Today I wanted to share an observation about a common mistake PR and marketing professionals make when focusing efforts in social media. In essence, most companies don\u2019t focus on growing opt-in at the source for their digital communities. Instead they end up spending more time in other people\u2019s platforms.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve always known this anecdotally\u00a0from experience working with clients, but a\u00a0recent report\u00a0from SmartBrief shows some data behind it.<\/p>\n
What do you see that is wrong with this graph?<\/p>\n
If your company is focusing efforts on Twitter and Facebook as the main hubs of your social presence, you\u2019re (with some exceptions) doing it wrong. \u00a0Twitter and Facebook (i.e. \u2013 networks where you do not control the signal to noise ratio) should, for a majority of brands, not be your main focus. Rather, they should function as outposts to grow opt-in for a social platform you control \u2013 with that being the focus.<\/p>\n
I understand the reasons for this. Twitter and Facebook are popular in particular\u00a0because they are easy<\/em>. It\u2019s easy to update a Facebook page with frequency and engage with users there. It\u2019s easy to share great links in Twitter that get ReTweeted and leverage it as a CRM tool. Even easier to set them up. But easy is not necessarily better unless it leads to outcomes. There are reasons that more robust platforms like blogging are less focused on. It\u2019s a blank slate and requires creativity, critical thinking and planning. On the flip,\u00a0there are many reasons\u00a0why this is more valuable.<\/p>\n What do I mean by opt-in at the source?<\/strong><\/p>\n the source as depicted in The Matrix Revolutions (2003)<\/em><\/p>\n You need to grow a community through a social technology that lets users opt-in directly to content (i.e. \u2013 through a tool such as RSS or email, where content is getting pushed to them in a way they won\u2019t miss it). I would argue RSS and email \u2014 while not as \u201csexy\u201d \u2014 are still better than Twitter or Facebook as a method of distribution. Twitter and Facebook (and even LinkedIn) are not opt-in at the source as they are configured as real-time streams. They are\u00a0designed<\/em>\u00a0for you to miss things and focus on just what\u2019s new, now.<\/p>\n Followers\/likes vs. RSS subscribers<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s a\u00a0great thread\u00a0on GigaOM discussing the subject of \u00a0Twitter followers vs. RSS subscribers and lists some key reasons RSS (a method of opt-in at the source) is a far higher quality metric \u2013 the top 5 are listed below:<\/p>\n 1. Lack of context.<\/strong>\u00a0Finding value in a character-restricted tweet is a lot harder to do than a dynamic and expandable RSS item. As a result, it\u2019s a lot easier to tell a story and make a lasting impression via RSS than Twitter.<\/p>\n 2. You don\u2019t have to work for it.<\/strong>\u00a0It takes more effort to subscribe to an RSS feed than to follow someone on Twitter (i.e., choosing your reader, selecting the right feed, and so on, compared with simply clicking on \u201cfollow\u201d). Consequently, subscribers have a greater vested interest in what\u2019s being broadcast than who they are following.<\/p>\n 3. Spam.<\/strong>\u00a0Ashton Kutcher may have been the first to record 1 million Twitter followers, but only the Fail Whale knows how many were legitimately interested in his affairs. Twitter is combating the problem, but there\u2019s no such thing as spam subscribers.<\/p>\n 4. Deficient continuity.<\/strong>\u00a0Unlike RSS, unread tweets or status updates \u201cdrop off the stream\u201d \u2014 that is they are not stored and labeled for a follower\u2019s later use. An RSS reader, on the other hand, keeps everything tidy in reverse chronological order, so subscribers don\u2019t miss a thing (unless they want to).<\/p>\n 5. More noise.\u00a0<\/strong>Twitter\u2019s open API is great. But it comes at a price. Because third-party platforms are allowed to tweet on a user\u2019s behalf, readers have to filter an increasing number of tweets they may have not originally signed up for. RSS, on the other hand, comes directly from the source.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why should you care?<\/strong><\/p>\n As Anil Dash pointed out \u2013\u00a0no one has a million Twitter followers. Further, it is absurd to totally yield your presence to the stream. As\u00a0Leo Laporte noted:<\/p>\n \u2026.It makes me feel like everything I\u2019ve posted over the past four years on Twitter, Jaiku, Friendfeed, Plurk, Pownce, and, yes, Google Buzz, has been an immense waste of time. I was shouting into a vast echo chamber where no one could hear me because they were too busy shouting themselves.<\/em><\/p>\n Thank God the content I deem most important, my Internet and broadcast radio shows, still stand. I believe in what I\u2019m doing there, and have been very fortunate to have found an audience. I\u2019m pretty sure I would have heard from people if there had been 16 days of dead silence there. Hell, if we miss one show I get hundreds of emails. But I feel like I\u2019ve woken up to a bad social media dream in terms of the content I\u2019ve put in others\u2019 hands. It\u2019s been lost, and apparently no one was even paying attention to it in the first place.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The problem with a focus on any sites that places a premium on real-time is your messages are always competing for attention with so much else. In Facebook and Twitter brands are competing for attention amongst user\u2019s friends, business contacts, other brands and pure media players. It\u2019s a cacophony and in my mind not a\u00a0true<\/em>\u00a0community in the sense that it isn\u2019t a unique place developed\u00a0for<\/em>\u00a0people to go and have a social experience that\u00a0feels\u00a0<\/em>special and specific for that group.<\/p>\n Other people\u2019s platforms \u2013 for suckers, or should be the focus?<\/strong><\/p>\n Some say\u00a0platforms are for suckers:<\/p>\n \u2026you shouldn\u2019t build a company on top of another platform \u2014 no control, no assurances, no input, your fate is in their hands, it\u2019s limiting, and so on \u2014 you should make it possible for others to build on top of you.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Others make\u00a0the case for other people\u2019s platforms\u00a0(O.P.P.)<\/p>\n In the case of\u00a0Twitter<\/strong>, they enable a communications platform. This instantly gives you reach and distribution than is easily trackable, as well as low friction to get things done.<\/p>\n In the case of\u00a0Foursquare<\/strong>, they enable a location platform. This instantly gives you context of places, intent, and activity for users.<\/p>\n In the case of\u00a0Facebook<\/strong>, they enable a social platform. Getting connected to a social graph where people spend their time uploading photos, connecting with friends, and spending a lot of time online you are presented with a great platform to introduce entertainment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Granted the above is being talked about in a product context. But it\u2019s not really so different when we are talking about building a community behind a brand. In both cases, it must be sustainable and allow the flexibility necessary to accomplish your objectives. At the end of the day \u2013 if you have business objectives to accomplish on the web (and not merely chase KPIs like following on Twitter, impressions on Facebook, etc.) you need a destination where you control the experience. In cases you do not have this, you\u2019re put into a situation you are having to calculate value through fuzzy logic. Case in point:\u00a0Vitrue\u2019s Facebook Fan calculator. It is just not a measurement any marketer versed in analytics (let alone the C-suite) is going to\u00a0take seriously.<\/p>\n You\u00a0might<\/em>\u00a0be unique if\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n If you\u2019re a large consumer brand where the whole world knows you and you\u2019re basically\u00a0being reactive\u00a0online \u2013 go ahead and focus energies on larger networks like Facebook. That\u2019s where existing fans are already. That\u2019s a reason why I was able to grow\u00a06 figure Facebook fan pages\u00a0quickly for popular brands that actually did yield pretty good outcomes. But at the end of the day \u2013 that brand is still interested in getting those fans from social channels to opt-in at the source of their marketing messages (in the case of the brand linked, they ultimately want users to subscribe to an email list they have a tight process around and can tag business results to).<\/p>\n Even if you are a large brand other people\u2019s platforms still make sense to live within a larger digital workflow.\u00a0Ultimately though, for large or small brands what community should your\u00a0focus<\/em>\u00a0be? It all depends on objective \u2013 but for B2B companies in particular, you\u2019d be insane to do something like give up a website\/blog where you have total control of the experience (and can tweak to make a high-conversion destination). As an example, for Marketo, one of the\u00a0fastest growing\u00a0SaaS companies\u00a0ever<\/em>\u00a0(and\u00a0former\u00a0client while at TopRank) \u2013\u00a0their blog\u00a0(which has around 10K subscribers) is their\u00a0single most effective\u00a0marketing tactic.<\/p>\n What have you seen?<\/strong><\/p>\n The takeaway from this is consider your focus carefully and design a flow that supports it to achieve a tangible objective. Facebook and Twitter are wonderful platforms to help grow a community and very valuable outposts. Tactically you should be using them in a way that supports your larger social media strategy. Hopefully that\u2019s one that encourages opt-in at the source.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today I wanted to share an observation about a common mistake PR and marketing professionals make when focusing efforts in … <\/p>\n