The barriers have been smashed. Start acting like it. (Flickr photo credit: sheeshoo)
Let me share something with you. The biggest difference between those that are finding social media success and those that aren’t is that the latter see traditional barriers where they no longer exist. In the world before social media, barriers were everywhere. They took the form of gatekeepers and rules of conduct that blocked access to those who, at least in part, held the power to change things for us. They were erected by people who could not be bothered, and it was normally only those with an almost absurd amount of drive or the means to pull strings that could shatter them.
Of course you have to work your ass off to be successful in your social media efforts, but hard work alone won’t cut it. Start acting like you’re already there.
- Don’t be afraid to write about subjects you’re still learning. What matters is that you’re adding to the conversation when others are holding back and adding nothing.
- Read what those you admire read. You’ll start understanding how they think, and you’ll be able to engage with them about things you know they find interesting.
- Disagree openly with them when they give you reason to. Understand that 99% of the people trying to get in front of them do so by publicly agreeing with everything they utter, retweeting everything and sucking up in general. Be part of the 1% that tells them the truth when they’re wrong, and you’ll earn their attention and respect.
- Click send. The worst thing you can do is ask yourself, “Who am I kidding?” It’s strange as hell seeing my writing on blogs like Convince and Convert and MarketingProfs, but if I didn’t stop worrying about whether it was really good enough, if I didn’t click send, it wouldn’t have happened at all.
The delta between our aspirations and our reality might be wide, but we have more ways than ever to navigate it. Write about what you want to become known for and it will begin to read like the writing of someone who’s already recognized. Engage with those you admire without worrying about if they’ll pay attention, and eventually they will. The barriers are in your head.
Flickr photo credit: Ela2007
Imagine, if you will, the following scene. Forget for a second that I’m not Catholic.
Me: “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been since…well, I’ve never confessed.”
Priest: “What is it my child?”
Me: “Well, a long time ago, way back in 2008, I doubted the power of…of…I can’t say it.”
Priest: “You’ve come this far. Now tell me.”
Me: “I doubted the power of social media.”
I instantly burst into flames. Fade out.
I wasn’t a true believer from the beginning. True belief tends to freak me out a bit. I saw a lot of people making a lot of money on something they were claiming was the next big thing—and oh, by the way, they can teach you about it for a price. Looking at it that way, I’m not so embarrassed that I wasn’t fully convinced of the power of social.
Gradually, however, I learned to ignore the affiliate-types, the self-proclaimed gurus and the rest of the loudmouths. I focused on the true value of the conversations people were having online. I focused on the access social media afforded, in a completely unprecedented, almost shocking way, to individuals of every stripe. I maintained what I thought was an appropriate amount of realism regarding the effectiveness of social marketing in the form of skepticism. I still do.
But here’s what changed. Until roughly two years ago, I was convinced there were still some business that could not benefit from a well-executed social media strategy. Some companies, I thought, still can’t get anything out of social. I would play a fun little game in my head, wherein I would try to imagine a business that had little to no chance with social, and then I would try to make up a strategy—playing devil’s advocate to myself (I know this sounds entirely schizophrenic). And, until about a year ago, my favorite scenario to ruminate on involved the tack and feed shop near my childhood home. That, boys and girls, was the business for which I would always come up empty. More on this after I acknowledge the inspiration for this post.
Scott Stratten
UnMarketing, by Scott Stratten, is the first official selection of the Bazaarvoice Marketing Book Club, and I’m loving it so far. Chapter 19 deals with localized Twitter marketing, something I’ve had a fair amount of experience with. Stratten conducts a thought exercise, almost eerily similar to mine, to demonstrate how a fictional Toronto pizza place might profit from going social. Here’s a killer example of how he’s able to distill core concepts into tangible steps (and he’s funny, to boot!):
By putting “near: Toronto” beside your keyword, you will see all the tweets from people who listed in their profile location that they are in Toronto. So now the person who tweets “I want pizza” can now be found geographically.
(…)
This isn’t an excuse to start replying to everyone on this list to say “Come use us! We rulez teh universe! LOLZ!” Reply to some people, say something like, “Heya, we could help you out! Let us know, hope you feel better soon!”
Marin Tack and Feed, in Fairfax, CA, was (unfairly) made a victim of this mental exercise again and again because it was a challenge—the challenge, because I couldn’t answer the question people in our business hear on an almost daily basis: “What’s the social media play?” In 2008, I answered the question. Here’s the quick, updated version:
- Twitter searches will be slim pickins’ but you should still set up columns in Tweetdeck for things like:
- “horseback near: ‘fairfax, ca’”
- Ranch* near:”fairfax, ca” within:50km
- “party ideas” near:”fairfax, ca” within:50km
- Encourage your customers to follow you on Twitter, but don’t leave them hanging—make sure that once they do, you start talking with them, helping to promote their content, being a good social media citizen in general. They’ll return the favor.
- Start a blog (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?). You already go to equestrian events, so start blogging about them. The owners are all competitive riders, so they have a depth of expertise that would work perfectly on a blog. Write about horseback riding in general, so that you rank well on Google for terms like “horseback riding Marin”.
- Create a Facebook page, and again, make sure you keep it lively. Post 3rd party content about horseback riding, maintain an event calendar, do whatever it takes to keep it from being a ghost town.
I’m just scratching the surface above, but my point is that I’ve seen the light, so to speak. Most businesses will still fail with social media due to poor planning, lack of measurement, lack of commitment and a host of other reasons. But I no longer believe that there are certain categories, verticals or specialties that can’t find value from well-orchestrated efforts.
What are some of the social media revelations that you’ve had?
What are we really seeing?
I’m not going to explain the scientific method to someone that describes himself as “The Social Media Scientist.” In fact, I have enormous respect for Dan Zarrella and Hubspot, and I know he understands it. So why he writes an article like Twitter Accounts with a Profile Picture Have 10 Times More Followers Than Those Without beats the hell out of me.
Bottom line is, you can’t notice a correlation between two things and then assert one is the cause of the other without eliminating other possibilities.
Here is where he asserts causation: Effect of Profile Picture on Followers [emphasis mine].
Oh, and here, too: “…if you want to get followers on Twitter, it’s a good idea to upload a picture of yourself.”
And here are 5 likely alternative explanations for the correlation Dan noticed.
- Number of tweets. Maybe those without pictures tend to tweet less, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
- Spammy content. Maybe those without pictures tend to tweet spam more often, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
- Age: Maybe those without pictures tend to be newer accounts, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
- Location: Maybe those without pictures tend to live in locations where Twitter use is less common, and it is the latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
- Lack of effort: Maybe those without pictures tend to put less effort into acquiring followers, and it is this latter variable that is causing their lack of followers.
I could go on and on. But that’s where you come in! Extra points for funny hypotheses left in comments.
As I’ve said before, Dan noticed something interesting here just by sharing the correlation he found. That alone was worthy of a blog post and perhaps a larger conversation. I don’t understand why he had to then jump to a conclusion and taint the larger effort. I really don’t. Based on our conversation (click “show conversation” after jump), he doesn’t seem to think there’s a problem with what he did. Cognitive dissonance? Who knows?
Remember, I’m writing this because I’m a fan, and posts like this might help influencers like Dan get better—and by extension, our study of the social media universe can improve. But I won’t say posts like this will do much of anything. That, after all, would be assuming causation 
.
Have you seen the social media underbelly? It’s not too hard to find. Type in one or two of the words that most appall you here and you’re bound to find some shadowy figures tossing them out without reservation. Gangs are now using Twitter and Facebook for recruitment. Talking heads are horrified–horrified!–that teenagers are using Chatroulette for virtual hanky-panky.
photo credit: jonny2love
And what about the spammers? The auto-DM’s from shiny-toothed circuit speakers selling e-books , the incessant requests to become “fans” of boring businesses we’ve never heard of, the phishing scams, the millions of zombie-like broadcast accounts that constantly speak but never listen–what about them?
“Yikes”, says the business owner, “Why on earth would I want to dive into that cesspool?”
“No thanks”, says the pure-intentioned soul, who simply wants to make friends online.
Is the water a bit muddy? Without a doubt. But if all we see is the filth, we miss the bigger picture:
Social media is simply a reflection of our society.
How muddy? ( photo credit: Newsbie Pix)
The same imperfect, complex, corrupt, exciting, beautiful society in which we do business every day. The same one, in fact, inhabited by our dearest friends, crooks, liars and everyone in between.
Sex and violence sells, so the media reports on these dark corners of the social media experience and leave some of us with a bleak, yet entirely inaccurate, understanding of this online world.
Stretching the truth in an entirely different direction, we find the schemers. If they can convince us that social media is a utopia of easy money and happiness to which they hold the key, we are one step closer to attending their pricey feel-good seminars or buying their surefire profit system.
Social media is neither den of iniquity nor Shangri-La.
This is social media. ( photo credit: helenadagmar)
400 million people use Facebook, for an average of an hour per day. To the surprise of many, who we say we are on Facebook is a remarkably accurate portrait. We are fast approaching 50 million tweets per day. These numbers can’t be ignored because they represent people.
The world is using social media. If the world is filled with your prospective customers and friends, you should be, too.
Sorry to get your hopes up. This is not a screed against Klout. I’m not angry at if for ranking me too low, or listing a mortal enemy as one of my influencers (fortunately, neither is the case). Just the opposite, I find that Klout has managed to pull off something remarkable. The list of so-called “twitter-graders” is lousy with failure and lack of imagination. The volume of data created by the actions of the average twitter user is enough to fill a long, boring book. The minds at Klout took these data, decided which should serve as metrics, weighed the various streams and came up with first influence-measuring tool that stands up to the “five friends” test. Pick five of those you most closely follow on Twitter, plug them into Klout, and see whether, for the most part, you agree with what’s served up about each. You probably will. That’s huge.
Klout’s new feature, a way to find, track, and list influencers, is similarly impressive. As can be expected this early after its arrival, it can be hit or miss. The way it locates online leaders by vertical or subject, however, is a powerful step in the right direction. Brian Solis has an accessible exploration of the mechanics behind this “Twitter list engine” over at PR 2.0.
But here’s the thing: Klout and other tools like it do not track the offline influence of online personalities. This has a lot to do with a question as old as science: Correlation or Causation?
Are these people and brands influential because of their new media efforts, or did they already carry influence as they created a new media presence? What about the individual or brand that is highly influential, but has barely begun to leverage their reputation by building a social online presence?
This third type should interest conversation marketers just as much as (if not more than) the other two. Budding efforts are simply easier to engage with. Some will argue that it’s better to target those with large networks and, therefore, extensive reach. But it’s a trade off. Yes, these new media participants have the power to perpetuate your message through their extensive networks. Yet, your voice will be just one of so many vying for their attention.
Offline influencers with a limited new media presence are more likely to see and hear you. As one of the few that find and engage them, your message will be all the more resonant if you approach them in the right way. They are also more likely to reciprocate and to appreciate any help you send their way.
Smart new media marketers get in front of both groups.
Klout and other influence-measuring tools can’t measure offline influence in any meaningful way, and we shouldn’t expect them to. But should we want them to? A complete picture of one’s influence is multidimensional. Such evaluation should require user input and a discussion about concepts that are unapproachable mathematically. To me, this is refreshing. There is still a need for a human touch in evaluating the influence of other humans.
Instagrams
