Mike’s Points

For your browsing, reading and thinking pleasure, may I direct you to:

I’m Done With Social Media, Dave Fleet/davefleet.com

The Golden Rule of Media Relations, Kami Huyse, APR/Communications Overtones

Demystifying “Above the Fold,” FluidDesign blog

The Social Medium is the Message, Marcel LeBrun/Media Philosopher

The Press Release Page: A New Approach to an Old Problem, Mike Manuel/MediaGuerrilla

And, finally, some co-workers recently started a cigar blog. So, if you are a cigar connoisseur of any kind, check out El Cigarro Maximo.

–Mike

The basic purpose of any writing/typing is to accurately and succinctly communicate information that is clearly understood by the recipient(s). For some types of writing, maybe being succinct is not as high a focus (such in novel and other writing), and you can have double meanings to play on words.

But, the basic premise is to be accurate and understood.

Good, quality writing is a skill that is underappreciated and very much lacking across all media. Here’s an example from today on the front page of Yahoo!

Taken a glance — which is what we often do on pages: glance or scan — it sounds like that Bobby Brown is not buying cocaine with money, but getting it in exchange for community service. He gives his time to help the community, and gets some drugs in return.

Ain’t that nice!

Of course, even though we know what it reads, we likely really know what it means.

Is it just me being picky?

I hope not.

Simply, say what you mean and ensure that what you say and type communicates what you really mean.

–Mike

I’m not social scientist (though I like to think I play one in my job), but I wonder if there are any studies that show the natural evolution of socialization. And, if that natural evoluation of socialization actually builds up walls rather than bringing the larger community together.

Let me explain more of what I think could happen regarding online social networking….

Through blogs, discussion boards, social networks, communities and even virtual worlds, we have opportunities to “meet” and “know” more people than we can via face to face networking.

Through my own professional interest, I have way more than 50 blogs in my Bloglines account. Sure, I have other categories for my other, usually personal interests, but none that compare in quantity.

Sure, for various work projects and other activities related to work, I explore other topics and niche blogs and communities in social media. But, while they are interesting and I love to learn, if it wasn’t for work, I doubt if I’d explore too many or any of those other topics.

Is the norm to stick to our own interests as we grow our social networks, or is it the norm to go outside of our comfort and knowledge zones?

Without social media technology, our networks are face to face, and their size largely depends on if we tend to be introverts or extroverts.

Then, social media opens new opportunities. But do we still tend to aggregate to circles that are comfortable — despite the great opportunity to expand our horizons, given our limited time between life, family, work, community, etc.?

If we stick within and expand our given comfort level due to the opportunities afforded by social media, will that ultimately decrease the opportunity to really develop and become part of larger communities? Will we simply have larger cliques? Larger cliques, of course, that take up our already busy schedules and cut us off from expanding our real, social horizons to grow?

Another angle: I’ve been tossing around this post in my head for some weeks now. In the meantime, Shawn Sieg — a friend I knew before we added each other via Facebook — sent me an interesting link asking if social networking is making us anti-social. That’s another view of social networks — are your friends really friends, or is it some ego contest to see who has the most?

– Mike

Control of branding and “the message” or word-of-mouth talk about a company, product, service, issue, etc., is a common theme in social media. It’s been written about in many books, on many blogs and, heck, even in person I’m sure.

And, it came up in a brief back and forth Twitter conversation I had with Geoff Livingston Thursday.

Maybe we’re talking about the same thing, but taking a different approach. Maybe it’s just semantics. Or, maybe we disagree.

As I’ve said in the past, businesses ultimately have control. Or, at least, the most influence.

Let’s start at the beginning: Essentially a company forms when someone sees a need in the marketplace and tries to fill it. (Yes, there are variances, like when a someone makes a product and then tries to find a need, but let’s stick with the basic premise.)

Before that company starts, there is no conversation, reputation or perception about it. It didn’t exist.

That company markets its products, so has contact with prospects, vendors and, ideally, customers via marketing communications, sales personnel, retailers, customer service personnel, etc.

Then, prospects and customers react to those “touch points” with the company — and have the opportunity to give their opinion of the touch point, whether its bitchin’ about a product online or giving rave reviews to the next door neighbor.

What online communication and social media — email, blogs, boards, etc. — have done is give consumers more power. More influence. More opportunity for our voices to be heard by a larger audience. Yes, more control over how ABC Company Inc. and its products are perceived.

But, remember, WOM is as old as history. (Just ask Adam about Eve’s review of the apple!) Companies have never been in total control of their brand or the WOM chatter.

Today, various tools and technology on the Internet give consumers more influence than ever before. Despite that, the ultimate influence of a company’s brand and the perception of its products and services is in the hands of the company.

The company starts all “conversations” via its marketing and other customer contact activities. We’re all just reacting to those contact points. And, we’re having a level of control or influence as to the positive, neutral or negative tone of the chatter — as we’ve always had.

But, ultimately, the company has the most control and influence because it initiated the chatter — via good or bad products, customer service, etc., — or it chose to heed the feedback of its marketplace.

Just like all good companies have done, and will continue to do.

– Mike