digital trends Archive

Sky News was in the news itself on January 7th for mandating that its journalist install and use Tweetdeck for newsgathering purposes. The application is widely used by bloggers and journalists already to stay on top of social media but this is a rare instance of making Tweetdeck usage the formal policy of a news organization and does make sense. How many other news bureaus or communications agencies are doing this?

The reason for doing this is simple: news breaks via social media more and more frequently. Just this week, for example, director of Liverpool Football Club, resigned because of a ridiculous and abusive reply email he sent to a fan. The story was originally a blurb in the ‘sports rumor’ category but then gathered enough steam and attention to make it to virtually every UK front page and forcing the resignation.

Another story that gained momentum with far reaching implications is the Facebook ‘Bra Color’ viral debacle. No one knows the origin of the Facebook idea that encourages women to post their bra color to somehow raise breast cancer awareness. Yet, this prompted many prominent bloggers to bring attention to the phenomenon and question its worth, and furthermore justly questioning the line between marketing and the pink ribbon campaign/real charity/real contributions to breast cancer awareness. As the dominos keep falling, the spotlight shifted to questioning participation of certain companies in promoting or tying their products to Breast Cancer Awareness month/campaign. So it starts with an anonymous campaign and ends up bringing companies like BMW and Eli Lilly into an unwanted spotlight.

Is there a better reason to mandate Social Media monitoring?

A continuation on the predictions/educated guesses (see Part I)

• Burst of the free content bubble: Free content and access has been a bubble that is bursting as we speak.  More content will go behind walls with a resulting loss of web traffic.  This may not be a long-term solution, but because of the current competition between Google and Microsoft, content providers can access a revenue stream that makes sense for their brand and quality of content and does not solely depend on traffic figures.  Google vs. Microsoft war makes it possible for publishers to maneuver between the two and actually make money. Be ready for more protected content.

• True user centricity: User experience, more than ever, is about speed and user engagement.  Users expect immediate access even on a mobile platform.  Google’s blog recently had an interesting write-up on how important speed is to user experience; even minor slowdowns cause very high page abandonment.  Everything on a page will be sacrificed for speed.Prompts for immediate user input on the huge platforms (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Seesmic, etc…) have trained users to expect a similar experience across the web.  ‘What do you want?’ What are you doing?’ are the immediate and central questions.  Even brochure- like corporate sites will have to change their strategy to prioritize for these expectations.  Prompts of what users want will become central in favor of featured content and animation.
  Immediacy and engagement will be key to web experience more than ever.

We shall see what happens in 2010, see you then!

2010 should be an interesting year for developments in the digital and social media space because it has matured rapidly.  Realistic expectations are set.  The 3-digit Twitter growth rates are gone.  Social Media cannot overthrow entrenched repressive governments.  The hype has lessened, and we are farther along in understanding the role of digital and SM.

So here are some educated guesses/predictions for the upcoming year.  Please voice your feedback or add your own.

• Commoditization of services: Loyalty towards providers/publishers will erode for convenience.  The huge success of products like Seesmic (which allow you to use Facebook, Twitter, etc… from one dashboard) account for large amounts of activity and this is likely to grow.  So is it about Twitter or is it about status updates? Is it about Facebook or staying in touch with your network?  Is it about the actual iPhone or the apps?There are so many services and so much pressure to open the gates in order to stay competitive that it is the commodity services that work across platforms like Seesmic, similar dashboards, and app providers that will grow rapidly as a result.
  
  The service will become more important than the provider.

• Exclusive deals, not acquisitions: This goes back to an earlier post about the ‘Cold War’ between Microsoft and Google, and is rooted in content/service providers being able to play Google and Microsoft against one another.  Much like during the actual Cold War when various countries could go back and forth in their loyalties in order to get the best benefits and aid, in a similar way, publishers can forge relationships knowing they have options between the two.Because such conflicts are long-term, the publishers (e.g.. Yelp, Twitter, etc…) know they have time and are in no rush to sell off their complete sovereignty and would rather sign short term access deals to show revenue potential (precisely as Twitter has done recently). So therefore do not expect huge acquisitions.

Stay tuned for Part II…

I’ve been recently writing more and more about the topic of ‘search’ just because it seems to be getting more complex, influential, and interesting by the day.  The latest big development is the potential shutting out of News Corp. content (Rupert Murdock) from Google with only exclusive access to Microsoft’s Bing.  This would eventually raise the possibility of Reuters and AP doing the same thing as was hinted by Mark Cuban and become a battle for ‘news’ content.

What must be realized is that this is becoming bigger than ‘search’ and bigger than revenue drivers.  This is not about Bing and Google Search.   This seems like a long-term competition between two giants battling for position as the preferred technology brand for consumers.  Both will use their core business to expand into other areas and it is important to analyze events and success outside of the ‘revenue’ lens.

This is now truly resembling beginnings of a technological Cold War.  Much like in any long-term conflict, it is important view events with the big picture in mind.  This is now a conflict of pre-emptive moves, territorial encroachments, tricky alliances, posturing, and battles for the ‘hearts and minds’ of consumers.

Let’s analyze the situation through the 3 ‘Cold War’ points mentioned above:

Encroachment
Google: Just announced its own browser based operating system, its office suite has been around for a while now, as well as its own browser.   All areas that have been very important to Microsoft.

Microsoft: Bing is its major search initiative and encroachment into Google’s core area of expertise

Alliances
The potential news content (News Corp., and perhaps AP, Reuters) being available through Bing only is an interesting, yet tricky proposition.  What is a definite outcome of such a deal is a huge loss of traffic for any property that excludes Google.  According to Compete, Google holds 73% of the search market share.  Excluding that traffic would obviously lead to lower page views and that is still the main monetization model of news sites.  It would be interesting to see how much Microsoft is willing to offer news publishers to offset that.

This ‘blockade’ of Google can backfire quite easily because many news providers use AP and Reuters content such as The New York Times.  So it seems that the content would still be accessible, just from a different destination.

Time will better judge this potential alliance/blockade but the initial thinking about its financial success is skeptical in terms of revenue, yet it may not be about that.  This may be a step to deny Google their stated goal of indexing all of the world’s information.

Similarly, speculation of who will acquire Twitter in 2010 is something to watch (no matter what is currently said) and again this will not be about revenue generation much like Google’s purchase of YouTube. Twitter and YouTube’s monetization is far from proven as has been seen.  So these are all big picture, defensive in nature moves and are not necessarily about revenue generation.

It seems that these are just skirmishes for what is ahead, and that is the battle for the ‘Hearts and Minds’ of consumers to become their preferred technology brand.

Although it seems that Google has an advantage because its product development model lets it release a multitude of diverse products that live in the ‘cloud’ (Gmail, Wave, Voice, Maps, Profile, Docs, Calendar, Reader, etc…), the flaw may be precisely in the way how these products are developed – by individual teams that seem to have difficulties integrating their products together.  Few of the products come together in any meaningful away and Google will have to overcome that challenge.

Microsoft’s has the track record in creating integrated user experiences across various services, yet its challenge will remain in moving and monetizing their services and products in the ‘cloud.’

Much like during the Cold War when U.S. and U.S.S.R. battled over distant developing countries, achievements in space, and weapons races, similarly this technology conflict will take both companies into new places. Both will venture far and wide across many aspects of technology,  so watch out mobile, music, GPS, telecoms, display ads, video, RFID, etc… This will be interesting, drawn out, high stakes, difficult to analyze, yet interesting.

Google’s announcements over past several months have gotten me to think very differently of where SEO could be headed. I am thinking of 3 announcements in particular

1. The ‘Search Wiki’ results page where users can rearrange the results they are getting – true personalized results

2. Integration with Twitter search which will deliver more real-time Twitter content into the search results page

3. ‘Social Search’ which puts content from your personal network into the search results page

This is all disrupting one of the primary tenants of SEO: the relatively stable search results page that is arranged by an algorithm that ranks results on their relevancy to the search query.

However, these new products are really shifting the control of the search results page to the user, their personal preferences, live results, and content from their social networks. For SEO purposes, we may not even know what the search results page looks like from user to user. These are additional levels of complexity that simply cannot be overcome by “content optimization” and “link building.”

Even though adoption of these features still needs to increase, SEO specialists will need to expand their worldview and join the other types of marketers that are all converging on Social Media whether they are advertisers, PR, SEO, direct response, and other types of specialists.

[Also published on Social Media Today]

Social Media “frenzies” are over-analyzed as they are happening but are then inadequately remembered after they pass, making their true impact hard to understand.  For example, I would really like to know what was the true impact of the so-called “Motrin Moms” incident?  Did it affect sales, reputation, favorability?

The Skittles experiment in March was hugely effective in generating buzz and traffic but what effect did that truly have and was it sustainable? In these cases it really is just conjecture.  Sales and other brand metrics are not readily available as they are just products within larger organizations, and after initial interest wanes these “social media frenzies” are somewhat forgotten and do not get re-examined.  As this practice area develops, I do believe that Social Media professionals should develop a habit of re-examining these examples as case studies in order to better understand their impact.

One recent example that is interesting to re-examine with having the benefit of time is the Domino’s social media scandal from March 2009 (initially discussed here).  The fact that it is a public company and the top level brand at the company makes it easier to go back and understand the impact of that crisis.  This was actually a frequent discussion point on the company earning’s conference call for that quarter (transcript at Seeking Alpha).  Apparently, the company will not suffer long-term losses, but did suffer sales 1%-2% in that quarter (WSJ article).  So it seems that the damage was pretty heavy, yet limited since that truly was the worst case scenario of a social media crisis.  Domino’s will obviously survive this.

I am not questioning the importance of social media to today’s business. I’m simply suggesting that we should remember to re-examine these events long after they take place as that will give us a clearer understanding about their the long-term significance.

Public relations pros often come into contact with sensitive information, be it a draft press release on a public acquisition, the launch plans for the season’s hottest tech gadget, or the contents of an internal blog. How can PR companies keep this information private in Web 2.0?

As the Wall Street Journal recently explored, this can be especially vexing for layoff announcements in a world of blogs, citing a Yahoo case where “its instructions to managers conducting layoffs — ‘15 minutes maximum,’ ‘don’t engage in small talk’ — were published by the blog Valleywag.com.”

Sites like Overheard in the Office offer an anonymous outlet for harmless (usually) office gossip, but how should companies prepare for the eventuality of a leak that could lead to legal action?

It can be somewhat of a paradox. Building trust with employees and fostering open lines of communication are strong tools for developing a relationship where those with access to sensitive information will honor its sensitivity. Some employees just won’t have that capacity – particularly those who are on their way out or know they will be soon.

So, another approach might be to limit employee access to private information to reduce the possibility of leaks a priori. However, this disintigrates trust, and can lead to cumbersome bureaucracy, censorship, and spying.

Some advocate for companies to act completely openly, as if there is no filter between their email screen and the front page of Gawker. From the PR perspective, this translates as “there is no such thing as off-the-record.”

To complicate matters – in PR, sometimes we walk a fine line of “leaking” information by soft-sounding reporters. It can be appropriate to build a reporter’s interest in a story by sharing some enticing details of a story without providing client identifiers.

And sometimes PR pros purposely and openly “leak” information in the form of an embargoed press release. But as we’ve seen recently, the practice of ignoring embargoes has been catching on, as TechCrunch recently announced they will ignore embargoes and WSJ partially adopted a no embargoes policy.

Have you ever leaked sensitive information?

Maybe don’t answer that on this blog.

It was interesting recently to see the President getting down to Social Media basics and conducting a blogger conference call.  The President is currently in a situation that any organization/executive can understand.  He is trying to build awareness/grassroots support for a tough issue (Healthcare reform) and respond to damaging messages being spread by opponents.

This conference call had all the classic elements: poor sound quality, audible  typing into the microphone, and long blocks of hard-to-follow dialogue.  However, overall the effect of galvanizing support and getting the message across to the influentials worked: it resulted in on-message coverage from all the bloggers.  Granted, this is the actual President of the United States speaking to bloggers so they are likely to pay attention; nevertheless, there are important lessons here.  This was a high level executive making time to actually speak to bloggers and make relationships.  Not many CEOs do that.  The element of research was also present as these were progressive/liberal leaning bloggers that would almost certainly be receptive to the President’s message.  This research element of understanding a blogger position before outreach cannot be underestimated.   Bloggers are the new journalists and need to be treated accordingly. It is nice to see these basic tactics being practiced by President Obama.

See sample coverage and listen to the call here

Swine flu has taken a stranglehold on the news this week with Google News producing almost 42,000 news stories Wednesday compared to about 800 on the American economy taking a Q1 nosedive:

Google News: Swine Flu vs The Recession

This juxtaposition of swine flu news and recession news highlights three digital trends that are affecting how businesses communicate. The three biggest similarities between them from a digital communications perspective are:

1. Speed
2. Credibility
3. Language

Speed

Both swine flu and the recession have been reported on instantly and broadly, and businesses and governments have been expected to respond quickly in both cases. This has put pressure on spokespeople and executives to deliver extremely sensitive messages quickly and accurately. For both swine flu and the recession, mistakes and conflicts due to poor timing could lead to the cause of financial ruin or even literally death.

Credibility

The explosion of social media outlets has empowered anyone (or thing) with a connection to the Internet to spread news. Motives are often questionable and uncontrolled. But when controlling a pandemic or a stock market, it is imperative for health and financial experts to rise above the fray. The cacophony of voices in social media makes this difficult to do, but perhaps the advent of “semi-social media” (think Mahalo, Alltop) will give experts the visibility the public at large deserves.

Language

Another similarity between the two crises is that both have suffered from unfortunate nomenclature. Terms like “swine flu,” “toxic assets,” and “crisis” can lead to misinterpretation. For example several tweets on #swineflu caution against eating pork products, however, that is not how the flu is spread.

What lessons has your business learned from these events?

[also posted on SocialMediaToday.com]

There are too many “life” recording devices, information sharing platforms, and people to control for an organization or corporation. What happened to Domino’s with “rogue” personnel posting content of inappropriate and damaging activity is not too different from what lead to the exposure of Abu Ghraib abuse in 2004. The point is that these incidents are likely to happen as they reflect not only deeper underlying issues such as mismanagement and organizational practices, but now more than ever actions of individuals can have a huge impact. These incidents also tend to skew in a negative direction as it is much more likely that something shocking and inappropriate will get more attention than potential positive stories.

It is necessary for any organization to accept that a similar incident may happen to them at any time. It is impossible to have 100% satisfaction from all company stakeholder groups and focusing on draconian prevention practices will not likely work. These incidents again show that it is necessary to cultivate a positive social media presence not just to drive revenue and other goals but as a risk management tactic in case of crisis. Preparing a tiered social media crisis plan should be on the agenda of most companies and only serve as another reason to develop a social strategy.