Social Media = Convos, Not Monologues

So, every once in a while, I get into these great discussions on LinkedIn (my business social network site) and it always gets me thinking on how much social media is misused in the business sphere. Yesterday (Tuesday) I replied to a post where someone was asking if joining a bunch of social networking sites was effective. And the original poster (OP) cited a friend of their's who joined like 10 - 15 sites, posted content daily and upgraded their page rank to the 2nd page. That's awesome right? No not really, and here's how I explained my reasoning:

That's not an effective use of time nor does it mean that your social campaign is truly effective. Yes, he gained rank, but that doesn't mean that people really know who he or his company is and what they do, and why they should want to use his company. I'm a social marketer, and I wouldn't recommend that someone use more than two or three social sites. For example, I have a FB, Twitter and LinkedIn account. My FB is linked to my Twitter so I'm not racing back and forth between the two. Everytime I make a tweet, it automatically goes to my FB page.

Yes, being active on a social site will increase your Google rankings, but I was able to push my rank to dominating page 1 (as well as doing that for some of my clients) without going on every social page. The reality is that social pages shouldn't be dominating your time - otherwise when are you getting real work done? And, how can you really have "conversations" with people if you're on every site known to man? That's the whole point of businesses using social media - to put a face to the company/to connect directly with consumers. If you're on all the social sites, then you're spending two or three hours doing mundane updates and not focusing on the response rates to your posts.

Plus, there's also the issue that not every social site will really address your demographic. For example, if you're marketing to people in the older half of Gen Y, why are you on Myspace? Myspace has essentially become the teenage playground (and young teens at that 13 - 15 year olds). So, I think your friend did a shot in the dark. It was effective in that it increased his Google page rank, but he probably could have gotten similar & more meaningful results with a bit less effort and more targeting.

And then I got a private inMail from a group member who read my response and asked specifically why they weren't receiving results for some of their social media campaigns for their company. They were posting to quite a few different networks, knew that it probably wasn't the best use of their time/efforts, but wasn't sure how to approach management with their feelings. So, I said: 

Hi [name withheld for privacy!],

It's about frequency & conversation, not just the total placements. Besides the fact that posting all over the place is just exhausting, you're not giving yourself the chance to see what the response rates are to your content/updates. One thing I noticed when I first started on Twitter (long before I jumped on the FB craze) was that the people who seemed to have the most followers & the most influence (when you hubspot someone's name) were the people who seemed to be "regulars" on Twitter. Maybe they posted about work things, but then they also posted nice random posts about just whatever they're doing. And most importantly, they replied to other people's posts. That's a conversation - rather than just posting content which comes across as a one way monologue.

Social media is supposed to humanize a brand - so if a company is just doing shot in the dark approaches by posting to too many services at once, it's disorienting to consumers and also makes them feel like the company is somewhat of a fraud. That you don't really want to connect with them, but just have an online presence (sort of a "me too" effect). It's a fine line with social media, and that's also a reason why I don't recommend that people post to more than 2 or 3 sites. If you spread yourself too thin, it shows and in turn makes it harder to connect with your consumer base. Of course, you can also link your services together to save time (much like I linked my Twitter to my FB account) but that still isn't an excuse to join too many sites at once.

Keep in mind page rank means nothing other than the Google/search engine crawler came across your name or meta tags that much more often than your competitors - it doesn't mean that consumers are actually searching you. Conversations will get you high ranks & more importantly, consumer recognition. Otherwise, you run the risk like the guy in the OP's post. Yes, he got page rank, but he got page 2 even after being on all those sites, and yet he still doesn't know whether or not consumers know who he is. And in the end, that's the point of social media, to get others to sing your praises and recommend you or relay your info to others without you having to pay for an expensive campaign.

Let your bosses know that a huge roster of social pages doesn't equal an effective campaign. :)

The Difference Between SPAM & Junk Mail...

So as you know, I used to work in the field of direct marketing - a niche of the marketing industry where living in grey areas is pretty much the norm. Direct marketing is the field where the general public doesn't know what you really do for a living, but once they do, you probably get as much grief as lawyers and IRS employees do at a dinner party. Incidentally, if you don't know, direct marketing is the use of physical or virtual mail, signage & advertising to promote commercial products and/or services to the general public. You know all those obnoxious flyers you get in the mail or "would you like to refinance your mortgage" emails you receive? Yup...those are all forms of direct marketing.

Anyway, my point in posting today wasn't to defend the direct marketing industry, but to bring up a huge point that seems to be a major disconnect between the general public and the marketing industry - specifically those in the direct marketing sub-niche. There is a HUGE difference between SPAM and junk - the two are NOT synonymous.

So, why the rant? Ok here goes: I practically live on LinkedIn - a social networking tool entirely for business professionals. There are no trivial posts here about "walked my dog today". This is entirely people just posting and connecting to increase their network and hopefully strike a few business deals & acquire clients in the process. Much like Facebook, they have targeted groups where you can connect with a specific set of people who supposedly share common interests with you. But lately, there seem to be a lot of people on LinkedIn who can't tell the difference between true SPAM and just a junk post that isn't relevant to them.

So, let's define what SPAM truly is. SPAM is any unwanted email sent to you by a party who you have no connection to and did not request communication from them. And before you say "but I didn't want that email for home refinance"...slow down. See, there's a huge grey area when it comes to marketing over the topic of 3rd party acquisitions of consumer contact info. The marketing agency sending you those (yes I'll say it) obnoxious emails about refinancing your home didn't just randomly find your info. They bought it and not from some unscrupulous dealer who you've never heard of - but from social network sites, dating sites and even ESPs (Email Service Providers). Don't believe me? Mosey on down to the privacy policy of any website and 9 times out of 10 there's some verbiage saying "we reserve the right to share your information with only our trusted partners". "Trusted partners" is a white wash term for "the highest bidder". So, technically, when you join FaceBook, JDate, etc. etc...you're unknowingly opting in to be contacted by these companies' "trusted partners". Sucks doesn't it?

So by default, those messages aren't spam but junk mail. Why? Because it's not relevant to you but it's not technically unsolicited. To bring this back to LinkedIn...recently, there have been a number of business people who complain when someone in a group makes a post that simply outlines what they do because people feel it sounds too "pitchy" rather than being a "deep meaningful discussion". Suddenly, the poster is accused of "SPAMming" the group. This grates on my nerves because in this scenario too, this is not SPAM. If you join a networking group for the express purpose of connecting with others to either increase your network, find new clients or broker new partnerships, why are you complaining when someone introduces themselves & their business?? By joining a group who's express purpose is to network, you're advocating anyone to pitch themselves. By these people's standards (regarding the complainers) anytime ANYONE makes a post that isn't relative to even just one person, it would fall under the title of SPAM. Put into perspective, how ridiculous does that sound?!

Now, I can understand when people post obvious junk messages about gaining 20,000 twitter/myspace followers in 5 hours or even posting multiple posts of the same topic within one group. That's pretty junky, and the average business is neither interested in or believes in claims like that because the ROI (return on investment) is pretty low if not non-existent. But to berate people for posting introductions about themselves & pitching their business seems entirely counter intuitive for a site like LinkedIn which is supposed to be for business professionals anyway. Is it really that hard to ignore the message and/or delete it? Apparently so...

But that's just my opinion! ^_^