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.

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.

Determining the Real Value of Media

This is the most controversial and inflammatory issue in media. Its the reason I rail against the Facebook or Twitter numbers. And TV numbers. And Digital. Its the reason I question and challenge all measurement data that is 'Estimated'. And most media measurement is an estimation and thus imperfect. And even hard facts are spun with that spin when it benefits a specific party.

I recently got into an email fight with Fortune Magazine because the Journalism side of Advertising and Media often are not critical thinkers. This time it was because I wanted them to not just regurgitate Facebook's claim of 500million users, and put in some caveats so someone reading can determine the real value of this claim.

http://marketing-sensei.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-metrics-i-would-want-from-facebook.html

Now I need to adjust those numbers. If I use 500 million vs 200 million the numbers become awful:

On Facebook users Like something less than 2x per month. They upload 3 photos per month. And post a comment or update their status once every 5 days! You call that a website you want to engage people on????

I have posted examples of this stuff in my blog, specifically recently for MobileMarketer.com

http://marketing-sensei.blogspot.com/2010/05/yes-it-is-freaking-roi-damn-it.html

The whole reason is to determine the real value of something. Brands will pay gladly if they know they can reach someone. Trust me they would rather the Nielsen TV ratings be real than Estimated. It benefits the media outlets when audience size is overstated because marketers pay per person. Brands want bigger reach, its not that they are hoping to save money if the accurate number is lower. But too often media outlets overstate.

In the Facebook case I would tell a client there is 80mil US Consumers logging into Facebook each day. For Twitter there is only 5 to 10 mil logging in each day. Those are facts. I would tell them that any account that isn't logged in today is worthless and don't pay for any 'reach' that is worthless. And where is the marketing being done. Anything being inserted into the Twitter or Facebook live stream will only be seen by 5-20% of the users who stream it enters. This is determined by number of accounts one is following and time spent. Last night I was watching a movie. In 2 hours I missed 850 Tweets on Twitter. Any of those tweets that were meant for marketing...I did not see them. But the Social Marketing person will tell their Boss they have 8000 followers and that is how many that saw it?

My point is everything has a value. It's always one party's benefit during negotiations to inflate or deflate the value of something. And Advertising is the one industry where everything is a Guesstimate. And Agencies and Media Channels both want to increase their billings and while the Brands/Clients want to pay for what is real and not pay for fake numbers. 2 against 1 is why up to 50% if Ad Spend is wasted.

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

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.

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.

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!

Reality is Very Important

I know much of Advertising is Hype. Everything is elastic. Commercials take liberties with products and brands to prey on your emotions for good or bad. Best example is Multi-Vitamins. I take one everyday. Yet there have been countless studies showing no benefit.

I don't believe Facebook and Twitter's numbers. They are hollow. We all see tons of inactive accounts. Yet it seems both sites claim all user accounts are active each month. That's like me saying I feel great every day even when I don't. They benefit financially if they numbers are believed. I have a Finance Degree. I can work the numbers and I know they fib. Whatever. I can careless what they say as long as my clients and future investors know the truth.

So Twitter has 70 million accounts and only 50 million tweets per day. Facebook has 400 million accounts yet only 60 million updates per day. I know many people who update their status multiple times per day. Nowhere does either site state how many people are on the site per day!

The closest Facebook shows is time spent of 55 minutes per day. But we all know many of us are signed in all day long while only spending 10-20 minutes on the site. This evasiveness benefits the VC's and the Companies. It creates hype and belief in the product in hopes of going IPO. Once the IPO happens they won't care anymore unless they lose paper/equity/money when that event happens (very likely).

Now I see article after article and tweets galore that Apple has sold out of the first run of I Pads. But not one article has a number of units. Only one article gave an estimate of 500,000. If that is true its a home run of sorts for $250 mil gross. But don't forget they are sold online and through retail outlets so Apples take is much less than that. And I will bet the R&D investment was more than that. But definitely a good start. But what if it was just 100,000 units? That's only $50 mil in sales gross. Not as impressive. Actually a potential bomb. But if Apple get's people believing the highest number possible, they will invigorate the App Ecosystem to create Apps for the product. And Apple really needs to have 3-5 million units out there to have a big enough ecosystem for App Developers to have hopes of making good money.

So my point is real numbers are important. Reality is important. And beware when you read or hear anything that doesn't have concrete details.

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.

Thoughts on Social Media and Being Viral

Confucius ponders:

If a Viral Video is Viewed 1 million times but 20% of the viewers watch it more than once, or several times...how many people viewed it?

If 100,000 people tweet negative sentiment about a brand or product, but it is only viewed by 10% of their followers, how many people viewed it?

What is the true population number for an activity where brands need to react? 1 million is only 1 in 310. or 0.31% of the population.

A viral video viewed by 500k unique viewers is only seen by 0.16% of the US Population. Is that really viral?

Clutter Clutter Clutter and Lemmings.....

I have railed against clutter in the Advertising-Media Industry in the past. That more advertising isn't the solution. If the estimates of 50% of Ad Spend is wasted, spending more isn't a solution it is spending better. I have noticed over the years that every time a new medium emerges that enables advertising, the ad spend follows...in massive quantities. And that brings clutter. Clutter clouds out your message. People are bombarded with too much, while their ability to consumer and process advertising remains the same.

I use the term Lemmings to describe the rush into new media areas by everyone from so called 'experts' who claim to know stuff that is new even before enough time has passed to have an expert (like Social Media or Mobile Marketing today being still in their infancy), to the techies and VC who see money in building platforms, and the agencies who tell their clients they will lead them to the promised land...but only if they spend more money.

Recently I have done two crude studies on mobile marketing and social media using email as my reference point. And the studies were based on figuring out when the clutter emerges. When will people either start opting out or just deleting without paying attention or responding to the ads. We all have a myriad of news, causes, and businesses that we signed up for email from. Now we get so many that we get more opted-in spam mail than we get real mail from friends, family etc. I recently had to close a very old hotmail account I used for personal use since 1996 or so because it got corrupted on the hotmail server. So I am migrating to my gmail account. I am slowly noting as I add opted in requests for emails from businesses etc how many I am just deleting immediately upon signing in.

When someone tells me that Mobile or Social Media is the answer for Brands to reach consumers I ask very simple questions....don't these businesses already have massive email databases? Do they not know who is a customer and who is not? With everyone having websites why do they need a fan page when they have a fully enabled and interactive website? And why are Social or Mobile different?

I am in Mobile Marketing as a business, and I do honest objective consulting. Read my blog I do not coddle anyone. I do praise when something is done right, with class and value to the consumer. I have a collegiate mobile marketing service that refuses to save any students phone numbers, sell them to anyone else, or contact them later for future offers. My service requires the students actively participate for each campaign so that it is fresh to them each time. I reach the students directly in person with Brand Ambassadors who gives them something directly with the call to action. I can prove ROI through every step of the process.

How long will it be before all these Mobile Loyalty Campaigns become a negative return, where you are paying to host the campaign and send out the texts and get very little in return? Not because they aren't interested in your product or service, but because they are getting 10, 20, 50 texts per day because over time they kept opting in to future push advertising?

As for social media I use Tweet Deck for Twitter. It allows me to use 4 accounts at once which has increased my viewership of tweets from about 8% to now 10%. So only 9 of 10 Tweets do I never see now. And in my busiest account I have only 140 accounts I follow. I see people with hundreds even thousands! Try getting your advertising through that mess. As for Facebook I hate the interface but love the technology. I also hate the Management for being exploiters and abusers of the one thing that keeps them in business...their account base. When I log in there is always 300+ news feed updates and I only scroll through the first page of 25. So you can imagine what I am not seeing. So what if a Brand has 400,000 fans if only 2,000 are seeing any messages from the fan page?

Clutter Clutter Clutter.

One note for the benefit of the Brands on Social Media, though your social media agency and employees will hate me for this. Do you really know what is going on or are you being snowed? I know someone who does social media for a non-profit, and they get pitiful numbers of emails opened. When the report is sent to show how things are going, they brag about number of people on the email list, and number of emails sent...the open rate is omitted. When your told you have all these fans and followers do you really know the effectiveness? You really can't measure this. It is all guesstimating.

And guesstimating is ok. Most of Advertising ROI is based on it. It's honesty that is important.

Paid Tweeters and how I feel decieved

I am not going to mention any specific people since I do not know the whole story yet. But there is someone in the Advertising/Marketing world with a website and lots of followers on Twitter. I agreed with the FCC's ruling that paid Tweeters somehow must announce they are being paid (this goes for Bloggers too), for the most part I always assumed this was just for products. Like Paris Hilton being paid to state she is buying a Brand of Nail Polish, to separate the 'real life' from the 'paid to respresent' Tweets.

Yesterday while reading an article from a very well known business publication, it seems someone I follow on Twitter, whom I just figured was either sharing, building their own business, or being social. My hunch is that some Tweeters are now paid per Tweet to drive traffic to specific websites. And this can come across as innocent especially when the subject matter seems beneficial, funny, informative etc. And when the article said that while Kim Khardasian someone I would never follow or care about is paid $10k per Tweet (talk about throwing money away on a G Lister) this person gets $900 per Tweet!

So in fairness I have asked this person to explain because I wish to know what they are being paid to promote. Is it all the Tweets? Is it specific ones? I don't want to see the paid Tweets unless they are clearly marketed as Advertising-Promotional so I can decide whether to read, click through any links etc. This isn't to say I won't click through to links. I mean if there is value being shared sure thing. But I do not like deception and currently I have 'Followers Remorse' since I have re-tweeted some of the persons Tweets.

Now to be fair when a Brand or a Website or any Business Entity has a Twitter or Facebook account the people who are managing it obviously are being paid, but we all know they are being paid to promote a product and are on the payroll. But when it is an individual the lines blur. If this specific person makes money when I click through to their website and read content I am very OK with that as long as I can connect the dots. It is very important trust not be broken between Brands, Businesses, and Consumers because it is very hard to win back that trust.

Social Media Update

Sorry my laptop fried and I was unable to post for a while. Since my last post I have read a lot of articles written on Social Media that truly make my jaw drop in terms of ridiculousness. I read from the founder of Mashable that everyone will be living lives without privacy by our own choice where everything we do everyday is seen by everyone. I almost died laughing at someone who made the Huffington Post's Top 10 Game Changers! Well sorry dude your not a game changer when you have no clue. If we all wanted this Facebook Beacon would of been a smashing success. If we all wanted this we would not keep our profiles set to private. 18-24 year olds wouldn't be leaving Facebook because they are being friended by their parents and grand parents!

Then I read that Media Companies will have no Advertising Business for Black Friday and that Brands will be using only Social Media to Advertise. Well I was pretty mad because after laughing so hard at Mashable I sure didn't need something to make my gut hurt so hard I need to be sent to the ER. An example given was a Twitter Account named CheapTweets which posts 800 deals per hour on it's Twitter Account. So I checked it out. Well the fact is to showcase deals and a web link in 140 characters is impossible. It basically forces one to blindly click on link after link after link to see if the deals are worthwhile. And to sift through 800 per hour I could read War and Peace before getting through just 2 hours worth of deals. And considering that CheapTweets had to reach me from OUTSIDE of social media just to be known, and that if I followed them I would have 800 spam tweets showing up per hour clouding out anything my friends post or anyone else worthwhile I would probably un-follow within 10 minutes. So no this view is not only wrong it is hysterically amusing.

Lastly is the lack of reach for social media. I will use Twitter and Facebook as my examples. Anyone who uses these networks knows that attentions are fragmented, most live news feeds and Tweet Streams go unviewed because of the massive amount of posts. Normally when I log onto Facebook I have over 300 updates I have not seen so I read the first 25 from my 259 friends and 60 Fan pages I connect too! On Twitter I average about 75 to 100 unseen and I read the first 20, and I only follow 59 accounts. Now the numbers. Since only 1 in 3 Facebook Accounts is actively logged into once per month, that means either 2 of 3 are frauds created by Social Media Companies that sell Friends and Fans by the 1,000's I estimate only 1 in 6 Americans are on Facebook at least once per month. And since we all chat and talk with friends foremost an amazing engagement campaign can hope to reach maybe a million or two people which is nice but not world beating.

I will end with these observances and state I love Social Media as technology for us all to connect. We should be paying for it directly. Facebook would have 7 billion in sales this year if they could get each account to pony up $2 per month (and eliminate all fraudulaent accounts possibly). But the Guru's and the Networks all self promoting to make a buck are completely biased in the face of logic and Brands should be aware of this. Use Social media to accent your marketing efforts. But don't think it will replace the traditional forms of marketing that have worked to varying degrees for so many years. Remember all marketing channels are valuable, the challenge is how to measure and price them so that you get proper value for the money you spend.

And to all you Social Media Companies, Advocates, Guru's, Journalists you really should stick to highlighting how Social Media affects our lifestyles, the great technology being developed, and stop focusing on the Advertising Side of things. Apple has made a killing selling technology that changes our lives and not by selling advertising. So again sell the technology instead of this Ad Revenue Model. Apple should be role model number 1!

Behavorial Targeting, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

This post is aimed at Google, Facebook, Twitter, and all Ad Serving Networks.

My previous post discussed my search for a new laptop. One that will cost me between $650 and $900. So not a small sale. It is worth the various brands and retail outlets to observe me researching specifications and pricing. The specs I seek are for across the brands in terms of the hardware, so they are an equalizing factor. Since I seek to buy in the next 6 weeks the real impetus will be the best deal. I have a few models picked out that I am willing to buy and seek the best price, warranty, and any deals like free virus protection etc. I do have concerns about pre-loaded software. I want minimal. My Compaq that I bought in May 2008 came with too much stuff. Like MS Works..deleted. MS Office trial...deleted. MS Internet Explorer...deleted.

I want to take the BT from various view points. The retailers, Staples, Best Buy, Walmart, and Apple all observe me crawling around their websites. The Ad serving networks that have access to my surfing also could possibly see that I went to these sites (unsure if they see on the sites themselves). And if I post any information about my search on Twitter or Facebook, they have access to knowing I am searching. And of course Google owns this Blogging site!

What I want. I want the retailer to send me a pop up saying if I buy within the next 60 mins I get something. Free accessory. $50 off. Free shipping. Etc. And really that is it.

The retailers. Should want what I want. Try to make the sale right there immediately while I have items in my cart to look at pricing.

Those two are great benefits to BT.

Now the Ad Serving networks, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. It is in their best interest to offer Ads to be served by the Brands themselves to me in hopes of swaying me one way or another. But to do this they would have to serve me Ads at some point, somewhere. Obviously a retail site will bar this. Obviously if I have Firefox with Ad Blocker I won't see them anyway. But I am a very high value prospect. Meaning they could auction or sell Ads served to me to the brands at a high price. Now while I might be fine with 1 or 2 ads popping up, I would flip out if I was slammed because of BT. And that is the danger of BT.

Brands obviously want every single time someone is looking for such a big ticket item to be able to contact you. But if they all do, again I am slammed and upset.

Now get to the value of BT. Who gets the value? That depends. Will BT of Ad Serving help me find the best product at the best price? Or will the Ads bought by the highest bidder cloud out a best solution for me? If I can't see all my options then BT fails me.

And of course the only way to see best option is to work at it. To search via Bing or Google. Read all the Ads and Circulars. Visit stores. Ask friends. And make phone calls. In this case my work (and information found online) will pay off 80% of the effort to find best product/price. And Advertising will actually help since that is how the 'deals' reach me.

Twitter and Facebook just hit with body blow

Article from Ad Week

I have written plenty about Facebook and Twitter being over hyped. Not the technology, just the business model of using social media behavioral targeting for advertising. I think they are stellar technology companies and should be charging for the service just like a Skype or Google Voice or an I Phone App.

Report from Social Science Research Network

This report adds power to TV/Cable who at least can prove their demographics that watch each show. People are ok being semi-targeted but if you start using social media conversations to serve ads your running into privacy concerns. Think Bush's NSA eavesdropping on peoples phone calls. Remember we got rid of a king in 1776. We don't want one back. Remember McCarthyism and how we rebelled against that. Advertisers for some reason feel they have the right to invade people's lives no matter where they are and this view is wrong. When it is done in classy, unintrusive, or at least transparent ways people do find value in discovering new products, being given discounts or free schwag, and staying current with pop culture.

But advertising done wrong is offensive. So the idea from Twitter about people who Tweet having their location exposed to businesses seeking to reach them scares consumers. It is why Beacon from Facebook was such a disaster. It is also why SEO is so successful. That is classy BT! Your looking for something online and Google or Bing serves up possible vendors but not by being in your face. It is why Social Media is great for listening at what is being said and participating in conversations because that is seen as Altruistic vs throwing branding in their face. Think that every time someone Tweets the word Coke that every beverage maker in the US wants to send an Ad to that person saying try my drink that is not Coke. Or here is a coupon. Can you imagine the volume you would get? And if Twitter limits the Ad Serve to the highest bidder that doesn't serve the consumer because it isn't presenting all the choices.

Point of Sale will always reign King, Queen, Jack and Ace when it comes to decision making and presenting options and enticements. Not mobile or online BT.

Social Media Listening

Social Media ‘listening’ should be a part of every company’s strategy to get feedback and learn how to improve their products and services. And to offer a quick and easy web presence folks can address you at. And this is all FREE! It also provides easy ways to conduct conversations with your customers in a non-sterile comfortable manner. people are much more likely to let their honesty hang out than if they were in person at a focus group. People inherently don't like offending other people even if it means telling the truth, when the other person is right there in front of them.

BUT Social Media is not a viable advertising platform because people find the networks private, kind of like walking into someone’s home so they don’t want to be intruded on. How you feel walking down the street chatting with your friend and every time you mention a word that relates to a product an Ad gets pumped in your face? That is what Facebook dreams of.

So as much behavioral information a Facebook or Twitter has at their finger tips, people do not wants Ad’s cluttering their conversations, and the high level of clutter makes it really hard for a Brand or Business to even get their information read. Much better channels for advertising than social media as it exists today.