social media
One Month Later: Google+ Treads Water
by jtrauring | August 3, 2011 | Leave Comment
As advertisers continue to flock to Facebook, many are wondering if Google+ has the makings of a solid competitor to the world’s top social networking site. Whether Google+ will become a successful social media service with a dedicated user base remains to be seen. However, in the one month since its launch one thing has become apparent: this is no Facebook killer. Here’s why.
Engagement Overload
You’re on Facebook. Probably a majority of the people you know are on Facebook. The site has over 750 million users, many of whom check the site constantly. LinkedIn continues to gain influence. Not to mention Twitter, Tumblr, FourSquare and countless other social platforms that integrate these big hitters into their sharing options (Xbox LIVE, for example). How many people do you think are eager to manage yet another online profile? Especially when everyone that’s on Google+ is already on Facebook. Eventually, social media saturation is reached and choices must be made.
In addition, participation within these networks generally involves posting detailed personal information: birth date, email, phone number, political views, location, etc. At what point will users shy away from giving this information to yet another corporation?
You’re Already Hooked
Business blogger and fellow skeptic Mark Schafer points out on his blog {grow} that, “…Facebook may be entrenched as the king of social networking sites for a long time because the emotional and psychological cost of switching to something else is too high.”
Exactly. Those that check in and update their Facebook profile regularly have built up tremendous loyalty to the service, whether they realize it or not. It’s not uncommon for today’s college students and recent grads to have over 1,000 friends on Facebook. Many have dozens of photo albums. Starting over would be no simple task. On the flip side, the older generation is still cautiously dipping its toes in the Facebook waters. To many of them, Google+ remains foreign altogether. Consider this invitation to Google+ I posted recently:
My Facebook friend is not exactly an early adopter. Now we expect Grandpa to begin using Circles and Sparks?
Social Segmentation
Speaking of Circles, this feature is a key differentiator. Essentially it takes one’s “friends list” a step further, allowing the user to segregate contacts into specific groups, then interact with each group as they please. It’s a feature that many have requested of Facebook as friend lists have evolved to include more coworkers and family members. And certainly having more control over one’s message is a positive thing. But it also has potential drawbacks, like requiring more effort to manage, the potential for user mistakes and the knowledge that you could be in someone’s circle titled “Jerks I Ignore”. (One does not have the ability to see what others have named their circles, or who is in them.)
No Third-Party Support
At least, not yet. Facebook embraced third-party development, which brought a new level of interactivity and innovation to the site. Farmville and Mafia Wars are just two hugely popular examples of what third-party support can bring.
From Math to Social Science
Can a company that knows algorithms and search technology also strike gold with social networking? It’s the same question many asked at the launch of Google Wave (and what a debacle that turned out to be!)
Paul Adams is a former Google employee that joined Facebook shortly before the launch of Google+. He recently felt the need to clarify a few things about his departure from Google, and described his frustrations this way: “Google is an engineering company, and as a researcher or designer, it’s very difficult to have your voice heard at a strategic level. Ultimately I felt that although my research formed a cornerstone of the Google social strategy, and I had correctly predicted how other products in the market would play out, I wasn’t being listened to when it came to executing that strategy. My peers listened intently, but persuading the leadership was a losing battle. Google values technology, not social science.” [emphasis added]
On the Plus Side
Still, despite a plethora of obstacles, it’s foolish to count Google out entirely over the long term. The company is flush with cash, employs many brilliant minds, and is already one of the world’s best-known brands. Millions of people use the company’s variety of products such as Gmail, YouTube, Picasa, Maps and of course the search engine itself.
Google+ does have some very good things going for it, too. “Hangouts” are video web chats that allow up to ten participants at once. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, one can edit their posts after publishing. And simply by not being Facebook, a certain segment will be eager to give it a try.
Google execs are referring to Google+ as a “project,” not a product. Eventually it will be open to everyone, not just those who have received an invitation. Currently the network does not support advertising, although we can expect that to change at some point. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, Facebook doesn’t have much reason to be worried.
When the most common type of message is only 160 characters, yours better be good.
by jschneck | June 7, 2011 | Leave Comment
Conventional wisdom suggests that getting one’s message out is easier than ever. Anyone can create a Twitter account, for example. But sending a message and actually getting through to the target audience are two different things. When it comes to effective message distribution, companies face several hurdles— including lack of interest, distrust of subjective information sources, competition from other messages, and numerous distractions (Internet browsing, smart phone games, text messaging, etc.). The compacting of message length is a profound issue for practitioners of PR and their clients. A study by Erik Bucy and Maria Elizabeth Grabe, published by the Journal of Communication, showed that the average sound bite for a presidential candidate on the nightly network news is about 7.8 seconds.
If you’re a corporate spokesperson trying to explain a nuanced rationale for a company action that’s under fire, your time slot isn’t much bigger. Moreover, we live in a world where the most common type of message – the text message – is 160 characters. (For why this is so, see here). And while a corporate message isn’t likely to be sent primarily via SMS, the point is that attention spans are getting shorter, not longer, and messagers need to act accordingly. By the way, Twitter also uses the 160 character format, but automatically reserves 20 for the messenger address, so one is left with 140 characters for this potent form of social media.
I realize I’ve already exceeded my allotted 160 characters, but I hope I’m making the case that message quality has never been more critical. So, let’s consider what goes into a good message:
Your message should speak to your audience. It needs to address the issues or values they care about. Too many messages are “inside-out” – they communicate the worldview of the organization looking out at the world instead of reflecting the audience’s perspective. When BP’s former chief executive said, in light of a catastrophic oil spill, that he’d like to get his life back, it made sense from his point of view, but obviously not to the audience he was hoping to address.
Your message should offer a distinct solution or perspective. Too many messages emphasize points that are not special. The law firm that knows business. The printing company that cares about quality. The auto dealer that offers the best deal. These points are really a requirement of doing business. They’re the ticket to the dance, so to speak. Snow Communications developed a campaign for Hormel Foods Specialty Products Division to speak to the many corporate customers that sell Hormel’s food products under their own private labels. Our message, “Brand Spoken Here” speaks to Hormel’s customers’ needs and offers a capability that Hormel can uniquely offer in this space. (See http://www.snowcommunications.com/services/advertising/.)
Your message should be simple and clear. “Death tax” is a powerful way to characterize an estate tax that primarily taxes people with substantial assets. “Vouchercare” is an equally effective way to characterize the Republican approach to limiting future Medicare costs. Subway’s “Eat Fresh” redefined the fast food market along lines that heavily favor Subway.
In summary, keep your messages short, clear and considerate of the audience’s perspective if you want to make an impact.
Public Relationships: There is no subsitute
by ktanghe | April 28, 2011 | Leave Comment
The other day I met the owner of a small technology start-up at a local fundraiser. As we were exchanging pleasantries and small talk, I told him that I worked in public relations and he asked me if I thought social media was replacing traditional media relations, and if I thought that reporters were becoming less influential. I do get asked this from time to time and my answer is always the same. I read something recently that sums up my feelings:
“The trend we need to see emerge for the industry is the understanding within the broader profession and the business community that public relations is not communication – PR is about identifying, developing and maintaining mutually-beneficial relationships between an organization and its stakeholders. A public relationship is the end goal; communication is merely the means to the end. “
(Stephanie McFarland, APR)
In essence, one form of communication should not be judged against another as my new friend suggested, but merely analyzed and considered in terms of what is most relevant for a company or organization in order to help them build their public relationships. The value of print media is no less critical today than it was ten years ago. Even though newspaper circulations across the country are declining, niche, community and trade publications that serve a unique audience are showing sustainability and growth. Besides, if you look at what people are posting on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, chances are you will see some news article links to all kinds of traditional media.
When we view things from an “either/or” perspective in the PR world, we limit our potential for success. The best recipe for achieving valuable public relationships is usually a creative mix of programs and activities that will best serve your overall marketing objectives.