Unteaching Social Media: Communication First

The first time I taught a class on social media, students were relatively unconvinced that it would have any impact on communication-related fields such as public relations, advertising, and marketing. They laughed. No one laughs now.

There real irony, however, is that nowadays, I spend less time teaching social media and more time teaching communication, even in classes related to social media. The reason I've adopted a different approach is simple enough. When people talk about social media today, they rely heavily on arbitrary measures like the number of friends, followers, and site traffic.

All of that matters, but none of it really matters. Volume isn't a suitable measure for a successful social media program. The ability of the program to achieve its intent is the only viable measure. Maybe some of the material in this deck will illustrate that.

Social Media: Integrating Strategy

The above deck is a supplemental teaching tool for Integrating Social Media Into A Communication Strategy for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The intent of this deck is to provide students with a reference to material presented in class two weeks ago.

Some of this deck might seem basic for people already working in the field. If this is the case, the more interesting material might be the one environment concept, advertising model, and contradictory expectations that the public had about engaging companies in social media. A few might also find it valuable to consider that social media is the only communication environment that allows for simultaneous one-on-one, one-to-some, and one-to-many communication.

Raising Psychology: Affluence Advertising

Earlier in November, the American Affluence Research Center advised luxury marketers to focus on the wealthiest one percent of the market and ignore the rest. According to an article by Luxury Daily, it based its decision on a completed study that surveyed the wealthiest 10 percent of American households.

"Luxury brands and luxury marketers should be focused on the wealthiest one percent because they are the least likely to be cutting back and are the most knowledgeable about the price points and brands that are true high-end luxury," Ron Kurtz, president of the American Affluence Research Center, Atlanta, told the magazine.

The logic is that luxury marketers need to focus on the audience that is least likely to be cutting back. They are also the most likely to be knowledgeable about the price points and brands that are at the highest end of luxury. However, while the advice might seem sound, it misses one key component of the luxury marker — obtainability.

Sometimes added value isn't the only commodity; exclusivity and identity resonate.

There are several ways to market a luxury product or service. Demonstrating value is one way, but exclusivity and identity are important. An average income household might invest in a green innovation that is generally considered a luxury item because it is an extension of their values.

And, equally likely, consumers are willing to splurge on luxury items for special occasions because, despite financial constraints, the act of purchasing the item or its rarity makes it appear more valuable. In the deepest corners of the recession, consumers were splurging while they were on vacation for very significant reasons.

In addition, the perception of a general product on any particular day can elevate its value. For example, Porsche is often associated with wealth. Cadillac used to be associated with wealth, but as it became more readily accessible to the general public, it lost some stature as a luxury purchase.

This might make an interesting topic for expanded discussion, even without all the evidence that is contrary to the advice of the American Affluence Research Center. Its research seems right, but the conclusions it draws would only drive more marketers into an extremely competitive and small market. Don't be foolish. Instead, take more time to get to know your customers.

Advertising Turnaround: Young Adults Trust Advertising

Everybody is always down on advertising as not to be trusted. There are countless studies that suggest so. That is, until recently.

A study released a few weeks ago by Adweek Media/Harris Poll shows that advertising isn't as untrusting as some might say. In fact, it may even be starting to lead in authenticity, with more people trusting advertisements than social media outlets.

Those surveyed said they trust that advertising is sometimes honest in its claims (65 percent) and just over one in ten say that they never trust that advertising is honest in its claims (13 percent). Still, advertising has some ground to make up.

Among the key differences between those who trust advertising and those who don't is age. Nine in ten young adults aged 18-34 say they trust that advertising is honest in its claims at least sometimes (90 percent). Conversely, only 81 percent of those ages 55+ agree while one in five ages 55+ say that they never trust that advertising is honest (18 percent).

Even more interesting, few people want advertising to be regulated. Forty-eight percent said that advertising doesn't need additional regulation. And 23 percent say that the industry is capable of regulating itself. While interesting, it is not surprising. Government is among the least trusted organizations nowadays.

But still, what is changing about advertising?

If you want an explanation as to why advertising has suddenly started gaining ground, there are two primary reasons to consider. First, consumers have become exceptionally vigilant in pointing out problem companies that lie to consumers. Any company making false claims today, with the exception of those that need advanced expertise like medical, are brought to light by consumers who don't want to bury those companies as much as they want them to change.

And second, which can be tied back the USC Marshall study cited a few days ago, people see brands as extensions of themselves. They want their favorite products, services, and companies to do well. And sometimes, when those companies make mistakes and then are willing to make good on their original promises, consumers are ready to forgive them.

Neglecting Public Relations: How ACORN Fell

In comparison to other news coverage in the past two years, the declaration of bankruptcy by ACORN, which used to be the largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families, has been virtually inaudible. After 40 years as a grassroots advocacy organization, the board members voted to close its last chapter on Nov. 2.

The timing could not have been worse, unless it wanted to go out in a whimper. The release was sent out on Election Day.

According to an end of an era post by CEO Bertha Lewis, the reasons were the barrage of unmitigated accusations and extremists increasing their radicalism. I propose something else killed ACORN.

If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

Extreme publicity, the very assets that became the advocacy group's weapon of choice, was responsible for its undoing.

In its early beginnings, it could be argued that ACORN was needed as a counterbalance. And, for the decade it focused significant effort on investigating complaints against companies accused of predatory lending practices, it did some tremendous good by supporting the enactment of strict state laws against predatory practices, organizing against foreclosure rescue scams, and steering borrowers toward loan counseling.

Ten years or so ago, it even became a valuable resource for me when one bank attempted bait-and-switch practices, using 9-11 as an excuse to jack up interest rates just prior to closing a second mortgage. The information ACORN provided was critical in writing a brief to various members of Congress, providing early documentation and a case study on predatory refinance and second mortgage schemes. Since, the bank in question (but not all), has moved away from such practices.

However, as ACORN expanded its goals to become a much more far-reaching organization through aggressive demonstrations that aimed to draw negative publicity against issues as opposed to evidence, some of its activities became a hotbed of controversy. In 2003, it was criticized for union busting within its own organization. And in recent years, there were allegations of voter fraud, embezzlement, and unprofessional conduct.

In addition, it became more and more politicized in its support and increasingly walled in its approach to public relations, adopting a posture not unlike some of the more unjust companies it would rally against. Whereas the organization was effective in causing change with extreme publicity, its credibility continually eroded until the federal government had no choice but to distance itself and private donors could no longer support it.

The difference between publicity and public relations could not be more clear.

Crain's New York Business was one of the few publications to mention the bankruptcy as more than a mention. Had the organization invested as much time in crisis communication and public relations while keeping its own values in order, it may have survived some of the various controversies. Publicity does not enhance credibility.

Likewise, it could have remained an advocacy group as opposed to becoming an activist group. Perhaps the various ACORN spinoffs that are now being founded, leaving the debt-ridden organization behind, will do better to understand the difference. Any time an organization begins to focus on feeding the organization as opposed to its original mission to support a specific cause, it is time to close the doors.

Seeing Better: How Flipboard Enhances Twitter

As of a few days ago, Twitter had every right to boast about its 175 million registered users, up from 145 million in early September and 105 million in April. According to Ronny Kerr, Twitter could be seeing as many as 15 million new members each and every month (minus 1 million for people with multiple accounts).

What is interesting about the Kerr post is that he points out that Twitter has seen three major growth spurts in the last couple years and each can be directly assigned to individually significant site developments. What does he claim they are?

The first was in mid-2009, a direct result of widespread media coverage of the site because of Ashton Kutcher. The next surge was in its smart phone offerings, with the launch of official iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry apps, that new registrations would flow like a flood again. And the newest surge, he says, has to do with site design.

I don't think so. The new two-column platform detracts from the user experience, squishing the conversation to one side. It seems more likely the influx of new people is related to the adoption of companies, organizations, and promotion by media.

The reason could be that the entire interface is flawed, something that never occurred to me until viewing Twitter on Flipboard.

How Flipboard, despite some shortcomings, is intuitive.

Legal questions aside, while Flipboard is not suited to dialogue between people (beyond a one comment quip), it does help sort the valuable content from the chaff because it ports in the first few graphs of any link. And, after experimenting with it for a few days, it saves me considerable time and adds value for two reasons.

• Flipboard allows me to immediately see what is behind any link, beyond the 140-character pitch.
• Flipboard helps me find valuable content without relying on other factors like trust and frequency.

In other words, it levels the playing field for everyone I have weaker relationships with while vetting the content being shared by people I have stronger relationships with. And, it does this effectively enough that unless Flipboard disappears, there is no better way to consume content (noting that as I already mentioned, you cannot engage in a two-way dialogue).

The concept was originally developed as an alternative to the various applications that some publications are putting out, but some of the real value comes from social network streams like Facebook and Twitter. Interestingly enough, the Facebook experience on Flipboard is neutral because Facebook never adopted the truncated communication model.

Sure, it would be even better if you could import one blog or feed or web address as opposed to a Twitter stream, but Flipboard works well enough for now. Likewise, if little chat bubbles could accompany the one-time comment option (much like Echo Phone allows), it would change from a content delivery option to a dialogue option.

But more importantly, and the point of this post, it really demonstrates the inherent weakness of Twitter's communication model. As an interface, I've become more fond of Fried Eggs and Facebook for this reason. Both encourage shorter communication without the lockdown on those occasions when you want a longer dialogue.

Don't get me wrong. I still value Twitter because of my connections there. Or, perhaps, I ought to say I value my connections so much, I'm willing to put up with Twitter. However, long term, I wonder how Twitter will fare unless it can develop interfaces that break away from its original, ever more confining quip of 140 characters or less. How about you?

Antiplanning And Disaster: A Real Communication Weakness

Two weeks ago, Valeria Maltoni shared insights that ought to make some businesses nervous. A new study from Smart Brief reveals that as many as 86 percent of all people don't know that planning is the first step toward effective communication.

Even more concerning was the size of the study. Smart Brief did not survey a handful of people online. Instead, it surveyed 6,000 business people to uncover eight themes as they pertain to social media. However, the most compelling portion of the study suggested that business people, communicators especially, are all but abandoning communication planning.

What are businesses doing instead of planning communication?

In relation to communication, it seems that advertisers, marketers, and public relations firms are adopting tools but leaving tried and true strategies behind. Instead of drafting strategic communication plans, they are picking social networks and technologies that are currently popular and then adopting a string of "tactical" components to inflate the meaningless measurements.

Ergo, the only "outcome" is to drive more traffic and attract more followers. The approach can be likened to yelling on a street corner or, in some cases, right in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. In fact, yelling on the street corner might even be more effective, considering most agencies don't even bother to check the ZIP codes or business proximity before they put on the costumes.

Is it any wonder most firms lack social media confidence?

Maltoni's post goes on to reveal that while many firms are selling social media services, only 14.2 percent of businesses find their social media strategies to be very effective and only 7.3 percent consider them “revenue generating.” While I might argue that not all social media campaign need to place revenue as a top-tier primary outcome, the very notion that companies are paying for services with no measurable merits is concerning.

The reason there is no confidence in social media has nothing to do with the value of social media. What it has to do with is that social media is being implemented as a line-item service without any real consideration for the overall communication plan. Why not? Well, from what I read here, it's because no communication plan exists.