Social Media: Metrics & Misnomers

Mark Hopkins over at Mashable adds to the worth of social media conversation started at Drama 2.0 today with this fantastic point:

The traffic isn’t really the goal of a good effort so much as the by-product. Using social media and social networks purely to gain pageviews, visitors and thus potential customers is in my view a gaming of the system. On the other hand, building up a brand, social graph, and metric of respect online is a laudable goal that will result in the type of results that many disappointed social media marketers were probably seeking in the first place.

Well said. As corporate buzzwords have moved from “social network” to “widget” to “social media, the conversation hasn’t changed all that much: companies want to be first to new places and trends where consumers already reside. The fact that digital technology allows people to create their own networks and content means that these types of venues will continue to propagate at a rapid pace.

Which leads us to the term “social media.” The emergence of this phrase is a linguistic trick that attempts to stop the buzzword parade and draw a line in the sand to encompass the entirety of this shifting terrain. More troubling is the word “media” which feels like an attempt to corral the variety of social spaces and creations into business terms, equating the rich fabric of human interactions to just another entry in a media plan, beneath TV, print, and online spends. And this will fail–-humans are tough to measure.

This brings us back to the points made by Drama 2.0 and Mashable. Their arguments protest the instinct to apply ill-suited metrics to the social space. I’m with them strongly on this point. Just this week I was discussing the problem with a coworker who handles mobile campaigns: metrics like reach and impressions originated with TV, print, and radio campaigns (and they weren’t very good metrics to begin with) before being carried over into the vastly different social, mobile, and digital spaces. The arguments that mobile or social campaigns are simply “not proven” are based on the inherent fact that these metrics cannot line up with the variables present in such campaigns.

By their nature, people are a complex bunch. The subtleties and nuances of social interactions cannot be tied down to simple standards and metrics. More than that, any attempt to do so will do more harm than good. If you want your brand to be social, you can’t be slaving over your traffic and counting your click-through. Because in the end, that’s not very social behavior.

The first step towards a successful social campaign is to take a step back, determine your strategy and problems at hand, and develop a solution based on human interaction. If that leads you to Facebook, it leads you to Facebook. If it leads you to Twitter, it leads you to Twitter. But one should never start with the declaration: “We need a widget on Social Network X.” For example: Zappos decided they wanted the best customer service in the business. This lead them to Twitter because it allows them to be more available to their users. Figure out what you want to do, then assess your opportunities in the social space.

When we start treating social interactions like simply another medium, we lose it’s nuances and our own authenticity. Social should be a human layer throughout entire campaigns, not a program in it of itself.

Don’t Treat Web 2.0 Like Wed 1.0

Who Says Social Media Can’t Be Measured

The iPhone and Other Transparent Devices

The iPhone is a transparent device. Not in the traditional sense in that you can see how it works; rather, the iPhone connects you to people and data directly and effortlessly. It’s not a phone in the classic sense, but a mobile device that contextualizes people, places, and things you want to connect to and brings them to you in a relevant manner. It’s a conduit: a transparent device. It situates data and people.

The iPhone is a transparent device because there is no data that is unique to it (for the most part). Data and names are synced or piped in through the always-on data connection. The face that Apple insists on the unlimited data plan from AT&T illustrates the importance of this connection. My mail exists on Gmail, and is the same mail I browse through my desktop browser. My contacts are backed up and leveraged through my Address Book, my music and videos live in iTunes, and my pictures live in iPhoto. Even Facebook, an iPhone application unto itself, is just Facebook contextulized for the situation at hand (pun intended). The design of the phone echos this function. It is blank black, defined by the bits that come alive with a button press.

My data is independent of the device.

Yesterday I came to the realization that if I were to lose my iPhone, I would be out a few hundred dollars but my data would not be lost. Within a few hours I would have the exact same phone in my hand, for all practical purposes. Compare this to the social faux pas and endless headache that is losing any other phone. I’ve been forced to poll my friends for numbers numerous times, which in this day and age is nearly the equivalent to forgetting a first name.

A transparent device is almost a cloud device: a gateway where the internet touches down and enters the real world. Data on the iPhone is data empowered and contextualized for my life. Others should strive for this relevancy and interface. I can’t think of another new interface of which users are not completely conscious of as they use them. One dialing a Nokia is painfully aware they are dialing a Nokia. The media theorist Stuart Hall refers to this transparent interface as “of courseness,” the point at which people don’t think about an explicit action as such. Usually, humans have to come to the device, but Apple has flipped the plan.

I’ve hit a block in my search for other, similar, network devices.  If you think of any, please add them below…

Airport Security & Self Manipulation

The TSA recently launched their new security line system, with designated lines for families, casual travelers, and expert travelers. And they work, not by sorting people but by changing them.

The first time I encountered them, I read them with cynicism as I saw the lines backed up for a city block before the signs: travelers were simply choosing the shortest line regardless of label.

The NYT reported on the new program with similar analysis:

The Transportation Security Administration is trying to speed up airport screening by asking passengers to choose a line based on their familiarity with checkpoint procedures. But human nature being what it is, this approach may hit its own snags: people typically opt for the shortest line, and all think they are experts.

“In theory, it’s a good idea. It lets people say, ‘This is my comfort level,’ ” said Steven Frischling, a photographer from Connecticut who encountered the new system in Salt Lake City and Boston. “The problem is, when people show up, everyone thinks they know how to get through security.”

I read the article over coffee in agreement. But last weekend I had to fly again, but with a much earlier flight. The lines weren’t backed up and the signs were clearly visible from the back of the queue. And, I’ll be damned, they worked. Everyone had their papers out, shoes off, laptops out, liquids accounted for–it was the quickest security line I’ve traveled in in the last ten years.

What interested me is that the signs didn’t work as planned: people of all walks thought they were experts, even ones who clearly rarely traveled. However, by reading the signs, they were aware of what steps they would have to take to pass as experts. Seriously: I have NEVER seen people with their ID and boarding pass in hand so consistently throughout the line. Experts don’t behave like this, only people worried of being discovered (being identified as being non-expert) behave in such a prepared fashion.

The signs don’t sort, they change. Cool stuff.

On the Powerset Preview/Pitch

Powerset had the hype a search start-up would need to challenge the heavy incumbent Google and mainstream-entrenched Yahoo. TechCrunch declared that Powerset’s product indeed produces the “wow” moment that Google carried with it when it hit prime time and the aura around it’s real-language search was legendary. But all that is gone.

Today, Powerset launched an impressive PR volley that generated incredible noise through out both the mainstream press and the blogosphere alike. The HackerNews front page was littered with the requisite comparisons, pitting Powerset’s wikipedia search against Google and Hakia. But at EOD, the reaction was a resounding “meh.“

To it’s defense, one commenter on HN wrote: “No one in a position of importance said this demo was a google killer. It’s not, it’s basically a technology demo and hopefully a usable tool.” I’m calling BS. It doesn’t matter. In this game it’s all perception, and if you’re launching a consumer facing product your first major PR volley could be your last. Especially if it’s as lukewarm as Powerset’s.

The caveat above doesn’t come through in a headline. And it’s little help that PowerSet is solving a problem no one seems to have quite yet. The theme of the day is Google comparisons, but unless PowerSet is blowing your mind on it’s own without comparison, it’s dead in the water.

To me this “launch” spells one thing: Powerset is looking to sell (at least for some additional funds.) This is the only reason they’d kick-off with such a limited demo, one that exists in a ridiculously controlled environment such as Wikipedia, which has already been picked over by editors to ensure that everything is grammatically correct. They did a tremendous job with their PR over the last weeks, I’ll definitely applaud on that count. They granted exclusive demos to the 2.0 in-crowd, let them gush if they felt like it, then released the same demo to the masses after the closed-door preview went well and before the dust settled on the insider exclusive. Genius. An investor/buyer will bite, I predict in less than two months.

* Apologies for the quick post, had to comment on this before the day was out.

 

Torrentz: Aggregating Your Way to the Top

Torrentfreak is reporting on the growth of Torrentz, a bittorrent file aggregator that indexes a number of popular trackers.

Torrentz is currently indexing 1.719.529 (unique) torrents from Mininova, Torrentspy, Meganova, Fenopy and 12 other BitTorrent sites. A few months ago, after a required hardware upgrade, The Pirate Bay was added to this list which proved to be a significant improvement. Torrentz now definitely has one of the largest .torrent databases on the Internet.

Flippy, the administrator of Torrentz told TorrentFreak: ‘Torrentz indexes almost 5milion pages on 16 distinct torrent sites. We don’t hot link the torrents like Torrentspy), instead we send the visitors to respectable pages. Visitors get to checkout local comments and site admins get the ad revenue they deserve. Since we get almost a million visitors daily everyone seems to be happy’.

But here’s the money quote:

Last month Torrentz reached a new milestone when it entered the Alexa 250. This means that they are now listed among the top 250 most visited websites on the Internet.

This highlights an interesting facet of the Internet. Top content is often top contexts. Torrentz simply aggregates other torrents and links to external sites. On its own, the site is a shell that serves as an interface or frame. And it very well could outpace all the sites it indexes.

(Via TorrentFreak.)

Contextual Content – Embracing the Mass

Publicis makes the NYT for their new model that plans to taylor ad content to consumers.

Now: beginning to account for audiences and recognizing that their participation creates meaning is great. However, I can’t help but feel Publicis’ method creates a situation where ads are no longer social experiences. David Kenny, of Digitas, has created a system that effectually creates millions of automated salesmen. Copy is tailored to help sales.

But what of lifestyle brands that don’t need to/or want to make such pitches? The best brand ads are social forces, ones that create impact in cultural space.

More simply put, the goal is to transform advertising from mass messages and 30-second commercials that people chat about around the water cooler into personalized messages for each potential customer.

If everything is tailored, how are experiences shared? This is custom, but not integrated. Still, pretty sharp stuff.

And farming out creative to off-shore employees? Engrish, anyone?

NYT–It’s an Ad, Ad, Ad, Ad World

(Via AdPulp.)

Facebook Ad Pullouts Over Context Mishaps

Live placement of ads is something that needs to grow up a bit. Hot on the heels of the badly chosen context meme from late July is this item from TechCrunch. Seems telecoms and satanic services are NOT similar keywords…

“Making headlines in the United Kingdom Friday was news that a number of Facebook advertisers had canceled their advertising due to their ads being displayed next to dubious content.

First Direct, Vodafone, Virgin Media, the AA, Halifax and the Prudential withdrew their Facebook advertising after it was disclosed that their advertisements were being displayed on the Facebook page of the British National Party (BNP). The ads of the six companies were being rotated through the BNP’s page along with other advertising. Facebook is said to be unable to block campaigns on specific Facebook pages.”

“As The Register points out, Vodafone’s UK rival Orange currently has their ads appearing on the Facebook page of the Aryan Satan Worshipers. Of course, no sane person would draw the conclusion that Orange is indeed in favor of Aryan Satan Worshiping, this is how run of site advertising works.”

Is this what happens when channels handle placement? The ability to connect anything to anything else online continues to challenge standards and practices.

(Via TechCrunch.)

Consumers are Aware of Your processes!

Nice pieces on AgencySpy, who is rapidly becoming what AdRants wishes it was:

Consumers are so on the war path when it comes to advertising. From banned XBox print ads to Aquafina having to admit it’s tap water, the advertising industry had better realize we need to stay on the alert.

Advertising and other media is no longer magic. Audiences understand what happens on both sides of the screen. They know and care about how you watch them. The same channels that allow you to gather all their information are the same channels they use to learn production techniques and leverage their concerns.

(Via AngencySpy)