own profile and network would you jump ship as fast as you are going to the moment a better network pops up? Or as Joseph Jaffe likes to say 'The next shiny bright new object'?

Social Media Reality: Perspective and Value

Reality is being honest about Social Media potential in the future, with reality today. The US has 310 million people. Take away children under 14 and you have the real pool of consumers you can sell too. So minus 60 million gets you 250 million people who can buy your stuff.

Considering Twitter has 8m to 15m users in a day world wide. And Facebook claims 200m logging in world wide each day. What are your customer pools in the US for each platform? Not the numbers I just gave. Last number I saw was 60% of Facebook users are outside the US. Nice pools of potential consumers yes. Not close to the number for TV you can reach with a 30 sec spot on a mid-level TV program that gets 2-5 mil viewers. But still very nice.

The problem is when I see too many statements, workshops, articles, conferences promoting Social Media for Advertising and Connecting with Consumers....that make it sound like everyone is using Social Media. But the fact is over 50% of consumers are not using Social Media on a given day. And your reach is so small compared to TV or even a Billboard on the 405 Freeway in LA currently. And due to the massive live feeds on Twitter and Facebook your posts will only be viewed by 5-10% of your Fans and Followers depending on factors such as time of day and each person in your network's volume flowing through their screen.

It's not a silver bullet and you can't reach everyone with it right now. Just don't get sold on the over hype.

Social Media is really about value. Using the networks right now is free minus your labor costs and any special content. Your not spending 100k on a commercial and then all that ad spend to reach millions of people. You will spend long term thousands to Engage with tens to hundreds of thousand of people in various ways. This can range from them viewing your post or tweet (Impression), to doing some sort of action (Engagement) such as clicking through to a video, a blog post, or participate in a contest.

The difference between say running a contest off line and on line is tremendous. Off line I might send in a sweepstakes card, or play McDonald's Monopoly game. No one knows if I win or lose. And the value is minimized by the isolation of each contestant. But on Social Media I get seen playing the game, I get seen winning the game, and I can give back to the Brand immediately.

A great example is Tony Hawk does an Easter Scavenger Hunt in all 50 States. He hides a box with Tony Hawk gear such as Skateboards, Pads, Video Games etc somewhere in a major city in each state (I am unsure how many prizes total). He then Tweets clues and eventually someone finds the prize. Then they take a photo of themselves with the prize and they tweet it to Tony Hawk. And he just earned himself so many new Brand Ambassadors and Brand Champions that a 30 Sec Commercial or a Monopoly Game at McDonald's can not buy. Tony has over 2 million followers on Twitter and doesn't even have a Facebook presence aside from like 300 small Fan pages created by Fan's.

I recommend using both Facebook and Twitter due to the different attributes of each and funneling people back and forth. Twitter is perfect for games and broadcasting. Facebook it perfect for showing photos, having more cohesive discussions and feed back, and is a bit more viral in nature.

So while the reach of Social Media is over stated right now, the value is actually understated. When you interact and engage properly with your customers or potential customers, it is more similar to direct sales (active) than it is to advertising (usually passive). And you can target people based on what they like versus traditional paid media guess work. And when you run the numbers the closer you get to direct sales the more value each customer/contact is. A traditional advertising channel will cost from $0.01/impression to maybe $0.50/contact to sometimes over $10.00 for a Google Adwords click through. So ask how much an active engagement with 1 customer/potential customer is worth. Ask how much a Brand Champion or Ambassador is worth, especially one that works for free.

And think of all the feedback you get without paying for focus groups. You have a readily available pool or people who will give opinions for free because they care about your Brand or Product. They wouldn't be engaging with you if they didn't!

But remember this starts with a great product or service. You won't earn Brand Champions if your product isn't a good one. If you follow me on Twitter @skypulsemedia you will find I am an active Brand Champion for a few Brands I believe in. Skullcandy, Volcom, Billabong and Vans are great examples. They pay me zero. I buy their stuff. But they make great products and they are fun brands that have incredible content on their websites.

The Social Media Fudge

Ad Week Link

This is a perfect small article on Ad Week that is a great Case Study on the Social Media Fudge. I have written about the divergent agenda's in Social Media. The people who over hype Social Media tend to have a financial interest in it such as VC's & the Networks themselves because they want to go IPO.

This detracts from the real value of Social Media. The value to people. The value to Brands. Because there is real value! That is why Social Networks and Technology being view purely as Advertising/Marketing vehicles, vs Technology to be sold and licensed is so backward assed. They promote the wrong features and benefits.

So without further ado as someone who advises clients on Social Media for Marketing and Engagement purposes this article and chart say nothing to me. If I want to reach someone and they are only on the Network once per month that has zero value for me. How am I going to reach someone via Twitter when they are going to be on the Network once randomly in a month. But if I know your on at least every other day, that has value. And sometimes the value is something that shouldn't be hidden.

Fact is there is between 8-15 million people on the service each day. But before you belittle that number these folks tend to be brighter, smarter, more techie, and most likely either current higher earners (Jack and Suzy Welch!) or will be (college students). They are more likely to have smart phones. And they are more likely to be interested in sharing discoveries and communicating them because Twitter is different than Facebook.

The fact is the live Tweet Stream is fleeting. Its not like a Print Magazine where your ad could be viewed anytime in the next 2 weeks. If that person isn't on when you Tweet most likely it goes into Tweet heaven (the Library of Congress).

To Ad Week's credit they did whittle down to monthly users, vs the Gross Number of Accounts being 100 million that Twitter is promoting.

Great Podcasts in Advertising-Social Media

Git yer Adva-tising Edumacation heyah!

I am a huge music freak and can rattle off my heavy rotation of current sweetness on my IPod. I figured it was time to give some great Pub to some great work being done in the Advertising Underground. We all know about the big shindigs and pow-wows. But there is some great work of current being done now. This goes beyond journalism. If you want to brush up on Social Media, learn current events in Media/Technology/Advertising, or just want intellectual mind bending romps but don't have time or the desire to read from my nice blog reading list to your left...do I have something for you. Mind candy fer sure.

I wanted to showcase really smart people who share with us via Podcast format the issues affecting us today. They do really great work and are worth listening too. I have learned immensely from these true Sensei's of AdLand-MediaLand and their incredible guests:

1] The Bean Cast (Tapes Sun Nights)- Bob Knorpp (@thebeancast) of the Cool Beans Group is your host and he always has 3 to 4 guests with the topics laid out before hand on his website. He has a great panel format and does a wonderful job as moderator. Think of NPR Left-Right-Center level of discussions. Bob will take all sides when necessary to get to the bottom of things with his panel.
http://www.beancast.us/

2] AdVerve (Tapes Wed Nights) - hosted by Bill Green (@mtlb) of Humungo and Angela Natividad (@luckthelady) of Hypios
This is much more free form. The discussion flow, there is laughter, there it sarcasm, there is bluntness. They normally have one guest and they do not hold back. Everything is fair game and they cover everything in Advertising, Media, Technology, Politics and Current Pop Culture. And sometimes they make me LOL. Plus the hosts span Two Continents. Yes that is right. Two Continents. North America and Europe.
http://advervecast.blogspot.com/

3] Quick N Dirty (Fridays on I Tunes) - Your Hosts Aaron Strout (@aaronstrout) of Powered and Jennifer Leggio (@mediaphyter) of ZDNet focus on Social Media and cover everything current and developing in the land of Social. They normally have one or two guests and they go deep like Jerry Rice on the topics they have discussions on. They get some heavy hitters on so don't be surprised if you think you know 'Social' and then realize after listening that your still a 'Grasshopper' but in a good way.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/quickndirty

4] Jaffe Juice - last but definitely not least, the Chief Interruptor at Powered and the Author of Flip the Funnel - Joseph Jaffe (@jaffejuice) is your host. He not only takes a very objective view to Social Media and Advertising, he's a brilliant and likable guy. His podcasts do not seem to be on any specific schedule but they are not to be missed.
http://www.jaffejuice.com/
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/jaffe-juice/id93639319

Why I love the Ad Contrarian - the Facebook-Nielsen Study

In my last post I highlighted two different sources for news on the Facebook-Nielsen Study. Of course unlike the Ad Contrarian I am not on Nielsen's list when they send this stuff out. There is a link to the Ad Contrarian Blog on your left. Bob Hoffman of Hoffman Lewis is someone I came across randomly via my Twitter Networking. When I read his E-Book (Link is on his blog) I realized there were other folks like me with the same viewpoints.

Without further Ado

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2010/04/whos-nielsen-trying-to-fool.html

Bias (Mashable) vs Objectivity (TechCrunch)

When reading the news one should always seek objective viewpoints, even if they contrast with your own. Often we prefer bias in our personal lives. But when it comes to our businesses objectivity is often crucial to success and survival.

Recently Nielsen did a Study with Facebook to look at the impact of paid and earned marketing on Facebook. Remember it is in Facebook's best interest for this report to come out positive. Not sure what Nielsen got out of it, other than codling up with Facebook in case there is a need to measure Social Media sites like they measure TV.

As for Mashable, if Social Media is over hyped, their business falters. They specifically cover Social Media, their CEO Pete Cashmore shamelessly promotes social media in ways that have me think he is being paid too, or has equity stakes in some Social Networks. But Tech Crunch covers a wide swath of Technology. If Social Media falters their business will not take a hit. And if they consistently show they are objective they will earn readers. Think of it as Mashable preaches to their choir, Tech Crunch doesn't have such a choir to preach too. Remember two articles about the same subject. You be the judge.

Mashable Article
Tech Crunch Article

This blog has shown skepticism over the effects of Paid Advertising on Social Media Sites since the click through rates for paid ads on Social Media run between 3 and 10 per 10,000 page views. But if you can truly get people talking and sharing about something that is very powerful. In 2009 when Quiznos offered a free sub to the first 250,000 people who signed up on their website by giving an email address I immediately posted that on my Facebook feed which gave a chance for my 260 friends to see.

Social Media Use Becomes Pervasive...Kind of

The subject of today's post is this Article from Ad Week

The one or two people who read my blog know that I like honesty in numbers, and that numbers do not lie. I have broken down Facebook and Twitter's numbers claims to show that like Fox News they hype certain measures that help the IPO cause, and omit other measures that might reduce the IPO cause.

The viewpoint of the Marketing Sensei is that of someone who would either A] Invest in Stock of a Business or B] either advise a Client on Advertising to increase R.O.I. or if it was my own business that I had to make these decisions. The biggest factor being valuing Media/Advertising on the buying side.

So with that in mind have I have asked why doesn't Facebook explain what they term an Active User. If I was a Brand looking to reach a potential customer via Facebook someone who logs in only once per month is of zero value to me. But someone who spends 1 hour a day on the site is of value to me.

So when they bring up the 73% number that engages in social media once per week they are including people who potentially spend 5 minutes of a whole week. There are 86,400 minutes in a week btw. So as a Brand the 73% is of zero value to me.

And for Facebook even if 100 million US people logged in once per day, what does that mean to a Brand? The live feed is such high volume to place an Ad or a Fan Page Post it is a crap shoot that someone would see your post. Your lucky if 10-15% do. The fact is we go on there to chat with friends and family, not engage with Brands. And if like me, one has FireFox with Ad Blocker Plus, none of the Paid Advertising on the site gets viewed. So the utility for a Brand really needs to be valued properly.

So my point is measuring usage doesn't give the real story. Its how Social Media is used, can it be utilized for marketing/advertising, if so how does one overcome the barriers/limitations these networks have. Is there a difference between someone spending an hour posting photos, commenting on friends posts and exchanging emails, vs someone who spends the whole hour in Farmville or YoVille?

Lastly, it only took me 5 mins Nielsen to announce the 7-15 mil users/per day active on Twitter. This occurred immediately after Twitter announced 50 mil/tweets per day. I think my research then for all my 'objections' to the Hype should carry slightly more validity now.

But again numbers are deceiving. Of that 11.4 mil/day most are in the upper 50% of earners in their respective countries. So the value per user is higher than say those who read Sports Illustrated or watch ER reruns or spends time on Facebook. Ask a Media Company or a Brand the value of that demographic, or pool of potential consumers.

Twitter Unveils Plans to Draw Money From Ads

NY Times Article

To be fair and give proper credit. Laurie Sullivan of Media Post grabbed this story a day earlier:

Media Post Article

I have in the past discussed options for Twitter should they continue the Ad Supported Business Model vs what I recommended which was Paid Subscription/License the Technology Model. I did some research on Twitter before it hooked me as a Professional Networking tool that has sincerely been invaluable. But for Advertising and Promoting by Brands it has major challenges which I spouted about here: Link

Basically since so many Tweets get unseen how does Twitter monetize with Advertising. Especially challenging since 3rd party platforms like Tweetdeck take away the home page space.
Some areas of thought were based on value to the Brands and value to the Consumer. And when will Twitter know I am viewing the stream.

First viewing really can only be guessed at when one logs in (but I am always logged in via Tweet Deck), tweets (but maybe not with mobile, maybe you send the tweet without viewing the stream), or searching for something.

So lets use the Tweet. If I mention a product type or Brand wouldn't competitors wish to send me an offer right then? I always use Coke-Pepsi. If I mention Coke, Pepsi wants to send me a coupon. But is that of value to me or the Brand? Depends. If I am at McDonalds and mention I had a Diet Coke with my burger I am not about to make a buying decision. So sending me an offer isn't relevant, especially since I had no choice in brands at McDonalds. But if I am at a store and Tweet 'debating on whether to buy Coke or Pepsi' that is different. But Twitter can not do such conceptualization. And is the highest bidder really the best for the consumer? Sometimes, but not always. I might miss out on something better for me who didn't have the money for the key word bidding. No different than Google/Bing, but usually they give you more than one paid result.

Now lets explore what Twitter is using: search terms. Who searches and for what? Brands search when they 'listen' to the live conversations/posts about their brand, products, and competition. It is possible searching for a term will cause themselves to be charged for an advertisement by Twitter. Of course they could also cause their competitor to be charged, similar to clicking on a competitors banner ad online over and over.

But what do consumers search for most? In my observances really only two specific things in an ongoing basis, which are new products and news. Movies are the perfect example. The Friday Iron Man 2 comes out they will search for reviews. So a Brand seeking to advertise to that demographic might want to bid on the Iron Man 2 key words (if that is allowable by Twitter). The other is real news, especially disasters or political upheaval. So bidding on Haiti Earthquake would of been a worthy choice. But you need to be quick since disasters are never planned in advance!

As with all Advertising the key is getting your ad seen. And Twitter just like Facebook have immense challenges due to the massive clutter of the live feed, and how many hours people spend logged in not looking at the screen. This post took 15 minutes to type while tweets are flying on my Tweetdeck screen, tweets I will never see. And there is the Brand safety issue. I recently showed a Tweet that showed up in the #P2 (progressive) and #tcot (conservative) politics hashtags that was very vile. Brands have to be careful because certain hashtags have content no brand wants to be associated with.

What Metrics I Would Want from Facebook and the Big Picture Stuff

Facebook publishes a lot of stats. Many I know are very fuzzy and used to promote/hype the site because they want to go IPO before a new site comes a long that everyone migrates too. I take a big picture approach. I look at an Ecosystem and use all relevant data to help clients value various media channels. Because all Media Channels have value, it's just determining the fair value that is important.

As a Brand there are some specifics that I care about which obviously are omitted from any Facebook Stats. Remember they claim 400 Million active users and half of them logging in everyday!

1] Page views vs time spent on site. Time spent is massively inflated (55 mins per user per day?????) because if you leave Facebook up in a browser tab all day but only spend 10 mins on the site they record all day as time spent. But page views show activity.

2] Fan Page Post views vs Fans. I want to know how many posts from Fan Pages show up in the first page/home page upon log in. Each page after the front page that your post shows up gives a significantly diminished likelihood of your post being seen. When I log into Facebook there are always over 300+ updates waiting for me. Due to that volume I never go beyond the front page. So all those posts I don't see are worthless to a Brand.

3] What is an Active user? How many Active users log in only once per week or less? If a user logs in less than once per day the chances of reaching that person by a major brand is almost zero. Facebook claims an Active User to be someone who logs in 1x per month. That is NOT ACTIVE! That is basically zero if you log in 12x per year!

Many stats are so ho-hum that I can not believe the 200 million daily log ins and 55 mins spent per user on the site each day. Monthly numbers below unless noted are based on 400 million active users:

• Average user clicks the Like button on 4.5 pieces of content each month- once every 6 days? Remember many users do this several times per day. Thus increasing the number that click the Like button al ot less.
  
• Average user writes 12.5 comments on Facebook content each month - less than 1 per 2 days? See Above.
  
• Average user becomes a fan of 2 Pages each month- Not very viral I guess? Only once every 15 days someone becomes a fan of something.
  
• Average user is invited to 1.5 events per month - I guess most social invites are done by email and phone. Since I get about 30 per month mostly for music events many people get less than 1.5.
  
• More than 35 million users (out of 200mil log ins) update their status each day - since many active people do this more than once per day this is a small number.
  
• More than 60 million comments posted each day- see above.
• More than 3 billion photos uploaded to the site each month - this means 7.5 photos per user per month. Considering people often create albums with 10, 20, 30, 40 photos this is not an impressive number.
  

The activity data points to a lower level of activity than is being hyped by Facebook, especially the 55 minutes they claim people spend on the site EVERY DAY. What are you doing if your not posting and interacting? Playing Farmville I guess. But Farmville isn't going to pay the bills or Facebooks $14bil valuation by the VC's.

If I take 35mil + 60mil updates each day which is half the number claim log in everyday, this means half the people are doing nothing but reading on the website. I thought social media = interaction. And for every user who logs in and does more than one action reduces the number being active on the site and increases the number doing nothing.

But the fact is if less than half the people who log in do nothing at all what is the value of the network for marketers? Especially if you know most of your Fan Page posts will go unseen/unread.

And why would a major company need a Fan Page. Does Nabisco really gain by interacting with 500 people each time they post when they sell to 200 million people in just the US alone? These things do not make sense! Does Nestle need to give Greenpeace public forum to attack the company that has become the largest Food Company in the world using traditional marketing?

So my rant here is meant to put Facebook in proper perspective and to make sure your expectations are in line with reality. You do not have 400 million people to interact with but tens of millions. Still a very nice pool to play in each day. But not what is being touted by Facebook and Social Media Gurus.

Why the Twitter and Facebook Live Feeds are Dangerous for Brands

I have railed against using the live feeds simply because of sheer volume. Meaning when you tweet or if you post to your fan page most people will not see it. If you get 1000 tweets to your twitter account or 300+ live feed updates on Facebook who has the time to view them all.

That being said I have seen some pretty sad, vulgar stuff posted to Fan Pages in the place you comment on posts. And there are some hashtags on Twitter some political some just vile.

Here is an example from Twitter Account HerschelSquirts:

My #ass needs a #drink! #cum #piss #creampie #gay #poz #pissboy #goldenshower #tcot #p2 #gregwhoward #happyeaster #christ #dildo #vibe #aids

You want to have your advertisement for your product inserted right after or before this stuff?

BTW #p2 and #tcot are two hashtags for political progressives and conservatives. Which is how I found this post since I have a to be left unnamed Twitter account that I comment on world events and world politics!

Bias and Why to be Wary of It

I am going to use two links here for reference:

Interview with a VC partner at Sequoia Capital, the second dis a long You Tube Ad for the Chevy Volt.

Sequoia Capital partner Mark Kvamme

Did You Know Video

It's ok for a Brand to try to convince us into buying or trying something. I champion Brands and if I can help them figure out how to get an action from someone I will, but I will always do it ethically.

During the 2008 election cycle I got many surveys from both the DNC and RNC asking my opinions. So many questions were biased and didn't give you the proper choices, they actually corralled you into what they wanted to hear. Same with Research of all sorts. Often Brand R&D efforts are skewed to trumpeting success because the folks doing development naturally are biased towards success. If this wasn't true why do so many product launches fail? And anytime there is an economic incentive for someone to hype, promote etc they will because their livelihood depends on it. You normally want to please the person paying you. Remember all those Dot.com's and Sub-prime Mortgages that went bust, while the promoters and ones selling the hype made money knowing ahead of time they would be screwing people? Or the ratings agencies afraid to rate bonds as junk because they were afraid of losing business since the bond issuers paid for the rating?

The Chevy Volt spot is specially an example of skewed facts. It is easy to cherry pick and not give the full story. Some of the facts make you say DUH! India because of the massive population the 25% with the highest IQ's are more in quantity than the US population. That does not mean their 25% is more intelligent or has higher IQ's than say our top 25%. Or the number of jobs someone will have between 18 and 34. They don't qualify this with the 'because this generation got shafted, the worker-employer fabric having been destroyed over the last 25 years, and the crash in the economy keeping this group underemployed for years to come'. My point is bad facts, very poor qualification of the facts so why use them?

Next I just want to SHRED Mark Kvamme. Sequoia Capital made a killing during the dot.com boom. In fact many companies they backed and then cashed out of after the IPO left investors decimated. While VC's have a very important part to play in our economy you need to remember they only care about 1 thing only, and that is a return on their Equity Investment. They care nothing about the workers or investors beyond when they cash out. So never listen to a VC when it comes to talking about areas of business they invest in because they are inherently biased towards hype and promotion. If Facebook goes IPO at less than a $14 billion valuation all the investors lose millions if not billions of on paper equity value. They are going to do everything to hype Social Media as the end all. So he is going to hype all Social Media and Brands needs to cut through this BS to know Social Media has it's place but it will never replace traditional Advertising.

While Facebook keeps a clean site Twitter is a scary place. You might be placing Ads next to tweets from Racists, Nazi's, Haters, Preachers, screaming Satanists acting like Preachers, angry people wanting to kill Liberals and angry people wanting to kill Conservatives (ask for the hashtags!). And I do believe Facebook will go the way of Myspace and Friendster in the next 5 years so the day they have their IPO I am personally shorting the stock.

I could write a book on instances of bias but hammered it enough! So don't believe the hype in anything and always remember everyone has a bias. It's just human nature versus some evil plan. Beware of it.

Most Social Media is NOT About Conversations

I really do not know where this B.S. comes from. I have been using social media for a few years now. I started with Friendster, which led to Tribe, Myspace, Tagged, Facebook, and Twitter. The only Social Media that has Conversation potential is blogs.

I firmly believe a conversation is a 2 way interaction, discussion, exchange vs one way. And I think Brands and Agencies are listening to the hype from Social Networks and their Employees, Investors, Gurus, and Journalists who cover the industry and who have a monetary interest in the term Conversation.

For example:

Conversation - John and I spent 10 minutes last night at the bar discussing some new music we have heard.

Not a Conversation - John called me and said he will be by at 8pm to pick me up to go to the bar.

Blogs enable the first. Twitter and Facebook only enable the second.

Most social networks have short bursts or threads about a topic where people post to the topic, but often none of these posts even when put together are a conversation, but definitely for individuals they are not. This is due to technology limitations and formatting. The closest technology I have seen so far to real conversations would be Google Wave. But often it is the sheer volume of comments, spouts, posts in social media streams that make coming back to something so hard. Victim of its own success.

So a Brand can see what people are saying, get commentary feedback etc. But if I say I have an issue with Coke, and Coke engages me to talk, but instead of me others each put in one comment or even two, while Coke keeps responding all Coke has is a list of comments vs a real exchange/discussion.

Blogs allow this. There are some very successful Blogs like the or Huffington Post and Musings of a VC in NYC (link is to your left). If you look at the comments there is semi-conversation. A true 2-Way exchange.

But the rest it's not 'What people are talking about', it's actually 'What people are posting or commenting about'. HUGE difference. I rarely have more than 1 or 2 exchanges with people in the topic streams in Facebook and Twitter. Re-tweets are not Conversations. Having 300 comments to a Wall Post by 285 Individuals who have read none of the other comments is not a Conversation. Value to a brand? Yes! But not a conversation.

So in effect Social Media is about connecting and sharing comments, posts, subjects, content, but not about any sort of real discussions. It's ok to have the goal of getting people to post, comment, share commentary about your Brand or Product. That is healthy stuff. Especially if there is something you are promoting. Think of how much money you can save if you do this right. But be careful. You could be left scrambling if your message, offer, promotion doesn't travel.

Social Media Spout

There is this view about Social Media that I feel is completely unfounded. That is this great big place to advertise and can replace everything else we do. I think Brands are being suckered with the hype. And maybe feeling since it is cheap, if done right it will cut costs. I also think they over value listening, and undervalue making great freaking products or services.

The fact is Social Media is very clunky. It is mostly one way. And even when you can have conversations they are VERY brief. Such as commenting on Facebook posts. Or the occasion someone replies back on Twitter. The word 'conversation' in Social Media is a misnomer. In no way is Social Media having conversations like we have on the phone, email, or live.

So when someone says it is about Conversations, I say What Conversations? You can not converse in any easy manner. People are so fleeting, they pop on make a comment and they are gone. Imagine having a real conversation with 300 sentences between two people. Now instead it is 300 people each giving one sentence and often not seeing any other part of the conversation!

Social Media is really a loose network of people, most of one's network are not close personal friends, but it does allow communication. Viral just means I post something that someone else says 'Hey that is cool let me pass it on' and so on. BUT since I only read/view 10% or less of the Tweets or Facebook posts due to the massive volume, just because you have 500 people in your network does not mean your reaching 500 people! In fact your lucky if you reach 100 of them. I still send direct emails to friends for things they need to see.

Listening is great. You can get a vibe. But you can't use listening to fix your problems. If your product sucks, it sucks. Do you need Social Media to figure that out? If your Sales Group isn't freaking at lack of Sales, or your Customer Service isn't freaking about 'problems' with the product before you find out via Social Media, you have an Organization problem!

If you can't drive people to your website, will a fan page really change things? Especially considering the huge limitations a fan page has vs. your website. And when only 10% of your fans will even see any posts or updates is your Social Media 'guru' telling you the truth or fibbing. There is a difference between having 1 million fans yet only having 50,000 visit your fan page each week or month. Which is the Social Media 'guru' telling you?

With Facebook exploiting all your content shamelessly and Snake Oil Hypsters like Pete Cashmore claiming the end to Privacy (so wrong), there is major opportunities for competition in this market.

Before you think I am a Social Media hater let me tell the good things:

I have found Twitter invaluable for Professional Networking and sharing of ideas. I have found Facebook as a nice site to communicate with friends but since I have so many it is not keeping me in touch or up to date with everyone, its very random actually. Kind of alike a Wheel of Fortune. Whoever posted to the Live Feed prior to my logging in and made the first page (I always have 300+ updates waiting) I see and react too. I never go to page 2. So I can't wait for a better technology to come out which is why I have hedged posting more photos since I don't want to have to upload everything else where.

I have been able to use Twitter and Facebook to observe how Brands are using Social Media, the good, the bad and the ugly. The successful ones always have something exciting like give aways or free content. Nabisco is giving away cookies for example. The unsuccessful ones such as Zappo's who have 1.5 million followers on Twitter but never talk about the brand, products, or specials. The last tweet I saw was pimping the CEO's Book! What a waste.

And I have been observing media. Media/News/Content is interesting. If I like a website I book mark it. I regularly go to these sites and read content. So seeing a Twitter feed every time a new article gets posted, or a post to a Fan Page in my Live Stream on Facebook for a site I already go to is kind of spamming me. Give me something different and new.

The one success I do see is 'Causes'. Social Media has been great to rally people for causes and NGO's. But not all wholesome. There are some hashtags on Twitter than even make me blush. People spouting hate, racism, etc. I hope Brands realize this prior to sending Ads into the Tweet Stream.

I also have seen some great give aways virally promoted via social media. Quizno's gave away 250,000 sandwiches last year. But you had to go to their website and sign in with an email. Often many music companies and acts offer free downloads for giving your email to them outside of the social network.

Lastly I know some companies actually have created private Social Media formatted websites to interact with focus groups and volunteers to discuss opinions and ideas in a very organized way. General Mills does this incredibly. So the technology is great I just think it isn't being used properly and that many companies are just lazy. They should be creating networks on Ning or proprietary platforms and inviting people.

Twitter to announce Ad Platform + Bad News for their VC Backers

Supposedly today (or soon) Twitter is going to announce how they will start doing advertising. I am very curious what they think. I felt a sure fire one is Ads on the static web site outside the live feed. I also am curious about the different platforms. I am not sure if tweet deck etc are owned or part of twitter. Which means they then have no choice but to insert ads into the live feed.

That all being said if they insert ads to be clicked through (since they still have the 140 character issue with no graphics) I am curious what the click through rate will be. Obviously unless you click through I can't see a 140 characters being very valuable for an advertisers.

On top of that is this report from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Link

Which means number of accounts mean nothing and number of unique visitors (last month it reached 70 million) mean nothing. If I was advertising I want to know how many people log in once per day because that is the only chance for your ad to be seen. I do say chance. I am an active Tweeter on 4 accounts. I use Tweet Deck. But I also only see maybe 15-20% of the Tweets if that each day. Why? Because I am not watching the feed all the time. There are times during the day that I am. Everything else I never see. But this is no different than almost every other Advertising Medium. You pay for a chance to be seen. The trick for Brands is to value that chance properly and not over pay.

So if an active tweeter is tweeting say 4x per day(very low estimate). Then you need to establish how many like me are on multiple accounts (my case 4)....there probably is only like 5-10 million people on the site using it per day. Which is a lot less impressive and makes Twitter more of a niche. So my feeling is a well placed campaign if Twitter can send an Ad the moment someone logs or Posts a Tweet can reach a few million people. But the Log In or 'Tweet' moment is truly the only moments that can guarantee it is viewed. After that it is a crap shoot. So that 'moment' does have high value.

As for Twitter using Behavioral Targeting based on what a Tweeter tweets I think that actually will not work. If someone uses my post key words to Advertise I will guarantee most will be a misfire. Today I mentioned Toyota several times but I am not in a market for a car, and my Tweets were about the recall. Do I want an Ad from Toyota or competitor? If I state I had a Roast Beef Sandwich for lunch does an Ad from the Chicken Industry have much value? Especially the 140 character limitation. We shall see. Don't forget when firms bid on key words this serves them and not the consumer. It actually will eliminate best choice in favor of who paid the most.

That all being said Twitter has a good side and a bad side. The Good side is like Charlie Rose there are a lot of very intelligent and successful people who use Twitter to network and share ideas. So these are High Value Targets for advertising. There are also a lot of great causes that have tweet streams like Help Haiti.

The Bad side is if you look at some of the hash tags there are some that contain nothing but vile tweets. I was appalled at some of them that attack Progressives and Obama as Nazi's, Terrorists, Marxists, Racism, Death Threats etc. There are plenty of Progressive tags attacking Glenn Beck and such, though Progressives seem to be a bit more passive and less vulgar when you view their Tweets. But does a Brand or Advertiser want to randomly show up in these streams? This has been You Tube's Achilles heal.