The Facebook Page Conundrum

As Facebook increases its foothold on word domination (the most recent case in point is the recently revealed "Like" feature that will allow any piece of content on any website to be pulled into the Facebook), not having a presence on Facebook is becoming more of a liability for businesses. Why would a business NOT want to capitalize on the magic that is Facebook?

As I blogged a few months ago, there remains one big reason: the fact that business owners ultimately have little to no control over the fate of their Pages should the original creator part ways with the company, or if Facebook decides to suspend the page creator's account for some reason. I got a lot of great comments on that post, and on the same post when it ran on Social Media Today, including two claiming that the issue I raise is actually a non-issue because Pages don't actually have to be tied to a profile at all. At this point, I don't really know what to think; Facebook's own information about this is contradictory and there remains no "ah-ha" solution as far as I'm concerned.

In a perfect world, you could just contact Facebook and ask them for a definitive answer on this...but we're talking Facebook here. I find it most ironic that while every other company/brand on the planet is bending over backwards to engage with consumers and provide support across multiple platforms, Facebook--the biggest social media player of all--is infamous for its lack of responsiveness and/or customer support. I have tried to contact Facebook to ask about this directly--no response.

I got comments from two people who "wrote the book" on Facebook: Mari Smith and Cappy Popp, both of whom suggest that it's a non-issue because you can just create a business account and therefore avoid the original Page creator issue. Call me crazy or morally superior or just obsessive about rules, but Facebook has set it up as a weird no-win situation: an individual can have EITHER a personal account OR a business account but not both--therefore I don't see this as a solution.

(Source: Business Accounts Help page)

How does this make sense? Assuming that one needs to be familiar with social media tools before being able to effectively use them for business, WHY would Facebook make it so that business accounts only have the ability to manage items on their Pages and view stats but not view the profile information of any other users, or add any applications? The way they have it set up, only Facebook virgins can create business accounts, and then they can only myopically manage their own Page.

The fact remains that I would be willing to bet that most business pages were created by and are now tied to a personal account, and regardless of the number of additional admins that person adds to manage the page, the page itself remains tied to that original creator.

Note that wording--"the original creator of the Page may never be removed." Never is a long time, especially in a day and age when people no longer stay with one employer till death do they part.

My advice? Be prepared for the eventual departure of your Page's original creator by having multiple admins and, when/if the original creator of the Page leaves your company, talk to your legal department about having them sign something saying they won't tamper with the Page. And Facebook, if you're listening, PLEASE address this issue.

Rant Time

What's a Friday without a little ranting? I have to say, even though social media is my chosen profession at the moment, sometimes the BS of the whole thing just starts to get to me. In that vein, here are a few choice reads:

• Even though Facebook is currently being investigated by European regulators, they're still pushing the envelope when it comes to profiting off exploiting people's privacy. They sure are profiting, too--$35 Billion is a recent estimated value. Facebook is making a mint off the fact that so many people use the site to connect with each other--I mean, fine, there's value in being able to connect but does that mean we should all roll over and let Facebook use our private data however they want in the name of "providing useful social experiences"? How about calling a spade a spade for once and just admitting "we've found a way to make a ton of money selling you out to third-party sites--but you're ok with that, right, because you like connecting on Facebook so we know you'll also like connecting on third party sites"? Bullshit. If I want to connect in a Facebook-like way I go to Facebook where I expect to be able to control how I connect; I don't need you to set up that same kind of interaction for me on other sites without my consent.  Thanks, though, for thinking of me.
• This article about the social media bubble by Umair Haque is a must read. Seriously. I mean, I love connecting online and derive a ton of value from it...but does that mean I think the whole world should benefit in a monetary way from the fact that I like to socialize online? I know it goes against the grain of what I do for a living to say this, but the idea of "monetizing" everything is making me increasingly sick. Take this ad campaign that Todd Deferen writes about--this is exactly what Umair Haque talks about: social media is making a caricature of real relationships and real trust.
• Speaking of rants, here's a doozy on the SocialFish blog. I can't really say I agree with the guy but I do wonder what set him off--because you know at the heart of every rant is a really good story that the person can't share so instead has to rant about something sort of but not totally related.

So what set me off on my rant? Well, if I told you I'd have to kill you, then nobody would be reading this blog so I can't do that. But suffice it to say it had something to do with smoke and mirrors and bullshit, all in the name of, you guessed it, social media.

The Big "O" for Women in Social Media Is Not In Their Paychecks

If you know me you know there's nothing I hate more than "top 10" lists of social media people. So naturally I clicked the link in today's Ragan's Daily Headlines email "Top 10 women working in social media" so I could revel in the stupidness of yet another meaningless "top 10" list. The title of the post, however, wasn't Top 10; it was "What’s the Big 'O' in Social Media for Women." Hm, I wasn't aware that there was a big "O" in social media...guess I've been missing out. Go figure.

At any rate, as fate would have it, the post actually turns out to be yet another interview with Charlene Li (I just blogged about another interview with her yesterday). The question that proved most interesting to me in this particular interview was this one:

Q: In the age of “She-conomy,” how are women doing when it comes to social media and social networking? Do you see a gap?

A: In general, women are on par if not ahead in the adoption of social media, and especially social networking. There really isn’t much of a gap at all in terms of adoption and usage.

Reading this both perplexes me and pisses me off because one thing is for sure: there is a very definite gender gap in terms of compensation in social media jobs. About six months ago I blogged about Forum One Network's Online Community & Social Media Compensation survey, which revealed a widening gap in salaries with respect to gender; male respondents averaged $86,644 (up from $85,423 in ’08) while females averaging $75,624 (down from $77,319 in ’08). Why the widening gap despite women's supposed edge when it comes to social media adoption?

Then a few weeks ago I saw the results of a new study about social marketing compensation which revealed a HUGE disparity in salaries based on gender: female respondents reported an annual salary of $64k, while males reported a staggeringly-higher $104k.

I don't know why I'm surprised; it's no mystery that women make less than men in too many instances to even try to link to. Maybe because I keep reading about how social media represents big opportunities for women. How women dominate the social networking scene. Etc--I won't bore you by linking to all the posts in this blog in which I already address this topic.

My question is this: why was that social marketing compensation report released well over a week ago yet nobody seems to be picking up on the fact that in the super-hot field of social marketing, men are making almost double what women are making for equivalent jobs? Seriously--that's headline worthy to me.

Charlene Li Says My Job Shouldn't Exist

I don't know if anyone has noticed but I haven't been posting much lately. First I was away at ASAE's Great Ideas conference, where I presented a fun session with Lynn Morton "Choose Your Own Social Media Adventure" and participated in Maddie Grant's fun fishbowl session about social media managers. Not to mention attended some awesome sessions and socialized a lot. Then I wrote a guest post for SocialFishing about things you can do with a Facebook page. Then I did a presentation on social media engagement strategies for associations for the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents with Andy Steggles. Then I crashed.

Just when I was feeling like quite the social media mover and shaker, one of my heros, Charlene Li, took the wind right out of my sails.  The current issue Association Media & Publishing's magazine, Signature, features an interview with her where she states that my job (community & social media manager for an association) shouldn't exist. Unfortunately, I can't link to the article because you have to be a member to access it, which is too bad because it was a really good article--albeit kind of a downer for me. One of the questions the author poses in the piece is "How much time should an association allow its staff to spend listening in on social media sites?" Li answers that there are several good technologies that can help association staff easily follow conversations they need to hear in just a few minutes a day. She then adds "Another important point is for the association not to designate one person 'in charge of' participating in social media sites on behalf of the association. Everyone in the association should be listening in and following whatever conversations out there that pertain to their job and expertise."

Yikes. Mind you, this is not the first time someone has made the case that having one person "do" social media for a company is not a good idea. Even I have blogged about it before. All the same, it's not the kind of thing you want to read when you're forging a career in social media. I mean, if you think about it, isn't the ultimate mark of a social media manager's success that he or she's done the job so well that he/she's no longer needed?

Then again, if you're going to be a social media manager, maybe the association world is a pretty good place to be, because it's going to be a long, LONG time before social becomes something everyone is willing to accept responsibility for.

Would You Pay Extra to Socialize at Your Next Conference?

My friend who's an HR director and member of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) sent me a link to a post about SHRM's new pricing model for their annual conference and I'm curious to hear what others think about it.

Basically they're offering a "premium package" that's an upsell from their regular registration rate--$295 above the (already pricey) registration. The main thing they're selling is, basically, time--as in, freeing up your time during the conference for networking and socializing since you don't have to attend as many sessions because the package gives you virtual access to sessions.

I personally like it but think you'd have a hard time selling it to your boss--not only am I asking you to pay my travel, hotel and registration to an already expensive conference--but can you also pay an extra $300 so I don't have to actually attend sessions and can, instead, socialize? Call me crazy but I don't really see too many employers being psyched for that.

On the other hand, I like that they're promoting more socializing and networking because I am a big believer in those things being the real value in attending conferences. Then again, they're basically asking you to pay for the same thing twice: live sessions and then $300 extra for the recorded versions. And the recorded sessions are only available for registrants to purchase--why not let people who don't attend the live event pay to view recorded sessions and receive credits like attendees can?

I don't belong to this association, but it seems to me they're making this way more about what's good/profitable for them than being a value-added for attendees or virtual attendees.

Yet Another Rant on the New York Times Mommy Blogger Thing

First I wasn't going to blog about this because I realize that the last two posts I've written have been about a similar topic. Then I remembered why I blog: because I want to, and why I don't blog for money: so I don't have to answer to anyone else about what I want to write about. Which means that if I want to write three posts in a row about the same topic I can.

Anyway, lots of dust swirling in the blogosphere over the last few days about the topic of blogging for pay--in particular, mom bloggers blogging for pay. Yesterday there was an article in the New York Times called Honey, Don't Bother Mommy. I'm Too Busy Building My Brand. Youch. Lots of responses to it followed, including my favorite kick-ass one, calling the author out for marginalizing women writers.

Then today another post in response to the Times article, this time even more condescending and marginalizing than the NYT piece. I mean, on one hand, I get his attitude towards bloggers who are all about the money, but come on--it's not like this is the first time anyone has reported that there are people out there who blog for money. Is it really that shocking that his pitch to a blogger was met with a rate quote? Seriously, it's not like it's news to anyone that there are plenty of people who blog for one reason: money. And there are plenty of companies out there who are willing to pay bloggers. So to go on a condescending rant spelling out how the "real" world works--as opposed to mommy world--was a little much for me.

Just as Jason Falls pointed out...

Sadly, there are thousands of bloggers (and social news site vote-getters) out there just like her who think (or are being taught by conferences like Bloggy Bootcamp) that being a successful blogger makes them qualified to consult with companies on marketing.

...there are probably equally many PR or marketing people out there who know nothing about social media but think that being PR or marketing people makes them qualified to consult with companies on social media. If we're going to sit around and point fingers about who's "qualified" to provide what services in this world, let's not do it based primarily on gender. Sure, he throws out there that he's not just talking about mom bloggers...but he mostly is.

As for who's to "blame" here for the whole money/blogging thing, should we be blaming bloggers--particularly mommy bloggers--for being greedy and clueless when brands are the ones targeting them because of their social influence? How about agencies dedicated to connecting brands and mom bloggers? You really can't say mom bloggers are clueless and greedy because they're only responding to what they're being told: that brands need them.

The fact remains that when a man states his time is worth $22k a day, it's called knowing his value and being confident. When a woman states that she isn't interested in doing work for free, she's laughable and pathetic and needs schooling on how the business world works.

Update:

Sorry but I just discovered a few more blog posts about this that are so good I had to come back and add them:

• Newspaper Bias Against Mom Bloggers
• The New York Times Makes Mommy Wars Even Stupider
• You May Write for the NYT But You're a Mom Blogger Too

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