Facebook 50--Proof That Metrics Are Misguided

So I just saw this tweet



Naturally I clicked the link; I'm always interested when social media is "proof" of anything.

TheBigMoney.com has come up with a ranking of companies based on their social media engagment. How are they defining "engagement"? According to ZDNet, this is how BigMoney explained the selection process:

Companies had to have a minimum of 200,000 Facebook friends or fans before being considered for The Big Money Facebook 50. Qualifying brands were then assessed on whether they employ a dedicated social media staff, how long the brand has been present on Facebook, and how much money it spends on the social networking site.....

(somewhat weirdly, if you click the link they are allegedly citing from, BigMoney describes their selection process a bit differently; no mention of the dedicated staff or the amount of money the brand spends on Facebook. Puzzling.)

I personally find these selection criteria off-base. If you read this blog, you know how I feel about the whole numbers game; I think it's BS, so a threshold of 200,000 fans to even qualify as a player? Ridiculous, IMO. But whatever. What I really don't understand, though, is how they tie the amount of money a brand spends on Facebook with how big a player they are. Call me crazy but last time I checked Facebook was free and throwing money at a developer or ad agency as a qualifier for how well you're using it seems 100% random to me.

The whole point of social media is that it is not dreamt up by ad agencies and shoved down our throats. Are we really going to start defining success by who can most closely replicate traditional advertising while making it look like engagement?

How about the nonprofit Facebook 50? Would success be tied to how many fans a nonprofit had, or how much money they spent on the page?

I'm Thankful for....Blogcation

Among the many, many things in life that I'm thankful for--good health, a wonderful family, a great job despite a rough economy, material comforts, scads of interesting friends both on and offline, to name just a few--I'm thankful for the opportunities blogging has brought me. To me, blogging is one of the few pleasures in life that a person can have total control over. There are no rules, you can write what you want, when you want, how you want, and only if you want. If you enjoy writing--are, in fact--compelled to write because it's what makes you tick--blogging is a godsend. Sure, journaling is nice, but somehow knowing nobody will ever see it it just kind of falls short in the "I'm writing to share my feelings and experiences" scheme of things.

At any rate, as much as I love to write, lately I think I've been too busy to do a great job at it. Rather than rehash the whole thing, you can read about it in my other blog if you're interested in why I think this.

So this is what I'm going to do about it: take a blogcation. After all, it's a holiday, right? I'm going to hang with my husband and kids, read, go see some movies...and try not to think social media thoughts for a few days.

Thanks for reading and sharing my posts, and I hope you all have a great, low family drama Thanksgiving.

Comcast and Twitter: How Much is it Really About Customers?

Raise your hand if you haven't heard about how Comcast is doing a great job using Twitter for customer service. Chances are, there probably aren't a lot of hands up because Comcast has gotten lots of great press because of Comcastcares.

The problem is that, while I'm sure Frank Eliason truly does care about customer satisfaction, the rest of Comcast's customer service team apparently doesn't share those same values. Or, at least, customer service still seems to suck as badly as ever in spite of Comcast's Twitter efforts.

Here's the thing: Comcast gets great marks for their use of Twitter for customer service--but is that what social media is supposed to be about? Getting positive buzz for your company or actually providing better service to customers?

The problem remains that social media tools don't have the power to magically transform legions of apathetic employees and clock-punchers into avid brand enthusiasts devoted to doing the best job possible, 24/7, because it's personally meaningful to them. People seem to overlook the reality that while there's plenty of glitz and glamour for social media "rockstars," customer service is still a crappy job with no perks like speaking engagements, lucrative consulting opportunities or mass adoration. In other words, guys like Frank Eliason have plenty of reasons to strive to give great service; what incentive is there for the faceless thousands of customer service reps who aren't being highlighted in Business Week or the Wall Street Journal?

Forget Traits--4 DSM Diagnoses of Social Media Mavens

Social media people love them some lists. 5 Qualities of a Good Social Media Manager. 3 Qualities to Look for When Hiring a Community Manager. Social Media Folks to Watch in 2010. Twitter lists...for chrissake--don't even get me started on Twitter lists. In short, there are LOTS of lists out there related to social media people...so I thought I'd add one of my own.

Something I've thought about for a long time (and blogged about at least twice) is the connection between success and mental illness. No, I'm not being facetious--I mean it--I think if you really want to be scientific about qualities to look for when hiring for social media positions, I would venture to guess that every successful social media person out there falls under at least one of the following DSM diagnoses:

1. OCD--Do you feel you MUST be connected online 24/7? Does the thought of being in a wi-fi-less zone fill you with dread? Are you compelled to click on every link in every blog post you read because you're afraid you'll miss something important if you don't? Take a look at the biggest social media "rockstars"--they are uber-connected almost every minute of the day. They're tweeting from airplanes, blogging while on vacation (or spending time before vacation queuing up posts to run while they're gone), pouring over blog traffic reports or obsessing about how many Twitter lists they're on. The thing is, to be successful in social media you kind of have to be obsessive...because otherwise you'd have lost interest a long time ago and abandoned the whole thing. There is so much information out there; how many "normal" people would take the time to stay on top of it all?



2. Narcissistic personality disorder--In case you don't feel like clicking on that link, here's how Wikipedia defines NPD:
   

   "The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness. It is also colloquially referred to as the god complex."

   
   All the people out there who don't get Twitter--who can't imagine why anyone would care to know what they're doing--those people are not narcissists. Those of us who feel compelled to share our every thought, link back to our blog posts, and offer up little bits o' wisdom...on some level we are narcissists. And I'm sorry but look me in the eye and tell me that your chest doesn't puff out with pride just a little bit knowing that you have 4 or 5 digits of followers on Twitter or thousands--or maybe it's millions--of blog subscribers. And if you do have thousands or millions of Twitter followers or subscribers--tell me it doesn't make you feel kinda important. Hell, I have 184 subscribers and I'm the first to admit it impresses me...and in terms of real numbers I don't even rate. Add to that being constantly referred to as a "rockstar," being paid huge amounts of money to consult or speak, being able to generate appreciable income from blogging by virtue of sponsorships...tell me that wouldn't give anyone a god complex.



3. Bipolar disorder--I won't name any names but there is at least one huge social media-ite out there who I would be willing to bet money is clinically bipolar. The part of bipolar that relates to social media success is mania--and this person is basically the walking definition of mania. Barely sleeps. Prolific content creator--blog posts, videos, books, ideas, schemes...in short, brilliant. If you know anything about bipolar disorder, you know that basically anyone and everyone in the history of the world who is in any major way creative, brilliant, and/or prolific was/is bipolar. Therefore, if you ask me, it just stands to reason that to be successful in social media--a career that requires huge amounts of enthusiasm, time, creativity, intensity and just flat-out time spent digesting information in some way or another--being bipolar gives you a leg up on mere mortals.



4. ADHD--because of the inalienable fact that there are only 24 hours in a day, in order to be successful in social media it is imperative you be able to multi-task. And nobody can multi-task, especially online, like someone with ADHD. Why? Because only people with ADHD can hyperfocus--in other words, be able to sit online, riveted and engaged, for endless hours. The thing with social media is that it takes scads of time--more time than actually exists in a day. Think about it--blogging, tweeting, reading, participating on multiple online social networks--it takes a LOT of time. Anyone who says you can do it in a few minutes or an hour a day is lying. If you want to be posting your own content, keeping up with other thought leaders in social media, participating in online dialogues, responding to comments and tweets, etc--that cannot be done in an hour a day. You need to be doing many more than one thing at once in order to maximize your waking hours, especially online...and the people best able to do this are those with ADHD.

Maybe people need to re-think their negative biases against mental illness--because after all, some of the biggest names in social media probably wouldn't be where they are if they were "normal."

Association Social Media #Fail

There's no shortage of buzz about what associations should be doing with regard to social media. Workshops. Webinars. Blogs. Tons of sources of information for crafting social media policies, setting up a Facebook page, using social media in conjunction with events.

Somehow one association seems to have missed all these helpful resources, or else just ignored them. Because surely, had this association partaken of any of the above advice, they would never have dreamed of setting up a Twitter account, locking it, then offering to sell access to journalists for $10 each. Yet, that's exactly what they did.

If it were earlier in the day and/or I was feeling more creative I could probably write a sonnet--or at the very least a dissertation--on the reasons this was wrong, wrong, wrong. But then again, maybe it's a good thing I'm not in that frame of mind because maybe I'm the one who's all wrong. Anyone want to give me a reality check? Because I'm really trying not to be judgemental about this...and failing.

The Chicken and Egg Problem With Social Media Hiring

Some great posts this week about hiring for social media jobs: one by Amber Naslund and one by Tom Humbarger.

My favorite quote from Tom's post:

"There are only so many social media gurus and rockstars – If you specify that you are seeking a social media guru or rock-star, then expect to pay a premium as these people are rare and they have many options. If you are not willing to pay for this type of expert, then don’t use these descriptors in your job posting."

And from Amber's:

"Companies still don’t know why they need or want social media."

Short and sweet and right on ; )

Here's the thing: right now, there are all kinds of disconnects in the social media hiring process: disparities in pay, in title, in companies' expectations of the position--and no quantity of blog posts from people who have the benefit of experience to tell it like it is and/or needs to be is going to correct it. Amber and Tom are totally right--because they've been there, done that, and can clearly see where others are making mistakes. They know from personal experience what will and will not work. And in the end, they will be proven right.

But most companies are not willing to take the leap of faith to hire a social media person AND not somehow want to tie ROI or SEO or some other known absolute to it. Are they right? No. But are they on the right track at least trying to get someone on staff? Yes.

I wish there were some shortcut to companies "getting it" and I wish they would all just leave social media hiring to people who have been there, done that and learned from the experience. But the unfortunate reality is that the only way companies are apparently going to learn this stuff is the hard way--by doing it wrong, learning from the experience, then, a few years from now, circling back to posts like the ones above and doing it the right way next time.

A Third Sure Thing In Life: Death, Taxes and Facebook Page Admin Rights

Facebook public profiles--they're a good thing, right? Why would your brand NOT create one? All those millions of Facebook users will be able to interact with your brand, your messages will go effortlessly viral via the every-improving News Feed feature...and it's free. Well, unless you want to run a contest on your page....but I digress.

Creating a page is simple...but heaven help you if you ever want to transfer ownership of that page to someone else should you, say, leave that company. At this time there is NO WAY to transfer ownership of a Facebook page. Seriously. So that intern you hire to set up your page on Facebook? Once he or she leaves, go ahead and kiss that page goodbye because there does not exist a way for you to un-associate that person from your brand. Ok, so maybe he or she leaves on good terms and just agrees to ignore the page and let you take over--may you be so lucky. But say that "social media guru" you hired because he or she seemed like such a genius at the time turns out to not be a great hire and you fire him or her...well, all I can say is: yikes.

Do you agree that this sucks and think Facebook should address this issue? Please, please add your voice to the discussion thread on this topic in Facebook. So far there are 240 comments on this thread which was initiated in April and Facebook has yet to respond in any way.

The Facebook Free Ride is Over

Remember Facebook--the free platform you can use to post whatever you want, in whatever format you want, for free? Remember all the limitless possibilities for engagement it promised brands? Yeah, well stick a fork in that memory because it's done; Big Brother Facebook just announced some new rules that require you to get their approval before doing any kind of contest or promotion.

Huh?

I'm still wondering if I'm reading the post on Inside Facebook wrong because there seems to be almost no reaction anywhere to what I find to be absolutely intrusive and ridiculous rules. Since when do users have to ask Facebook permission to do anything? Since when do they get to stipulate where you will or will not post a certain type of content? And most importantly, since when do they get to tell people that the only way they can post certain content is to pay a third-party?

In case you don't feel like clicking any of the links above, here's an excerpt from the new guidelines:

You may not administer any promotion through Facebook, except that you may administer a promotion through the Facebook Platform with our prior written approval. Such written approval may be obtained only through an account representative at Facebook. If you are already working with an account representative, please contact that representative to begin the approval process. If you do not work with an account representative, you can use this contact form to inquire about working with an account representative. If we provide you such approval, you agree to the following:

3.1 You will only administer the promotion through an application on the Facebook Platform, as directed by us.

3.2 You will only allow users to enter the promotion in the following locations on Facebook:

3.2.1 On the canvas Page of an application on the Facebook Platform.

3.2.2 On an application box in a tab on a Facebook Page.

3.6 You must submit materials for any promotion you plan on administering through the Facebook Platform to your account representative for our review and approval at least 7 days prior to the start date of such promotion. Promotions not approved in writing within such time period will be deemed unapproved.

Here's the thing: this is no big deal to big brands with big budgets for stuff like this, or to people who are already paying an agency to administer their Facebook pages and/or to develop applications. But to nonprofits who don't have money to spend on third-party applications, I personally think it's a significant loss.

Maybe I'm naive or just flat-out mistaken, but as far as I know this is the first time that Facebook seems to be saying, in so many words, "if we're not going to make money off this, you can't do it." Yes, I realize that they're requiring you to pay not them but the third party app developers, but please--tell me that they're not getting a cut of that money somehow. Why else would they be doing it? I just don't buy the "we're just trying to keep the News Feed cleaner" thing.

So that contest you were planning on running by having people leave a comment about such-and-such then picking a winner from there, or posting photos or other content? Forget it. Now you have to pay to play.

The Recession Isn't What's Wrong With Blogging

I read this post yesterday and feel like I'm living in some kind of parallel universe since them. There are scads of comments but not one person seems to be concerned with the following passage:

"I still remember that in 2008, I got a really incredible contract via my ad service company (I have a company that takes care of selling ads on my blog) with a large pharmaceutical company to write six posts for them to try educating readers on the benefits of their product. The deal was to net me $8,000 for those six articles and the only thing I had to do was to get the copy reviewed by the pharmaceutical company to ensure that I wasn’t using any medical words in the wrong way."

Am I the only one who finds this totally alarming? How can people argue the FTC shouldn't be regulating bloggers when there are pharmaceutical companies out there paying bloggers $8,000 to write about medical products?

Then, I was curious about what kind of disclosing she's doing, so I checked out the disclaimer page on her blog. It includes this statement:

"Do you get paid to talk about the products that are featured on the site? That would be great, but we don’t. We do our research and find the latest and the greatest products dealing with aging well and we share them with you."

I'm confused: I thought the whole point of her post was to complain that it's getting harder to get paid review gigs. Not to point fingers or anything, but wouldn't that then make this statement totally untrue?

The Other Side of Social Media Policies--Employee's Rights

I'm always reading about employees being fired for stuff they say online or how you have to watch what you say if you want to keep your job or find a new one. But until today I'd never realized that it's actually employers who may have to watch how they react to things their employees share online.

According to the Human Resource Executive Online, employees are actually covered by a number of different statutes that protect their rights to say whatever they want online. For example, employers in New York cannot take any adverse action against an employee based on that employee's engagement in "legal recreational activities" if the employee engages in the activities outside of working hours, off of the employer's premises, without using the employer's property. Blogging and commenting online both fall within the "legal recreational activities" category.

Also, apparently the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), thought by many to only cover employees who belong to unions, in fact extends to non-union employees. Rather than try to paraphrase, here is a direct quote from the Human Resource Executive Online post pertaining to NLRA:

While employers are permitted to lay out policies as to what employees may blog about in relation to work, employers cannot fashion policies that have the effect of chilling an employee's exercise of his or her Section 7 rights, nor can employers discipline employees for blogging about "wages, hours, or terms or conditions of employment," such as the company's pay scale or vacation policy. See Timekeeping Sys., Inc., 323 N.L.R.B. 244 (1997).

Does this mean you should feel free to blog about how you hate your job or your boss or to add those lingerie shots to your Facebook profile? No. However, it does mean that if your company wants you to hand over your social media account passwords or forbids you to blog, you might want to polish up your resume.

Sort of related but not really: how much do Dooce's former employers regret firing her now?

(Oh, and even though it goes without saying: I'm not a lawyer so don't take my word for any of this; I'm just passing on info I found interesting.)