Posts Tagged ‘facebook’

via @chimoose

via @chimoose

First thing’s first: Brains on Fire and I parted ways in February of 2010 after a decade of togetherness, so nothing here reflects the opinions or beliefs of my previous employer.

In August of this year, that labor of love known as the Brains on Fire book will turn three years old. It was a joy writing it and I’m told that sales are still going strong. I’m not gonna lie – I still get a thrill of seeing that thing on a shelf in a bookstore or catching a pic or comment about it in someone’s Twitter/Facebook stream.

But as we all know, a lot can change in 36 months.  And, well, it has.

So, over the next series of posts, I’m going to revisit the principals laid out in the book and examine them in context of today’s marketing world. And, of course, I’d love to hear your opinion.

The truth is, we proposed many different titles for the book in the first place, but got coaxed along by Wiley to make it big and bold and name the book after the company. So we did. But also added was the tag: “Igniting Powerful, Sustainable, Word of Mouth Movements.” And that word, “movement,” was the centerpiece of the book.

So let’s start there.

Back in 2010 (and actually way before the book was published), that word wasn’t used a lot in marketing meetings. In fact, that word wasn’t used at all outside of the non-profit sector. But it was the perfect embodiment of what we were trying to accomplish. And it didn’t hurt to be the first to redefine and use it in the marketing realm.

But then things started to change. The kids at Strawberry Frog started using the term “Cultural Movement” (and no, I’m not suggesting at all that they got it from BoF). The term started popping up in conference presentations and blog posts. In the scramble to bring some deeper-level meaning to all the social do-dads being developed, people thought that if they slapped the word “movement” next to their brand or ad campaign, then it would resonate more with people.

My point is this: The term “movements” has jumped the shark in the marketing world… but I still very much believe in the concept.

Not only is it EVERYWHERE these days, it is incredibly bastardized. Just search the word “movement” with “brand” or “advertising” or even “campaign.” Ford even got in on the action with their Fiesta Movement – even though one of the basic tenants of a movement is that it goes on and on (and the Fiesta Movement lasted six months.)

Not only is the term overused, but it’s also misunderstood. These days, I use the term “program,” as in “ambassador program” or “advocate program” because the concept of a movement is just too big for a lot of people to wrap their arms and minds (and dollars) around. There are so many moving parts to a movement (see what I did there?). But boiling things down to a programatic level – which is familiar and systematic – increases the chances of buy-in.

In the end, I still believe whole-heartedly in the concept of building movements. People want and need to believe in something bigger than just themselves. And there’s no reason that marketing efforts can’t be meaningful.

Next up: Examining the Product Conversation vs. the Passion Conversation.

awesomeI’m sure you’ve figured it out by now, but social media is tailor-made to feed that big ol’ monster in all of us called “ego.”

Think about it. Look where I am. Listen to what I’m doing. Look at this cool hotel where I’m staying. Here’s a picture of my food. I’m hanging out with these people (even though we’re all looking down at our phones right now). Look at this great picture of me. I’m shopping at a store now. Check out this thing I wrote. I’m thinking about buying this. I bought this. I’m sharing information with you that I found out about first. I just got upgraded. I’m at the gym. I’m at a concert. Buy my book. Come see me speak. Let me impart wisdom on you. Check out what I’m listening to. I’m planning a trip. I’m on a trip. I just came back from a trip. I just met with very important clients at a really big company. Look at what a great husband/mom/wife/dad/brother/sister/uncle/aunt/or other relative I am.

It’s endless.

The social app/platform developers caught on early – whether they realized it or not – to this need for humans to feel good about themselves and have others like them. Foursquare. Instagram. Twitter. Path. Spotify. Vine. And hundreds of other apps that allow you to share every single pixel of your life every single moment of the day to anybody who will look or listen. And so we do. We share.

In presentations, I often say that “everybody wants to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It’s hard-wired into our DNA.” Which I still stand by. But also hard-wired into our DNA is the need to feel loved and accepted (actually, the two are intertwined). Just ask Maslow. So it only makes since that when we’re out there trying to engage customers on social media, we should play to their ego.

Some smart folks wrote a paper in 2011 entitled “On Brands and Word of Mouth,” which Geno Church and John Moore do a brilliant job of breaking down in this presentation. The basic premise is that the top three reasons people share content online is (in this order): ego, information and emotion. Or, EGO, INFO and EMO as I like to think of it. So when I’m working to build a program or even create one piece of content, I think about it in these three buckets. Will my efforts fill one (or more) of those buckets? It should if I want it to spread.

But for the purpose of this post, we’re taking a look at ego and how it relates to content. So, to put it simply, we should create pieces of content that feed customer’s egos. Because it will be shared. It’s why the “Fan of the week” posts on brand’s Facebook pages are so popular. It’s why when a brand or outlet picks up your blog post on Twitter or Facebook, you retweet/post it to your wall. It’s why when a brand engages with a customer, they tell all their friends and followers (online and off) about it and the “special” attention they received.

Yes, most brands to a really great job on social media talking about themselves. And to an extent – as it goes with advertising – it’s needed to inform customers and potential customers. But – and that’s a BIG but – we need to turn that spotlight on our customers on a regular basis. So instead of “Hey, look at me!” It’s “Hey, look at this customer of ours and how cool they are!” Which, of course, will give them something to yell, “Hey, look at me!” And the word of mouth roars on.

So the next time you’re in a meeting to develop content for your social channels, make sure you fill the ego bucket first. Then watch what happens.

Any social media kid out there worth their salt will tell you that “likes don’t matter.” I even wrote a post over a year ago to explore “Life Beyond the Like.” We all throw hissy fits every time the number of Facebook likes is used as a measure of success in a case study and rail against the c-suite when they tell us that they want to reach a certain number of likes for this campaign.

But at the risk of having the social media kids come out of the woodwork, let me tell you something: Likes matter.

Back off a second and allow me to explain, will ya? You can’t tell me that you haven’t looked at a client’s or potential client’s or even a competitor’s Facebook page and said to yourself, “Hmmmm, they only have XX likes? That sucks.” You can’t tell me that the Chevy Camaro people don’t want more likes than the Ford Mustang people. Or that AT&T wants more likes than Verizon. Or that at least one metric of that project you did for your client isn’t the number of “likes” you garnered.

Let’s face it: People “like” your page if you have led them there because of a promotion. Or because they’ve been a loyal, lifetime customer. Or simply because you’re a beloved brand. Or because you’re “cool” and people want to be associated with you. Just like the people who have huge numbers of followers on Twitter tell you that the number of followers don’t matter, the same goes for Facebook. But it’s a lie. They do matter. Because it’s a measurement of visits and eyeballs. Yes, research shows that on average, only 1% of people who “like” a page interact with that brand on a regular basis on FB. I hear you. I feel your disappointment.

Instead, let’s start thinking about the “like” as either the beginning of a journey for some, or a point in time of a journey for others. What comes before? What comes after? How does that online action lead to offline word of mouth? There are many other variables, but a “like” is one of them.

In other words, “likes” matter. But so do a lot of other things in the mix. So before you go off on another rant about 1% engagement rates and the ROI of someone clicking that “like” button, think about how “likes” are table stakes now. They are expected. They are a part of what not only we are judged on, but what our client is judged on as well. Let me reiterate: it’s not the ONLY thing, or even a really IMPORTANT thing, but it’s a thing. So deal with it.

Earlier this year, a report came out from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute that I’ve seen popping up again and again with people talking about how only one percent of people who click the “Like” button on Facebook actually engage with the brand. (BTW, if you don’t know who Andrew Ehrenberg is, you need to find out.)

There are SO many directions we can go with this report, like going down that deep and dusty path trying to define what “engagement” really means. Or talking about the value of a like or a fan. Or what brands should really be using Facebook for.

But I don’t want to go down any of those no-win rabbit holes. Instead, I want to talk about that 1% (and no, not in the Occupy Wall Street kind of way). I don’t see why so many people are surprised at this number…because this has always been the case. The social media kids are saying that 1% is a terribly low number and then they’ll show you 10 tips on how to raise that number. But I have to tell you that even waaayyyy back in 2006, the Creating Customer Evangelists kids, Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba, talked about the 1% rule by citing data from Wikipedia and Yahoo that found that 1% of the users overwhelmingly create most of the content.

Breaking it down even more, there’s the 89:10:1 rule, which says that 89% of people who come to your site will lurk, 10% will contribute and 1% will create content.

My point? Don’t freak out about only 1% of people engaging with your brand. Especially on common sites like Facebook. Now, if you create a brand ambassador program and you only get a 1% participate rate, you’re doing something wrong. In fact, the average participation in brand community sites is less than 10%. That’s not so great. And I can tell you from experience that if you build it the right way, you can get a 30%+ engagement rate, which opens all sorts of doors.

So before you go wringing your hands about only having a 1% engagement rate on Facebook, think about it differently. Like what you can do with that 1%. Ohhhh, the possibilities. These are hand-raisers. These are evangelists. These are the people that already spread word of mouth about you (hopefully in a good way). Create offline experiences with them. Ask if they want to engage deeper on other platforms. Or learn about the inner-workings of your company and products. So yes, in this case we’re talking about quality rather than quantity. Because, as we are quickly learning, on Facebook and Twitter, numbers – unless they’re sales numbers – don’t mean a whole lot.

Yes, boys and girls, it’s that time again. In this episode of Get Real With Spike we talk about online vs. offline personas, the fact that most social media is just more noise, look vs. like and shining that big ol’ brand spotlight on your customers instead of yourself. All in 83 seconds.

Get Real with Spike 5 from Social Fresh on Vimeo.

© Copyright askspike.com. All Rights Reserved.