Exploring Networks: Two Accounts, One Upside Down

When most people look at a social network account, the first thing they notice is numbers. The general assumption is that someone with 10,000 followers is more important than someone with 1,000 followers than someone with 100 followers.

The thought process is so ingrained, some public relations practitioners even subscribe to the idea that bloggers need to have a certain amount of followers before they will work with them. Some social media practitioners claim there is a follower threshold colleagues must reach before becoming experts (as if). And even otherwise bright individuals seem to be locked into their own notions of who ought to rank where and when; the same people who called for others to throw off authority years ago.

Last week, I had an opportunity to look behind the scenes at two social media programs, using Twitter and Facebook. For the purposes of this post, we will call the accounts Program X and Program Y. Both are relatively new, about three months old.

Program X, by the numbers.

Twitter, 201. Facebook, 184. (TwitterGrader, 83. Klout, 32. TweetLevel, 34.)

The account can best be described as moderately active and reasonably responsive, with more than half of its followers seeming to be a logically connected by common interests. It is obviously still in its infancy, doubling in size every few weeks.

Program Y, by the numbers.

Twitter, 2,567. Facebook, 1,539. (TwitterGrader, 98.7. Klout, 36. TweetLevel, 35.)

The account can best be described as more active than average but not always appropriately responsive, with more than half of its followers seeming to be unrelated to any common interest. At a glance, it seems successful, growing in a much more erratic fashion, with brief leaps and long plateaus.

Program X, behind the numbers.

If you shared common interests that the account Tweets about, you might meet other people who have common interests. While small, there seems to be several areas for common ground that all the followers share. And, when the account is mentioned, it responds appropriately and also engages other people about topics you might expect (beyond talking about itself).

When it links to created content, it has an average number of shares. The visitation percentage to the content, however, is much higher (something 'influence' systems do not measure), around 20 percent. Even more telling, as a location-based business, are social check-ins. People seem to check-in with increased frequency, doubling every month since Facebook added the feature. More frequency would probably propel the account forward.

Program Y, behind the numbers.

Even if you shared common interests that the account Tweets about, you might think twice. Assuming you don't look at just numbers, there is almost no common ground between the followers. While the account is also mentioned frequently, some of the mentions seem to ring hollow, almost as if automated accounts are talking to each other.

Likewise, the amount of RTs seems to have no connection to the frequency of tweets, debunking the notion that RTs are necessarily demonstrative of value. In fact, this is probably why there doesn't seem to be any correlation to site visits and network activity. The number of visits to its content site from networks (something 'influence' systems do not measure) is less than .5 percent.

Value Assessment.

While one account seems to be ten times the size, it has roughly the same value, with Program X undermining its own long-term ability unless action is taken now. One of the side effects from an abundance of low-quality followers (spammers, follower chasers, and auto follows) is that the account creates more noise, but that noise is best described as static.

It's also impacting in that the follow rate of new, unsolicited followers is almost 3:1 between the two. In terms of those algorithms, it's even more telling. Twitter Grader falls right in line with the perception and not reality. Klout and TweetLevel overestimate both accounts in terms of what they call "influence." I am not surprised. Both Klout and TweetLevel tend to perform at their weakest toward the lower and higher ends of their scales (lumping most active people in the middle).

There are dozens of accounts that I follow that have much more meaningful engagement but are 'rated' lower by comparison because they are new, less active, or simply have no aspirations to become "popular" on social networks. You know. They are people, with very different uses for Twitter and Facebook than becoming popular.

So where is the real problem between these accounts? My guess is that one is operating on an erred objective — to create a successful social media program (or the perception of one, banking on the idea it will be real one day). There are a few consultants who do this all the time.

Conversely, what the organization would be better off doing is tying its objective to the organization's output/offerings and then communicating that in a creative and meaningful way rather than wish for buzz and awareness. I sometimes wonder what percentage of professionals know the difference. Or their clients for that matter.

Shopping Online: Clicks vs. Bricks Or Something Else?

"Trust, over getting the best price, is most important to consumers when shopping electronic stores and clothing stores," said Craig Elston, senior vice president, Integer. "This is not a surprise considering these channels offer bigger ticket items and consumers are willing to pay more for quality and experience in these channels."

Elston was speaking about a preliminary finding related to an ongoing shopper experience study currently under way by The Integer Group and M/A/R/C Research. Early research shows that shopping experiences, time saving, and trust are outpacing discounts this year. And, according to the study, department stores are scoring higher for convenient last minute gifts.

Conversely, another report conducted by comScore shows that online retailers already have something to smile about. For the holiday season to date, more than $17.5 billion has been spent online, marking a 12 percent increase over last year.

"Without a doubt, free shipping has become a critical driver of e-commerce purchasing, with the majority of consumers indicating that they will abandon their shopping carts if they get to check-out and find that free shipping is not included," said Gian Fulgoni, comScore chairman. "Retailers have increasingly responded to this consumer demand, with market leaders Amazon and Walmart, for example, both offering free shipping on virtually all transactions this season."

Free shipping does more for online retailers than offering a discount. From the consumer's perspective, it levels the playing field, giving the online retailer an advantage in terms of time saving and trust. With the exception of a few items people still hold in their hands before making a purchase, the online shopping option is easier (and sometimes more convenient for returns).

In fact, according to yet another study (StrategyOne's Annual Holiday Shopping Index), while 59 percent of consumers still prefer to do their holiday shopping in stores, the experience is beginning to vary widely among income groups. Fifty-one percent of consumers earning $75,000 or more prefer to gift shop in stores; 63 percent of consumers earning between $25,000 and $40,000 shop in stores.

This doesn't mean department stores and specialty shops are going to have to continue to lose to e-commerce. But it does seem to indicate a need for brick retailers to rethink the shopping experience. When an online shopping cart seems friendlier and most trustworthy than a check-out counter clerk after facing lines of tired bargain hunters, it's time to rethink the strategy.

Researching Sex: Does It Sell Or Smell?

Despite a new study by AdweekMedia/Harris Poll that works hard to prove that "sex sells," there are plenty of case studies that suggest the opposite. The further removed the product is from sex, the less people appreciate the bravado or even innuendo.

In fact, while Americans are known to be more reserved than their European counterparts, many advertisers don't appreciate just how conservative they might be. As a whole, Americans could take it or leave it, with a slight majority hoping to leave it.

• 56 percent are bothered by the amount of sexual imagery in advertising.*
• 37 percent are not bothered by the amount of sexual imagery they see in ads.
• 6 percent say that they do not see any sexual imagery in advertising.

*25 percent say they are very bothered by the amount they see in advertising; 32 percent are somewhat bothered.

Of course, there is a gender gap. Among genders, almost three-quarters of women (73 percent) say they are bothered whereas just slightly over half of men (53 percent) are bothered. Age also plays a factor. Less than half of those 18-34 (46 percent) and half of those 35-44 (50 percent) say they are bothered by the sexual imagery in ads, compared to three in five of those 45-54 (60 percent) and two-thirds of those 55 and older (66 percent) who say the same.

If people are bothered by sex in ads, why do marketers think it sells?

With the exception of sexually-related products, such as lingerie, sex is an easy way to attract attention when otherwise boring products or boring sales propositions just can't cut through the clutter. So, in most cases, sex has nothing to do with selling.

It has to do with getting noticed. After that, marketers are only hoping that people talk about the provocative advertisements and hopefully the product. But sometimes, this backfires in big ways.

For example, the Monte Carlo Las Vegas tried to reposition itself last year with a "can't think of anything clever, let's use sex" approach. It didn't sell Monte Carlo as much as it sold better Las Vegas hotels. (You might also notice that one commenter mentions it was a rip off from an artist.)

So, the question marketers need to ask, at least in the U.S. where people are more uptight — are we selling X or XXX? And, if we are selling XXX and consumers happen to remember X, then what are they saying afterward? In the case of Monte Carlo, they seemed to have said everything except what the resort wanted them to say. You know, like maybe they wanted to stay there.

Personally, I'm not uptight about sex. I am, however, uptight about bad ads because they are such a tremendous waste of money. Worse, they sometimes make all your other marketing efforts work ten times as hard, trying to undo the damage.

Planning Ahead: Fresh Content Project

When you work anywhere near communication, you will eventually meet scores of tacticians. They are smart people and many of them are needed. They work especially hard developing systems that they can use over and over again. Some of them even like to say "rinse, wash, repeat."

But is life really so easy? Is there some sort of magic formula that anyone can apply and soar to the top? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. At least not in a tactical way, as important as tactics can be. Just ask the percentage of public relations professionals that used to rely on lists to get the news out (they didn't have a plan for all the turnover). Or, ask the scores of business owners that, sadly, couldn't weather a recession (most of them never planned for one). Or, ask several hundred SEO specialists who recently learned social networks are slowly undermining their coding skills.

As a business owner, you need a plan. And you don't only need a plan that touches on those little daily activities every day, but one that transcends daily actions that can be changed and gamed along the way. You have to build a better strategy, one that gets you from point A to point Z regardless of the weather, economy, or adaptions that occur faster than you can master them.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of November 22

• PR Content: A New Architecture?
Although anyone could easily debate Adam Vincenzini's opener that public relations has been responsible for the creation and management of 'news' (we'd like to think actions create news, not a department), there is no mistaking his assessment that the function of public relations is changing again. There is a shift that requires public relations practitioners to understand what news is because they are often charged with developing the content. In other words, some practitioners are learning why their pitches never went anywhere.

• Why We Let Strangers Tell Us What To Buy.
Unbiased (or the appearance of no bias), group intelligence, and reassurance are among the reasons that Jason Keith says we turn to virtual strangers for advice. There is another piece of this puzzle that deserves some notice too. After affirmation (looking for opinions after we've already made up our minds to buy), people turn to the Web because online reviews do not include "us" in the equation like any advice from a friend or family member might. While I don't agree that the quantity influences purchasing decisions as much as the quality of what certain reviews say, Keith still presents a solid consideration of what consumers do every day.

• Do You Have a Plan, or Just a Wish?
Years ago, one of the first things I learned about strategic communication was that setting an objective was never enough. It had to to be reasonable, measurable, and achievable too. Based on what many prospective clients tell us, they often operate in wishes. They want to be market leaders before they ever have their operations in place. Valeria Maltoni pinpoints why we pass on these accounts. They dream of success, but never develop a plan to get themselves there. Sometimes something as simple as outlining the steps you need to take from A to B, as Maltoni writes, can help you appreciate the difference.

•“Social Business” Can’t Replace Product Marketing Skills.
In an unrelated but related post, Geoff Livingston tackles the issue another way, specific to social media. He uses Jumo as an example. There was plenty of social buzz but no real bite. The launch had more than its share of bugs. Lesson learned. Chris Hughes may or may not be a social media genius, but he clearly didn't know how to handle the launch of a network. In contrast, Livingston mentions how Apple doesn't even have a social media program and it still managed to launch a product that has already changed the way we see the Web, at least for those who purchased the product.

• Why Being “Big” On Twitter and Facebook Is Important To Google.
Jeff Bullas recapped Danny Sullivan's interview with Google and Bing, which shed light on why social networks have become increasingly significant in SEO: When people point to articles and blog posts from these networks, it counts. Specifically, Google said it looks at the social authority of a user. It's even more likely to count on Bing's social search, where tweets from more authoritative people flow to the top. One of the reasons both search engine services use this approach is simple enough. It's a lot more difficult to game social networks than spiders.

Being Yourself: An Anti-Personal Branding Introduction

The usually adept Jonathan Fields wrote an interesting commentary inspired by a comment made by Paulo Coelho, which had attracted more than 37,000 "likes" in agreement.

Coelho had written "what other people think think of you is none of their business." Fields then contended it might be the opposite. In the real world, Fields says, what other people think IS your business.

The Paradox Of Personal Vs. Public Images.

In his book, Life, Keith Richards mentions that he is entirely aware of the image that is Keith Richards while still remaining true to himself, the real Keith Richards. Think about for a moment.

You don't have to be a rock star, especially online, to appreciate that many people have both. It's the core premise of "personal branding" and "image consulting" that if you look your best and project your greatness, you will attract greatness. The theory is sound and provable anywhere communication (verbal and nonverbal) interconnects — even politicians learn that there is a time to wear a suit and a time to wear a blue shirt, sleeves rolled, and khakis as if to say "I'm not with the suits; I'm one of you."

Working in advertising and communication is one of the best professions to see this stuff play out on a regular basis. People expect account executives to wear suits, creative professionals to be hip and cool (or unaware, almost anti-socail, and reclusive), public relations pros to be in between, and social media types to adopt something in between cool and tech. And, for the most part, many people dress the part.

We don't learn this stuff in college or anything. When you really think about it, we learn it in high school. At a certain age, our peers demand some semblance of sameness in sometimes cruel and unusual ways, reinforced by scads of ugly duckling movies that transform otherwise dismissed boys and girls into beautiful, popular people with a little makeup and a wardrobe change much like Ally Sheedy did in the movie Breakfast Club, despite the underlying anti-stereotype messages. A little bit of sameness can go a long way.

Sure, there is some truth to that. Not everyone can thrive in a lifestyle carved out by someone like Charles Bukowski and be happy. But neither should anyone expect to be happy putting on a mask every day because that is what people expect.

You don't have to wait for the world to catch up; it's really about you, anyway.

I appreciate that Fields says someday the world will catch up and allow people to be whatever they are, but I don't think they have to. There is a different dynamic at work. The world seems more than capable of accepting whoever we might be, as long as we're true to who we are.

It's the very reason someone like Don King can tease their hair up into a crown and make it work while other people would seem too buffoonish. Can you imagine Bill Gates sporting a King hairdo? But that is the point. Gates would look silly because it doesn't fit him as person.

Where personal branding people get it wrong is they often tell people to adopt stylings that reflect what's expected and accepted. Ergo, if you want to fit in, adopt the corporate culture, even if that isn't who you are. Hmmm ... is it any wonder the most extreme cases, musicians and artists and actors, are the most likely to suffer personality snaps and drug addictions?

Coelho is right; Fields only partly so.

Coelho provides some truth in less than 140 characters, but it's not enough to give people some indication of how to do it. It requires several steps, with the most important step being the one step that many people don't know. Be true to yourself.

There are a surprising number of people who don't know who they are, so they struggle with it. (That's okay. I did too, at different times, years ago.) But that is the first step. If you don't know who you are, then chances are nobody else will either.

Where I am sometimes disenchanted by personal branding experts or image consultants is because they seldom consider the first step. Instead, they tell people to imagine some famous fantasy as the end result. Business owners do it too, trying to emulate companies like Apple or JetBlue even if they aren't anywhere close to those companies.

It's one of the reasons we help companies (and sometimes candidates) develop core messages. We help them find out who or what they are, find the differences that make them unique, and then encourage them to stop trying to be vanilla because consumers (or employers) seem to have taste for that flavor. After that, it's a little bit easier.

So unless you're someone whose nature is to go against the grain, you can find ways to be yourself while demonstrating that you can meet the group or corporate culture halfway (a lack of empathy, after all, is a different sort of problem). In other words, embrace and promote your differences while demonstrating that you respect their sameness. It's a much stronger position, and allows you not to care so much what other people think about you.

You might even consider "anti-personal branding" of sorts. It's an awareness that character (who you are) and reputation (what people think you are) are two different things. If you want to succeed, all you need to do is diminish the space between the two.

Playing At Public Relations: Rolls-Royce Asks Will It Pass?

People often misunderstand that there is a virtual chasm between public relations and media relations. Rolls-Royce might be one of them.

While the grounding of Qantas Airways Ltd.’s Airbus SAS A380 fleet after an engine explosion may cost as much as $204 million, the airline will likely recover financially even if it does take significantly more time to rebuild the brand. For the most part, Qantas has taken a traditional crisis communication approach, communicating to various publics through multiple channels. It was and still is highly engaged with the media after one of its flights suffered engine failure.

But what about Rolls-Royce? By most counts, Rolls-Royce was largely silent about the failure of its engine about a month ago. The intent seems to follow the forgetfulness of the public by remaining in the background of public discourse.

It's not an uncommon approach. It's the same approach Halliburton took during the BP oil spill crisis. For Halliburton, it seems to work.

Does Communicating Less Work?

For Rolls-Royce, it's not. While the company continues to perform with diversified products and services, it seems clear enough that the engine failure, repeatedly called a design flaw, is weighing heavily on the company. It's not enough to kill it, but it is enough to stall it for an indefinite amount of time.

While the public might be satisfied to hear from Qantas, shareholders and industry experts following Rolls-Royce were not. What did the company offer up to its publics?

“This event and the consequent actions will have an impact on the Group’s financial performance this year. However the scale of our order book, the breadth and mix of our portfolio, the global nature of our business and our strong balance sheet makes Rolls-Royce a resilient business, and we expect continued underlying profit growth in 2010,” Sir John Rose, chief executive officer said.

With that measure being pushed forward to investors, a different message is being put forth to potential customers. Since the interim report, Rolls-Royce has put out a steady stream of releases focusing on innovations and contract wins.

While it is no more or less than it did three months ago, what does seem different is a drop off in softer news. Rolls-Royce is communicating, much like it did to shareholders, that it is all business. And while it has expressed some regret over the incident, there isn't anything to account for in terms of an apology or empathy.

The most current pre-incident forecast by Rolls-Royce was that during the next 20 years, 141,000 engines, worth more than $820 billion, are predicted to be delivered, powering 65,000 commercial aircraft and business jets. Specific to the most popular engines, Rolls-Royce maintained a 50 percent market share. In the past, it contended that the market is pretty unforgiving.

To date, it seems more than the civil aviation market is unforgiving. Investors did not appreciate that the company considered the Trent incident to be "partially mitigated by better performance in the Marine and Defence businesses." Companies that fail to communicate to their publics' satisfaction take much longer to recover than those out front.

Companies Cannot Afford To Be Too Quiet During A Crisis.

The exception, Halliburton during the Gulf Coast oil spill, was only possible because BP public relations missteps had distracted the public. Sometimes that may help a behind-the-scenes company forego public scrutiny in the short term. However, once the bigger bungler is removed from the equation, the behind-the-scenes players step into the spotlight. Case in point, Halliburton no longer has someone in the foreground.

While this story is still developing, the early lesson is that even if a company can escape short-term consequences by not communicating, that does not absolve it from long-term consequences. But more specific to the original observation, Rolls-Royce might already be doing better had it communicated well to select publics (customers and investors) even if it chose to let Qantas handle the media. Case study in progress. (Hat tip: Recruiting Animal.)