Mike’s Points

“Folks, you use social media to connect with people not to market to them.”

– Josh Hallet (a/k/a Hyku)
via Twitter

While, ultimately, marketing is the objective for companies’ involvement in social media, you don’t “market to” people via social media. You engage them, involve them, inform them, help them.

– Mike

In media relations, social media and similar communications efforts — where you’re often communicating with one person, one at a time — personalization is best. Know who you’re communicating with, and craft the communication to that person’s preferences (while still being honest, sincere, etc.).

But, in the bigger picture of website design and even larger of corporate identity, should we cater to our primary audience?

According to an eMarketer story today, women use websites more so than other sources when researching products:

“Over half of US female Internet users ages 25 and older say the Internet is their main research source for checking out potential product purchases, according to Burst Media’s “Online Insight” report, published June 2007.

The Internet was named far more often than other methods. Around 10% or fewer of respondents said they got their information from “asking family and friends,” newspapers and magazines, television or other sources.”

So, if a certain demographic is a sizable portion of your target audience, should you develop branding materials (logo, color scheme, etc.) to cater to that audience’s preferences?

If you don’t want to play with your “corporate look,” should you cater your website to your audience’s preferences? Maybe adjust the color scheme, design, features, etc., to a certain key demographic?

Or, should you try to please everyone with general user-centered design?

I guess it depends on how big or significant your key customer and prospect base is.

But, in growing world of being able to connect one-on-one or join online communities specific to our interests, how far does that specific connectivity go in an increasingly global marketplace?

– Mike

While we all are interested in “who’s the biggest,” size does not necessarily equate to quality. (Heh, I sound a bit like SWBU, but look much different.)

Guess I’m puzzled why this is such a big deal: Aegis, WPP Dominate Digital Agency Ranks, Account For Half The Industry.

Size can be important (or, impotent for some I suppose), but it’s the quality and rating of the work that really sizes up a firm. So, for those companies seeking an online marketing partner, don’t be fooled by the size of the package. It truly is what is inside that counts.

– Mike

Now, I could use this opportunity to tout my employer, but I won’t.

Let me preface with what (I hope) you’re going to read by saying that, Google can operate its business however it wishes. Let the market decide if it’s good or not. And, for the most part, the market has said Google’s actions are good.

Let me also state that its effort to prevent companies from buying page rank is not so good to some degree.

“We work hard to return the most relevant results for every search we conduct. To that end, we encourage site managers to make their content straightforward and easily understood by users and search engines alike. Unfortunately, not all websites have users’ best interests at heart. Some site owners attempt to ‘buy PageRank™’ in the form of paid links to their sites. Buying links to improve PageRank violates our quality guidelines.”

Yes, ranking high in Google search results is important for businesses. All businesses, I’d dare say.

But, there are other reasons for “paid links” like what companies like PayPerPost offer: To try to garner a level of word-of-mouth exposure among bloggers.

As long as there is up-front and easily-seen disclosure that a blogger is being paid to promote a product or service, so what?! I’m not stupid. You’re not stupid. We know ads and slanted posts when we read them. Michael Brooks/HistoryMike is a great example. He has a very insightful, and worth-reading blog about current events (international, national and Toledo-area), book reviews . . . and even PPP posts.

When he posts his PPP posts, I scan right through them. For the most part, I don’t care. But, from the majority of his posts, I know (or, assume) the segue and personal info around his PPPs are genuine. So, I might scan more slowly or even follow a link if it’s of interest.

Because I trust the blogger. In many instances, I disagree with Google’s statment that, “Unfortunately, not all websites have users’ best interests at heart.” (That is true often, but those times are rare.)

Mike is transparent.

And, so are most bloggers.

So, Mr. Googles, don’t penalize good, transparent bloggers who are trying to make a buck but still offer quality content. Let search engine visitors decide if the content is worthwhile. Don’t try to put forth some utopian stance.

– Mike

Thanks to Jason Calacanis for the pointer to the Google Webmaster Tools link.

Whenever you “try to pull a fast one” over someone, you run a huge risk of ruining that relationship. That is, if you get caught. And, sooner or later, you’ll get caught. You’ll pay a huge price by losing that person’s trust. Word of your deceitful deed will also likely spread so that you lose the trust of the previous fools you’ve fooled and have no credibility going forward.

Monday morning, MediaPost had research from a great study that showed which products benefit the most from product placement, and which demographics are most influenced.

It’s a short article, with informative charts and such focused on product placement. But, the kicker that we all should pay attention to came at the end:

Gary Drenik, President & CEO of BIGresearch, said “Advertisers… are attempting to get their brand message out in non-traditional ways. However, today’s consumer knows when they are being manipulated and product placements must be carefully planned… or… risk being ignored…”

So, here’s a friendly warning:

For those bloggers who are paid for product posts and don’t disclose;

For those anonymous commenters who are really promoting a product, company or cause;

For those marketers who treat bloggers, social community members, etc., like traditional media;

For those companies that set up fake blogs (without disclosing);

And a host of other social media sins and scam . . .

You’re not fooling anyone.

– Mike

I found out late last week that there was some security concerns with my blog host and an FTP account was accessed. There were a bunch of sick, perverse zoo sex links hidden at the botttom of one or more of my pages. Those links have been removed, and other steps have taken place so that it (hopefully) won’t happen again.
I’m told that, if you read my blog with Internet Explorer 6 or earlier, a script may have infected your computer with a trojan or other type of virus. So, PLEASE SCAN YOUR COMPUTER.

If by chance you don’t have an anti-virus program on your computer (and you should!), McAfee does offer a FreeScan.

I’m sorry if this caused any convenience or other trouble.

– Mike

This social media stuff is all about getting personal. Becoming familiar with and sincerely, honestly engaging people on a grass-roots level who are customers, potential customers or key influencers of one of the first two groups of people mentioned. And, hoping, through how you treat and involve them, that they’ll spread the word to others about you, your product, service or cause.

On the corporate blogging side, it’s also the personalization of corporations and asssociations. Putting a personality and a name (or names) to a corporation. Think of Bob Lutz with GM. Think of the Randy Baessler of Boeing. (Yes, I know GM has expanded the FastLane blog to include others more than Mr. Lutz, but no one else seems to get the response he does. And, I know there’s a new Randy at Boeing.)

But, what happens when the person behind the personalization moves on (fired, resigns or retires)?

And, what about the individual blogs? In the PR world, it’s well known that Steve Rubel/Micro Persuasion is with Edelman, and, though not a lot, there is a visual connection on his blog. Seeminly, at the other extreme, many?/most? know that Jeremy Pepper/POP PR! is with Webber Shandwick, but you’d never know it by his blog.

But, when Rubel goofs, Edelman also gets the bad publicity. IF Pepper ever would goof, would WS share in it?

In social media marketing, rash mistakes and people coming and going can be very public.

So, blogging and other social media and the personalization that comes from it gives audience/users/consumers more of a connection. A relationship. And, (hopefully) positive feelings or thoughts tied to a product or company.

But, at what cost? If that personalization is tied to a person — Randy Baessler at Boeing or Bob Lutz at GM — what impact will them leaving have (or what did it have in Randy B.’s case) have on its audiences’ perception of the corporation?

Ultimately, being able to connect on some level and developing relationships — even if only on a cyber level — benefits us. However, like everything else in life, there are downsides that need to be dealth with.

And, that’s where great planning, the right communication and the proper medium can make those downsides not so down.

– Mike