What has the Fall of The Roman Empire got to do with Social Media? Is this another of those weird analogies that “guru’s” like to throw around? Possibly, though I hope you will see the connection in the way I do. Over the past few years those of us who advise others on how to get the most from marketing through social media channels have agreed that the model which works best for all size businesses is the outpost model. I referred to it as the hub and spoke model others use different terms but we all mean the same thing.

The Collapse of The Social Media Outpost

One of the major contributing factors to the fall of the Roman Empire was its size. It became too big to be sustainable. The Roman’s had outposts at every point of the known world. Communication became harder and harder, supply become harder and the trade that was supposed to flow back to Rome started to diminish. So focused on their outposts were they that they ignored what was going on in their own Capital. In the end the model collapsed. Roman was over-run by hoardes that didn’t rely on developing large empires but instead existed in small groups that were more sustainable.

So how does this affect Social Media? The truth is that the model that so many of us have been promoting is about to collapse. There are just too many outposts. Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Google Plus, Pinterest, Tumblr, WordPress, Forums, Email, and endless other places to establish an outpost, all with the same end to drive traffic back to our Capital.

Retreating From Your Social Media Outpost

Look at your own statistics, how many of the various sites that you have established as an outpost is actually generating significant traffic? Why are you still there? The low numbers tell you that the people interested in you aren’t there, you are either doing a poor job of maintaining your outpost or you just aren’t providing the locals with what they want. Either way you need to get out before it becomes obvious that you can’t sustain that outpost.   In a recent post Chris Brogan says:

2012 is the year where social media oversaturation hits hard. We will scale back on our participation in social networks, and we will most certainly scale back who we choose to follow as sources.

He is right (he usually is), and if that is the case then that scaling back by users means that your content is going to get even less eyeballs at your outposts. Your empire is about to be over-run by hit and run hoardes who are better able to leverage those particular outposts than you are. So why wait for that to happen?

Deciding Which Social Media Outpost To Keep

I am not suggesting you abandon all your outposts, but take a good long hard look at all those outposts you have established and see how often you are posting – not automatically cross-posting from other places, but actually generating original content targeted at that particular audience. If the answer is “not much” then that outpost probably needs to be abandoned.

Just because new sites appear doesn’t mean you should immediately establish an outpost – try instead to see if there is a real fit for your business. Currently lots of people are trying to shoe-horn Pinterest into their marketing mix – for some this will become another cross-posting, under-supplied outpost that will die off in a few months. For others it will become a major driver of traffic, allowing them to remove other outposts that are not performing as well. But simply building an outpost for the sake of it is not a strategy for success.

Which Social Media Outposts can you let go of?

Micro-Investing is providing those of us without the funds to become Venture Capitalists or Angel investors the opportunity to experience the thrill of investing without the risks. The model is somewhat similar to that employed by charities for years. A small amount multiplied many times equals a much larger amount. So instead of seeking thousands of dollars, asking for only a few, but asking thousands of people can equal the same amount.

Micro-Investing: What’s In It For You?

While the rewards of micro-investing are never going to match that of being a VC or an Angel, the amount invested and the risk associated with that amount is much lower as well. What you mainly get from micro-investing is the sense of helping someone get to a goal and a thrill of having backed the right horse.

Sites like KickStarter, Appbackr and newly launched Apptopia provide platforms for would be investors to find ideas that they like and make small investments in them. Kickstarter focuses more on arts based projects, Appbackr and Apptopia are focused on providing funds for mobile app development and the sale of the rights to apps respectively.

Micro-Investing:What’s In It For Them?

In a word, money. Depending on which platform you are using what they have to provide you, the investor with, varies greatly. Kickstarter projects might involve a product, a picture, a song or something similar, but it might just be a thank you card – depending on your level of investment. Appbackr investors get a small revenue share based on the sale of apps and the amount of their investment. Apptopia is a wholesale clearing house for the rights to an app – you are basically taking over the ownership of that app, code, IP the whole package.

For “starving artists” Kickstarter can mean the launch of a project that would otherwise wither in the wasteland of “good ideas”. Appbackr means that app developers can realize some money early on so that they can continue development and marketing of their app and go on to realize a full revenue stream.

Micro-Investing: My Experience

I’ve been playing with these platforms for about 9 months now and have invested in several projects.

One of the early successes was Cliff Roth‘s “Google Plus Speedpaint Hangout Project” – Cliff was looking to raise $2000. I noticed this project just before it’s deadline, he was $33 short of his goal. If a goal isn’t met then none of the investors are required to part with their money, also the project goes unfunded – in other words there is no “part funding” it is all or nothing. I chipped in the $33 and his project was funded. For that investment I was added to a Special Google Plus Circle and invited to Backers-Only Speedpaint Hangout Sessions, in addition I will also receive a pencil drawing of myself signed by Cliff. I felt that was a very fair exchange.

Another huge success was Creatures. This  is a card game and I actually invested in this to get the game as a gift for the holidays. I’ve had a lot of fun playing the game. But the real story here is that they were seeking $2,500 they actually raised over $56,000 in funding. People like me invested anywhere between $1 and $750 to receive various rewards from the creators of Creatures. This game is now available on Amazon.

My latest investment appealed to the geek in me. Twine is a device that allows you to interact with other devices and platforms like Text, Email, Web etc based on certain conditions. The interesting part about it is that it requires no coding. The interactions are all controlled by a very simple web interface. Again this project really appealed to the Kickstarter community. The Twine project was seeking $35,000 in funding, they raised over $500,000.

I have also backed a couple of apps on Appbackr but to date those have not made it into production and therefore I have not actually been charged any money. I’m hopeful that I will pick a winner soon.

If you haven’t tried micro-investing yet I definitely recommend it. Don’t expect to retire on the returns but you will have a lot of fun being part of the micro-investing community.

Waiting to write makes you a waiter not a writer, the sage advice from Somerset Maugham. It is advice I give myself regularly and have shared with many others, both privately and publicly. There exists a strange new beast in the creative world, the content scientist. These people can tell you how many times a word needs to exist in a post to count as a “keyword”, they can tell you with accuracy akin to the Swiss railroad when you should post to maximize your audience. They can tell you all this and more. In doing so they scare the writer clean out of you.

Writing isn’t a science, it is an art. Writing doesn’t run like a railroad, if it is any kind of transport it is more likely a rickshaw. Driven by sweat, a heaving mass dragged through the streets by a struggling human engine striving to get to its destination. Of course the content scientists will show you charts and graphs, they will talk about increased readership, click through rates and other impressive statistics. All of which are fairly meaningless. Like murder, good writing will out.

Waiting to Write: Art vs Science

I’m not dismissing the content scientist. In the same way as we need those who write code to enable us to publish our writing online, we need content scientists to show us how we might improve what we do. Just as painters need the scientists to create new shades of paint to enable them to express themselves. The trouble starts when the writer focuses on the numbers instead of the letters. Is Monday at 10am the best time for my audience to see my post? Should I be posting three times a week or five?

I try to write regularly here, if for no other reason than the discipline. I even try to think about what you, the reader might enjoy reading. For the most part, and given the responses I receive, it seems that this blog after existing for the past few years has found an audience that, at least some of the time, enjoys what it reads. There is definitely no science behind what I do. For the most part I post twice a week, but that depends on what else I am doing. Sometimes I write in advance, and other times it is on the same day. I have read many many posts and books that refer to timing, SEO, and all many of other numbers and devices that could increase my readership. I have, to date, ignored them all. At the end of the day, I would rather write for a handful of people who enjoy my writing than try and outsmart the scientists at Google.

Waiting to Write: Enjoyment vs Business

This is not a business blog, or is it? I suppose that depends on how the reader reads it. I think of it as more akin to an advice column, a Dear Prudence of Marketing if you will. I understand that the content scientists aren’t really writing for me, they are writing for people looking to make money from their blogs through advertising and various other means. I understand that, but that isn’t writing, not in the sense I am talking about here. That’s promotion, advertising, content marketing. Its about page views, and uniques, and click through rates.

I’m not being a purist here. Everyone is entitled to create for whatever purpose they deem fit. But those who agonize over when to write, when to post, who to write for and spend their time on reading all that the content scientist have to say are missing an important event – the writing.

Waiting to Write: Waiter or Writer?

So what are you, a waiter or a writer? Will you allow the excuses and the content scientists to distract you or will you take a breath, open the page and make a mark on it? Whether it is poetry, prose, a hobby subject or a business subject, at some point you will have to decide whether those thoughts exist only in your head or if you will give them life outside your head and put them on a page.

Your decision, waiter or writer?

Check Your Hair, Make Sure Your Mic Is On is the title of a  post I wrote a few weeks ago in which I talk about the importance of appearance for speakers. In talking with new, aspiring and even existing speakers it seems people would like to read more of the same.

Rather than simply share my thoughts on speaking  I thought you would find it more interesting to hear from other speakers. To this end I have extended the invitation to some of the speakers that I enjoy a lot to share their stories of being a speaker. What works and what doesn’t, how to handle technology, the good stories and the nightmare stories.

Watch the video below and you can see why I wanted to put this series together:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHFNJnDPYY

Each wednesday there will be a new post from a speaker who will share their experience. Who are these speakers? Well to name drop a few – Ann Handley – Chief Content Officer for Marketing Profs, Hank Wasiak – 14 time Emmy Nominated TV Host, Lynette Young, Podcaster and Founder of Women of G+ and many others.

The best way to make sure you don’t miss this great content?  Subscribe by email in the top right of this page and get it delivered to your inbox.  Of course I’d love you to just keep coming back to the site because, well that helps my stats and makes me feel good about myself – but I’d rather you got the content the way you want it.

image used under CC License by Ford Buchanan

Last week I wrote about the Three Types of Social Content. I want to extend that conversation by looking at how the use of Social Content is killing Social Networks. Consider your own Social Network streams, whether it is Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus – I’d place a bet that most of what you see is content that has been curated for the purpose of capturing your attention. Very little of it is original content. From Cat videos to reposts from news outlets users want to be able to share others content and be known for sharing helpful, funny, and interesting content.

Social Content – Not Friends but Publishers

When we decide to Follow, Circle or Friend someone – our major points of contact (unless we know them in real life) with them are not who they are but what they share. Does what they share fit into our groups of interests? This removes the effort of seeing them as a person but instead we are seeing them as a source of Social Content. Will they provide us with interesting, informative and importantly shareable content?

If you think about the way Social Networks were originally structured, they were meant as virtual places for meeting people. The people you met revealed something about themselves and you in turn revealed something about yourself, in other words a normal social interaction. Now we are moving to a situation where we careless about the actual person and more about the content they share. We like people who share original content, but actually we are hopeful that they will simply share something that is going to be popular and will in turn increase our own Social Currency.

Social Content – Content For Content’s Sake

We are used to hearing that content is king. We all want to be a part of that royalty, the Social Web thrives on popularity and users are seeking ways to promote themselves, their business, their brand through the use of content. Content Marketing is the panacea to all your woes. Your content will help you build a business, develop a network, create a platform. All of these things are actually true. The problem with this is that while these mantra’s were developed originally for business, they have permeated the personal world.

Every user is now a brand, but instead of that philosophy humanizing brands, it is having the opposite effect, it is dehumanizing people. Users of Social Networks are less interested in being Social and more interested in being publishers. There are endless posts on tactics to get “more retweets, more links, more views”, which are great if you are in the content marketing business, however, these posts are being read and utilized by people, real people, ordinary individuals who are actually quite interesting in their own right.

Social Content – Stop Publishing, Start Humanizing

I know that you won’t stop sharing cat videos – I’m not really asking you to. But every once in a while how about sharing a story about you. Share something that lets me get to know you as a person – heck I might even like you and if I don’t well that’s ok too, because there are plenty of others out there that will.

Take a risk and be a human being on a Social Network and let’s stop seeing ourselves as just producers of Social Content.

image used under CC license by tölvakonu 

The Three C’s of Social Content – Creation, Curation and Cultivation. In looking at online content, particularly that shared on social networks I’ve come to the conclusion that there are generally three broad categories of social content. I’m going to expand on this premise in this and a couple of upcoming posts and certainly the later posts will be colored in part by the responses I get to the original concepts that I outline here.

The Three C’s of Social Content – Creation

While seemingly self explanatory, content creation seems to generate a lot of controversy. What constitutes content creation? Is it something wholly original, can it be something that is inspired by other work? Can it be an adaptation of existing work?

I honestly don’t think there is a hard rule for this. I have a personal opinion about what I consider original work and therefore content creation, but that is just my opinion. I happen to think that for content to fall into the Creation category it needs to be wholly original in nature. Now that of course would mean that 99% of everything I write wouldn’t fall into that category because it is, in one way or another, inspired by other external influences. I write about things I have seen online, in real life, about books I have read, commercials I have seen etc. However, I would like to think that my interpretations of these external influences is unique and therefore original.

I occasionally create images, either for this blog or for Google Plus posts that are based on words that I have seen in other places – I consider those not to be original content. Yes, I have used the words in a way that might well be original, but the emotion that is being evoked is not original. I didn’t create that response originally, the words that I have chosen have already done that.

The Three C’s of Social Content – Curation

Many social networks have really become social curation depositories. Google Plus particularly strikes me as being this type of network. While I do see plenty of original content there I also see much that is the collecting and resharing of content. Sometimes grouped together in an organized manner, sometimes not so organized. I personally tend to think that truly curated content has at least some form of index to allow it to be found quickly. Pinterest is a great example of a social network that focuses solely on content curation – to the point of having indices that allow users to quickly find content that they are looking for.

The point of content curation was of course originally a selfish one. I find something interesting that I want to refer to later and I want some way of  finding it later, browser bookmarks and then bookmark sharing sites were great forms of this. The rise in popularity of sharing these pieces of curated content led to more sophisticated sharing strategies, ones that focus on carving a niche based on the content of others.

The Three C’s of Social Content – Cultivation

This is the last form of Social Content in my observation. When a publisher – someone who posts content of any kind to a social network focuses on a specific niche to attract or nurture an audience it can best be described as content cultivation. The content itself is less important than the impact it has on the end goal of audience development. Frequency, density, imagery, time of day, all of these things start to play an increasingly important role in the social content cultivator’s arsenal.

Which type of Social Content do you consider you produce?

I was sent a link to a Michael Bublé video the other day. I’m not a big fan of his singing – though I readily admit he has a great voice and it makes for decent background music. What I saw surprised the heck out of me and made me rethink my impression of him. It also made me think a lot about what I and others in marketing are trying to teach brands about listening. We focus a lot on the how and even the when, but we often miss out the why. We assume that brands want to listen, or the brands assume that they have to listen because bad things are being said.  Take a moment to watch the video and then I’ll share what Michael Bublé reminded me about listening.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cw1uLVSl1Y

The first thing that struck me was the fact that Michael Bublé stopped the show to listen to this mother heckling him from the audience. He could easily have had her removed by security. In terms of brands that would equate to ignoring the unhappy customer who tweets about you – the way 70% of brands currently do – see this post from Jay Baer on that topic.

Instead he chose to stop the show (business as normal) and sit down and listen to what this mother and fan was trying to say. He points out that he is a singer, he turns up and thousands of people pay to listen to him (reminding the customer of what business he is actually in) but he allows her to continue with the story.

The mother pleads to have her son be allowed to sing on stage with Michael Bublé (change the way you do things to help me, the customer). Having heard her story, he decides to allow it (trying a new approach with customers). His expectations are no doubt fairly low, after all, all mothers think their sons are wonderful (brands don’t expect customers to bring much value to the discussion). What he gets is a huge surprise, one that evokes the “Holy Shitballs Mom” response (Why didn’t we listen to our customers before?).

At the end of the video Michael Bublé states in a half joking way that he has four years before the young man he just brought on stage will kill his career by winning a TV Show (if brands don’t continue to change based on customer feedback they will become irrelevant).

The point is that listening without knowing why is pointless. You can have all the tools you like at your disposal, have in place all the processes but if you aren’t prepared for the surprise that customers will bring to your brand then perhaps you would be better off not listening at all.

What “Holy Shitballs” moments have you seen with brands?

Companies that refer to themselves as Global do so to illustrate their ability to operate around the world and of course to give the impression of size, reliability and capability. However, I am constantly surprised at the number of companies that refer to themselves in that way but really mean they have operations in other countries. Operations that have no integration, no common systems and no ability to work together, so much for Global.

Global Companies: A Tale of Two Countries

I recently wanted to fulfill a wish from one of my daughters for her birthday. She had found a necklace sold by Tiffany & Co. It was her 21st birthday and given that the necklace was very reasonably priced I wanted to get it for her. I live in the US, she lives in the UK. Usually this is not a problem. I either have whoever I am ordering from ship direct or I go to their UK website and order from there. I do this all the time with Amazon and it works without fail.

However the Tiffany US website, having led me through their checkout process, doesn’t allow for international shipping addresses. Ok no problem I’ll use the Tiffany UK website, I go through the same checkout process only to find that their payment screen doesn’t allow International billing addresses. Undaunted by this I phone the Tiffany helpline, where a very helpful support person informs me that they are familiar with this issue, that they are working on a solution and that they are sorry to have caused a problem. She then tells me the solution is to phone the nearest store to where my daughter lives in the UK and have them ship it. She even provides me with the telephone number – great service.

I phone the UK store, explain what I am trying to do only to be told that they can’t take international payments, her advice was to go to my local Tiffany store buy the item there and ship it myself!

Tiffany fails on being a Global company in my book – they definitely need to be able to transact across borders.

Global Companies: A Further Tale of Two Countries

So I bought the necklace at my local store and then headed to Fedex, because after all they are an global shipping company. I filled out the requisite paperwork and then discovered that the Fedex could not find the city that the package was going to. In fact the assistant in the store referred to the destination as “some small country”!

Fedex failed because their people are trained to believe what the system tells them and not use their initiative. In the end I took my package to the Post Office, who within minutes had it addressed, labelled and on its way to the UK – also for a lot less than Fedex would have charged me.

Global Means Integration

So the lesson here is, if you are going to refer to your organization as Global or anything else for that matter make sure you can actually deliver on those claims. If you are going to be a global company then you need a lot more than a store in another country.

What are your experiences with global businesses?

Image used under CC license from Gerry Balding

We would all like to believe that we are good communicators. We have probably all had situations arise where we have discovered that we are not quite as good as we think we are. I recently had an experience that made me realize that adopting the receivers perspective can make you a much better communicator.

Communicating Your Message:How Others Receive It

I recently wrote a script for a video that I was putting together for a client. The videographer is based in another city, so communication was mostly via email with a few phone calls. Scripts are a great way to communicate certain visual ideas because they are fairly standardized, and they call for the writer to think about all the smallest of details that can impact a scene. At the same time the writer has to allow for the creativity of the videographer and their interpretation of what is on paper.

When I got to see the final version of the video – not having been able to be on set during filming I was astounded to find that the images on the screen matched almost exactly those that had been in my head. I don’t take the credit for this, what I credit it to is the formal structure imposed on my communication by having to write a script that included all the details.

Communicating Your Message:What’s Missing?

I’ve run a few management training sessions throughout my career. One of my favorites was to take some lego bricks of various colors and sizes, and build a random abstract object. Then, using the same amount of bricks, of the same color and sizes, have a team who cannot see the original try to replicate it using only instructions relayed to the team by another person. The catch is that the team can’t see the original and the messenger can’t see what the team are building.

The results of this exercise can be extremely revealing. Which bricks are misplaced, which ones are missing altogether? Who takes responsibility for the errors? Taking part in these types of exercises can really assist communicators with identifying where they are strong and where they have weaknesses.

Communicating Your Message: What Your Audience Hears

What this experience has reinforced for me is that the best communicators learn to think like their audience. Instead of focusing on what you want to say, focus instead on what you want to be heard.

How are you communicating your message?

Yesterday saw the confirmation of the sale of Social Location Marketing app Gowalla to Facebook for as yet undisclosed sum. This is part of the compression of the space that many predicted would happen this year. Earlier in the year we saw Whrrl bought and closed down by Groupon. Gowalla, in their announcement yesterday noted that the service will close at the end of January.

Gowalla Closing:Impact for Marketers

So what does this sale mean for marketers who, for the most part are only just discovering the power of Social Location Marketing? Firstly, it means that their choice of potential partners is now limited to only one serious player – Foursquare. While there are other apps available they are either minor players or niche focused. A great example of this is CarZar, which is both a photosharing app and a location sharing app rolled into one. However, it is only of interest to car enthusiasts. Good for marketers in that space but limiting for marketers outside of it.

Gowalla Closing:Impact for Users

I’ve been a Gowalla user since its first version. I loved collecting the digital objects, these became increasingly less important as Gowalla tried to become more Foursquare like with badges. Even then their focus on being a “beautifully designed” platform set them apart. Their focus switched to being more about experience and location, providing badges for states, which as someone who travels frequently were fun to collect. However, their latest iteration seemed poorly thought through. Some pundits have said that while Gowalla is going to Facebook your data is not. Josh Williams has been quoted as confirming this though the official announcement on the Gowalla blog does not say that.

I think it is naive of anyone to think that the Gowalla purchase was solely about hiring talent. Facebook is about data, the more data the better. The value that Gowalla brings is from its users data, so you can expect that the data was part of the deal. After all look at the game developer Zynga, their potential valuation at somewhere in the region of $10bn is not because investors think that Farmville is the most awesome game ever created, it is because Zynga collects vast amounts of user data every day about the millions of people who play their games. Your Gowalla data is much to valuable to Facebook for them to simply let that slip away.

Gowalla Sale: Facebook & Location

Some pundits are postulating that we can expect to see a Gowalla like environment in Facebook next year with a renewed emphasis on Social Location Sharing. I doubt this very much. Facebook knows its audience and its audience never really saw the benefit to sharing their location through Facebook when they were already using Foursquare and other platforms to check in. I do agree with those that say we might see some of the design ethic from the Gowalla team make an appearance in Facebook and I for one would definitely welcome that.

I’m sad to see the end of Gowalla, having lived in Austin and met the team several times I know that they truly believed in their product as did their users. They have a lot to offer Facebook and I hope that they are given the opportunity to contribute to the direction that Facebook takes next year.

Update: Josh Williams, Gowalla CEO – restated on Twitter that “Facebook is not acquiring any user data. It’s just that simple. No story here. No spin.”