How Much is a "Day of Your Time" Worth?

A few days ago I blogged about how mommy bloggers undervalue themselves; today Chris Brogan told the world that he charges $22,000 for a day of his time.

This may be sacrilege but I can't help but think of the (awesome) HBO show, Cathouse, when Chris talks about how much he charges for "a day of his time". (NOT safe for work so I'm not even putting a link to it, lest you click it then blame me when you get fired.) The show is about the Bunny Ranch...which, if you don't already know, is a brothel. Those girls make some serious coin.

My favorite concept on that show is "the girlfriend experience"--basically what regular guys get for free from real girlfriends, some guys are willing to pay thousands for at the Bunny Ranch. I don't remember the exact figure but I think they charge--and get--something like $10,000 for maybe a half day of their time. Yes--that's right--there are men out there who will pay $10,000 or more to take a woman to dinner and spend the night--even when there exist in nature millions of women out there who will do it for free. Just as there are companies out there who will pay $22,000 for a day of Chris Brogan's time--even though there are people out there who will do it for a lot less--or for free.

My point? Set your value high, because there are people out there who will pay it.

Who Needs Money When You Can Work for "Prizes and Rewards"?

I was so excited to see Beth Harte's post about Nestle's "special offer" to join their digital think tank because it confirmed that I'm not crazy thinking mom bloggers are getting shafted. For a while now I've wondered if I'm just bitter or crazy for thinking that mom bloggers are being totally exploited by big brands and agencies. As far as I can tell, this is the dynamic: the new gospel for brands is that moms are the new influencers and the ultimate marketing coup is to get mom bloggers to work their magic for your brand. So brands spend thousands on third-parties in charge of wrangling the mom bloggers to do the actual work: spreading the word throughout the mom-o-sphere that brand X is great and everyone should buy it. What do mom bloggers get out of it? A chance to win a gift card. A free product to review. A coupon. Anything but actual money.

So back to Beth's post--what I loved about it was that here was basically the exact same pitch mom bloggers are being fed every day--and finally someone is pointing out just how ridiculous it is for companies to expect something of value for nothing. Here is part of Nestle's pitch:

Next week, we are a launching a unique, invitation-only online community called The Digital Think Tank and would love you to be part of it. It is an online collaborative space in which you will be able to shape the future digital communications strategy of one of the world’s leading organisations; Nestlé.

Participants will have a unique chance to create the perfect brand for our new digital world, exchange knowledge and expertise with peers.

And of course the clincher--because it works with mom bloggers:

Receive prizes and rewards: our way of saying thanks for joining in!

Hey--can't blame Nestle for trying, right? I mean, you've got millions of mom bloggers out there willing to work for "prizes and rewards"--why not assume that others may well be willing to work for the same level of compensation?

Just in case you're wondering how I know this stuff--it's because while I would never call myself a mom blogger because I think the term is demeaning, I am a mom and a blogger. I belong to mom blogger networks. I receive pitches. I read mom blogs and recoil at all the meanness and the competition. I belong to BlogHer's ad network (hence the lucrative ad in the sidebar of this blog; I've earned almost $30 running those ads for 7 months now). I know that lots of money is changing hands in the name of mom blogging--and that the mom bloggers are barely receiving any of it. Companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to agencies to do "mom blogger outreach." The agencies partner with high-profile mom bloggers, who in turn, present the "opportunities" to their eager networks of bloggers. Write a post about X and you'll be entered to win a drawing for a gift card. You can receive a FREE product if you'll blog about it, take photos of it and share on Flickr and Facebook, tweet about it--all by 5 pm tomorrow--and be sure to mention x, y and z about the product. Or my favorite--giveaways. Brand X will give you this product and you write a post about it, run an elaborate contest on your own time, then mail it to the winner--on your own dime, of course. If you're lucky maybe they'll give you one to keep for yourself and one to give.

Here's the good news: more and more women seem to be speaking up about this issue lately, both as it applies to mom blogging and just business in general:

• No. You Can't Pick My Brain
• I Work for Me. Not for Free
• Are Companies Taking Advantage of Bloggers?
• Why Mom Bloggers Aren't Flipping for Just a Sample of Your Product

What if Facebook Becomes the Next Monsanto?

I love nothing better than a good "what if?"

So when I saw this news about Facebook patenting the news feed, I couldn't help but think of the movie I'm now obsessed with, Food, Inc. Specifically, the part about my worst nightmare company, Monsanto, and how they are systematically suing farmers who don't use their genetically-modified--and patented--soy beans.

If you haven't seen the movie, you need to--if for no other reason than so you can tell me if I'm crazy for thinking that there's nothing stopping Facebook from doing the same thing to rival social networking sites that Monsanto is doing to hard-working farmers. Basically, Monsanto has huge pockets and can afford to sue small farmers who are then forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves, even if they've done nothing wrong. I've personally never seen a more horrific example of greed or soul-less-ness, and it makes me question what kind of world we live in that they can get away with what they're doing.

Facebook has money and a patent. Let's hope they have more of a conscience than Monsanto--otherwise, looks like we can all kiss Twitter and other social networking sites goodbye. Seriously--if you don't think it could happen, watch Food, Inc.

Is The Age of the Troll Over?

There was a really interesting article in the New York Observer a few days ago about the new trend towards  civility. Don't get me wrong--there are still plenty of haters out there--but this point in particular struck a chord with me:

With all due respect to the Internet, it has not often been described as a "lovefest"; indeed, it has been better known as a forum for fire-breathing, semi-literate personal attacks. But suddenly, wide swaths of the Web have become bastions of support and earnest civility, where community-members "retweet" or "reblog" each other's bon mots, promiscuously proffer thumbs-up, help sell perfect strangers' books, drive traffic to each other's blogs and real-world events and even defend one another.

I have to say that I totally agree with the author--it honestly does seem that the internet has recently become a lot "nicer." I personally attribute it to several things:

• Less anonymity. A few years ago I had the pleasure of being an occasional guest blogger on the Washington Post's "On Balance" blog. That was back before people were required to login to leave comments--you could just create a lil' nickname and fire away. And trust me--fire away they did. Some of the readers of those posts pretty much tore me limb from limb--thankfully usually my writing wasn't the target of their jabs, but me personally. If you have a few minutes and want a laugh/shudder, go read the comments in this post and this one. "Maggie clearly has issues." "Her last guest post was as loopy and insecure as this one." Etc. And my personal favorite "Not for nothing, but Maggie's actually pretty hot"--and the ensuing comments about how I was probably a former cheerleader. Anyone who knew me in high school would be laughing their asses off over that one--suffice it to say that cheerleader or Queen Bee I was not. Ok--sorry--back to my point--the readers of that blog did the same for every post--their daily joy was picking apart whoever was up at bat--the nastier and snarkier the comments, the better. It was actually an online community where the same people posted every day and had conversations with each other--all behind the safety of their nicknames. The Post subsequently changed their policy and required all commenters to register with the site...and lo and behold, the On Balance blog faded into non-existence. Without their shroud of anonymity, the commenters had no incentive to read or comment.
• You can't hide online anymore. I blogged about this concept back in the day: "I have to wonder what it would be like if everyone had their photo next to their "screen name," or even if they had to use their real names; would they still be as aggressive as they are in their safe anonymity?" Fast forward to today when a lot of the time people DO have their photos next to their names--and, not so surprisingly, are a lot nicer. You also can't hide online as easily as you used to. Of course, there's nothing stopping anyone from using made up online identities, but most times when you're commenting on a blog post these days, your name--real or not--is tied to at least an email address and, if you have one, the url of your blog or website. Commenting on blog posts is now a way to attract blog readers and/or to call attention to yourself in a positive way. Of course, there is still plenty of online nastiness to be sure--but there's more accountability. More people are interested in what you're doing online these days: potential employers Google you; marketers and creditors may well scrape information from a number of sites to get as much information about you as possible, or use services like Rapleaf or 123People (hat-tip to the Community Roundtable and the awesome call with Lauren Gelman yesterday for making me obsessed with this issue now!)
• Online reputations have tangible value now. Not only is it harder to hide online these days, but there is lots of potential gain from NOT hiding. Amber Naslund makes about the most compelling argument possible for this with her post about how she made $100k using Twitter. I know I've gotten speaking engagements--even job offers--just through my interactions with people online. Sure, I could skulk around using a fake name, blog anonymously, and get out all my hostility by blasting people like the On Balance commenters did back in the day....but why would I--or anyone else--waste my time doing that stuff when there is so much potential benefit from using your real identity online? It doesn't matter what line of work you're in--a strong online presence is basically part of your resume. I have a friend who once had a series of great interviews and was one of the top contenders for a position--only to be told that she didn't get the job because when they Googled her name, not enough stuff came up. 

What do you think--is "nice the new black" online? Or are there just as many trolls as ever and I'm just blind?

Is Your Association Equipped to Integrate Social Media With Member Service?

I'm having wicked writer's block this week for some reason; luckily I have tons of half-baked blog posts just lolling around unpublished. This one is from several months ago and I'm not sure why I never finished it, but it seems sort of relevant after today's #assnchat that focused primarily on whether or not associations should be integrating social media into their overall member service offerings. What does "integrating social media and member service" mean? Listening to what members are saying on Twitter, blogs, and social networks and addressing complaints or questions in the appropriate channel as they arise. Then tracking those exchanges in the AMS just as you'd track any other member interaction such as a phone or email inquiry. Working in "real time" rather than just 8:30-5. Stuff like that.

My feeling is that, for most associations, integrating social media into member service is probably still a long way off for several reasons. The first and most important of which is that, in order to even think about mixing the two, ALL members of an association's staff must be fully versed in all aspects of social media: understand the tools, be actively listening, have a coordinated plan for responding and have plans in place for properly tracking such interactions. Yes, that's right: all. Not just member service staff. But that's another post for another time; I'm going to back it up and start by saying that a good place to begin is with the social media team concept.

Amber Naslund wrote a great ebook on developing social media teams that I think is a perfect foundation for the concept of creating a culture that would be willing and able to incorporate social media into its member service activities.

Points that are especially relevant to the social media/member service pairing:

• "No matter who is reaching out on behalf of your company, your customers and community aren’t segmenting you by department and they don’t care about your job titles. They’re looking at you as a unified team that they can count on to meet their needs. So by all means devise a system that works for you, but ultimately remember that you are ALL stewards of your company and your brand, and by participating in social media, you’re setting new expectations for accessibility and availability. And you’re all in it together." In other words, that silo culture that's always worked before? Won't work anymore if you want to effectively use social media to listen and respond to members. 
• "The members of your team doing the participating need to be interested in doing so in the first place. Check out whether your team members are using social networks or blogging in their personal lives, and see where their interests lie." Audit your existing staff resources. Do you already have social media "experts" on staff? If so, good--they can take on the not-insignificant task of evangelizing to and training staff who aren't familiar with social media or who think it's stupid and a waste of time.
• "An aspect of social media execution that I think often gets lost in the shuffle is communicating among your internal team." What channels already exist to allow staff to communicate with each other? None? That's a problem. A huge part of being able to effectively integrate social media and member service is coordinating the listening, triaging, responding and tracking. 

I'll leave it at that for now...what do you think? Does this make sense or should I just wait out this writer's block and not attempt to dust off old, unpublished posts ever again?

Guest Blogging on Socialfish

I'm so excited to have been asked to do a monthly guest post for the awesome Socialfish blog. Today was my first post--Curating Content for Social Media Outposts. The post looks much fancier there than it would here! Even more awesome is that they also have an iPhone app. I need to carve out about a hundred hours and make one for this blog.

Does Social Media Really Mean Big Opportunities for Women?

Playing a quick game of catch-up on Facebook, I nearly scrolled right past Mashable's post--but the words "social media" and "women" caught my eye. Why Social Media Means Big Opportunities for Women. Does it really?

Last time I checked, the news wasn't so great for women in social media. Traditional gender bias seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Even though women dominate social networks, the gender/salary gap in social media jobs widened in 2009. Yes, there are a lot of mom bloggers out there, but how many are actually making money doing it--as opposed to spending a ton of time networking, making connections, writing blog posts--all for the chance to win a gift card or get a free sample of something?

I definitely don't know everything. What I do know is this: women are being tapped by advertisers and PR agencies as the new influencers. Brands are falling all over themselves trying to capitalize on the fact that women spend money and influence peers. If you are lucky enough to be female, a mom, and have a huge online following, the sky's the limit. Dooce just inked a deal with HGTV; the Pioneer Woman just irked the mom blog world by allegedly getting preferential treatment (and compensation) from Blogher Publishing Nework. But as far as I can tell, the main people making money off the efforts of mom bloggers are agencies for blogger outreach or other coordination efforts. Companies pay these middlemen thousands of dollars; the bloggers themselves rarely see a fraction of that money.

I don't know--what's your take? Am I being too pessimistic or do you agree that maybe Mashable's headline is a bit off-base?