Get Personal for Social Success

I have noted, yet rarely read at length those studies from Web consultants and market research firms about the value of a Facebook fan or Twitter follower.

Sure, we are often asked by clients about a number they should aspire to in their social media activities.  I have answered with the intentionally vague response that it is important to attract just enough followers, fans or blog readers to be credible with your most important audiences.

Last week this Email arrived in my Inbox that has me thinking it's time to wrap clarity around the "how many" question.  If this nonsensical missive passed through my spam filter, I assume it has found its way to corporate marketing executives as well.

I think I can help you dramatically increase your Facebook fans.  Please take a moment to look at this page going over our process for increasing Facebook fans and let me know what you think:
[LINK REMOVED]

FYI, we also have a Twitter followers service that is $29.  Feel free to shoot me an email or give me a call so that I can answer any questions you may have about our Facebook or Twitter packages.  

Thank you,
Jessica Tran
Vice President, ViralSO
Social Media Division

Rather than defining a quantity number, I believe that in a business-to-business or public sector environment it's more important to focus on quality and depth of relationship.

Here are the three questions we typically ask when evaluating a social community we have built for a client:

1.  How can this person positively (or negatively) impact the business?  (i.e. customer, prospect, partner, employee or shareholder)

2.  Do we understand what this person expects of us? (i.e. best practices, a dialogue, some type of action, etc.)

3.  If we called or sent an Email to this person would they respond? 

Social media allows for scalability in the relationship building process which makes it a high value channel for sales and marketing professionals.

Yet, the foundation of success in social is the relationship.  And that is something that ultimately needs to be invested in on a personal level.

The Down Side of Reader Engagement

My post last Friday entitled "Grace Under Fire" has generated quite a response, representing both the good and the potential negative of social participation.

First the good.  I've seen a near 20 percent jump in daily readership of the blog during the past three days, as well as an increase in a number of subscribers.  Plus, I am scoring a healthy 2.7 page views per visitor which indicates many of these new readers are trolling around a bit reading previous posts.

A positive in terms of overall awareness and thought leadership.

Moreover, I've had a couple of long-standing relationships and prospects message me directly with words of encouragement.  Here are a few examples:

--Grace under fire is a brilliant post. Well done you!!!!

--You did the right thing. Well done. When one client leaves, a better one will walk in the door especially for a fantastic team like yours.

Another check in the plus column for relationship building.

So...what's the negative? 

In speaking with a prospect today about the possibility of funding for a social media marketing pilot program, he asked to revisit the issue of budget and compensation for our firm.  Here is a rough paraphrase of the conversation: 

He says:  I'm thinking you might want to cut your rates by 20 percent to make sure you get this assignment.  From what I understand, you are hungry for business at the moment.

I reply:  Where did you hear that?

His response:  I read your blog.

Grace Under Fire

After a bit of affectionate chit-chat at the start of lunch the conversation veered for the worse.

"This is a difficult thing for me to do," their corporate communications lead explained.  "We've made the decision to consolidate our business and, unfortunately, there won't be a place for you moving forward."

And just like that after a wonderfully fulfilling four year relationship one of our largest clients fired us.

It's a bitter reality of professional services.  Regardless of how well you perform, the results you deliver and the ROI produced, you get whacked for things often outside of your control. 

In this case, a relatively new CEO concluded that consolidation of their representation will produce a better outcome.  It's understandable and may indeed be successful.

Yet, the sting is there and, admittedly, there is a temptation to confront the client's decision head on.

That's never a wise play as an emotional reaction to being let go is unproductive.  I've done that twice in my 16 years running Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) and the outcome was the same -- it effectively severed the relationship.

We subscribe to the "grace under fire" methodology which includes:

1.  Be thankful for the opportunity to have been part of the team.

2.  Be supportive of the transition to ensure the client continues to be positioned for success.

3.  Be sure to stay connected with the executives you've worked with and identify ways to bring value to the relationship.

4.  Be thoughtful in your analysis of the client engagement to identify lessons learned.

Getting fired hurts because we invest so much in the success of our client engagements.  However, as my mom always told me growing up, "Always leave people smiling."

NY Times Takes a Bold Step Towards Paid Digital Content

Two years ago I argued that it was imperative for Web 2.0 and content companies to create multiple channels of revenue to build and maintain a sustainable, growth-oriented business.

My perspective was directed at fast-growth players like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter that have relied primarily on advertising revenue to fuel the top-line.  However, it is the New York Times -- a company with a 150 year history -- that has moved aggressively to carve out a myriad of revenue sources in the digital age.

Here is a copy of the letter I received today from their publisher:

An important announcement from the publisher of The New York Times

Dear New York Times Reader, Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications. This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you are a home delivery subscriber of The New York Times, you will continue to have full and free access to our news, information, opinion and the rest of our rich offerings on your computer, smartphone and tablet. International Herald Tribune subscribers will also receive free access to NYTimes.com. If you are not a home delivery subscriber, you will have free access up to a defined reading limit. If you exceed that limit, you will be asked to become a digital subscriber. This is how it will work, and what it means for you: On NYTimes.com, you can view 20 articles each month at no charge (including slide shows, videos and other features). After 20 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber, with full access to our site. On our smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge. For access to all other sections within the apps, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber. The Times is offering three digital subscription packages that allow you to choose from a variety of devices (computer, smartphone, tablet). More information about these plans is available at nytimes.com/access. Again, all New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and to all content on our apps. If you are a home delivery subscriber, go to homedelivery.nytimes.com to sign up for free access. Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles. The home page at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times. For more information, go to nytimes.com/digitalfaq. Thank you for reading The New York Times, in all its forms. Sincerely, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Publisher, The New York Times Chairman, The New York Times Company

Long Live the Trade Show: Scenes from Satellite 2011

While it is true social media has emerged as a high value and measurable channel to connect with key audiences, its use should be viewed as complement (rather than replacement) to traditional marketing tactics.

I was reminded of this fact when walking the exhibit hall at the Satellite 2011 conference this week.  Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) does a fair amount of work in the satellite technology market, so this was my 12th year at the event.  You run into a lot of familiar faces on the show floor.

I'm always interested in the social participation of top-line executives and so make it a point to ask long-standing relationships where they are engaged online.  My anecdotal findings:  a few are active and participate in multiple communities, most are somewhere and a small group have yet to subscribe to social media of any type.

That's why participation at industry conferences continues to be a must.  It allows you to cover a broader set of the market, and directly connect with prospects, customers and partners.

Intelsat's booth reinforces its market positioning through bold creative, while filling a functional role with an area set aside for sales and partner meetings.

MTN Government Services leverages its relationship with not-for-profits to demonstrate commitment to a cause that's important to its customers.

This exhibitor makes its product the hero.  A wise move for a manufacturer of satellite dishes.

Guys in ties!  Couldn't resist slipping this photo into the post.  My most important audience - my two sons.

Do social media power users carry influence like journalists?

It's a question I address in my column in the Washington Business Journal.

How should public relations and marketing professionals view a person with thousands of Twitter followers?  An extensive network of LinkedIn connections?  Or a well read blog?

Check out my suggested approach and please share if I missed anything.

Why Web 2.0 Influencers Matter

Where Jargon Rules

A chemical engineer in Washington, DC by the name of Marc Silverman acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal that he has no idea what an advertisement plastered to the back of a city bus means.

To him, the acronym "UAV" prominently displayed in the ad is more likely a new treatment for AIDS, rather than a sophisticated weapons system marketed to Department of Defense policy makers and buyers.

UAV, a weapon system.  Photo credit: HowStuffWorks.com

Even long-standing government workers are often perplexed by the jargon liberally sprinkled in public sector advertising.  Allan Burman, a former administrator for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), commented to the Wall Street Journal about one particular ad, "ISR?  I'm not sure on that."

"ISR" stands for "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance" and there is no reason why an OMB worker should know that.  ISR is primarily the domain of intelligence and defense agencies.

Is it a problem that federal government focused systems integrators, contractors and technology vendors produce ads and other forms of communication that are so jargon heavy?

The Washington Business Journal's Jill Aitoro believes so.  In a November 2010 column she pleaded with companies to embrace plain English in their releases and other press materials.  (Disclosure:  I write a column for the Washington Business Journal's FedBizDaily that Jill edits.)

My take is two-fold:

1) It's perfectly appropriate for a company to employ language in its marketing programs that has relevance to its intended audience.  What might be jargon to Silverman, Furman, and (even) Aitoro, is actually quite descriptive to customers, prospects, partners and investors who are engaged in military programs.

2)  Delivery of this message via advertising channels is a savvy play, even though much of the dollar investment is lost on eyeballs that don't matter.  That's because financial strength and viability are essential attributes of companies that serve federal agencies.

The ability to fund an advertising program communicates that a company is in a position of leadership with a solid financial footing.

I once questioned a director of marketing at a global technology client why they invest budget advertising a somewhat vague corporate branding message on CNN.  His answer:  "Because we can...and our competitors can't."