Even in the buzzing social media advocacy groups, there are still some actions and suggestions that need to be shot down. We're all feeling the impact of bad counsel, because within a community, you will have citizens that attempt to mislead the masses.
Clicks. I used to get giddy when I found out how many people frequented our blog daily in terms of ‘views,” but it’s really the “visits” that matter. This goes for clicking blog links on Twitter as well, as we need to investigate if a content link found a visitor
reading rather than
clicking-through without giving RSS subscription a second thought. Mashable’s Sarah Evans calls it
‘return on engagement,’ and that’s clearly how the success of one positioning themselves on a blog, microblog and social network space should be measured.
Go ahead and throw your arms up in the air with excitement over your latest view count, but let it be known that 0:00 speaks to how you long you’ve actually kept a user’s attention. Sitemeter is for blogs in this regard, so is
Tweetburner for yielding your quality of impact on Twitter. While I’m at it, here’s a
list of other stellar site measurement tools.
Quantity. The only high return I’ve witnessed on quantity has been within the Twitter community. It’s amazing how much trust a Twitterer will put in you, if you a) @ them with a friendly response to something they’ve just tweeted about, or perhaps, in researching them and their Web presence outside of Twitter, asking them a question or commenting on their interests; b) make it a habit to connect on a daily basis; and c) offer a suggestion or tip to earn their trust in working with or alongside of you.
Here are just a few quantity go-getters who have been quite effective in yielding high return on engagement:
@prsarahevans,
@briansolis,
@ambercadabra, and my friend in the Twin Cities PR community,
@arikhanson. I watched @arikhanson’s Twitter populace multiply (strides ahead of mine!) by simply engaging in micro-blogging-inspired spin-offs, such as
journchat and
Tweet-up.
But what’s up with users pursuing 500+ connections on LinkedIn?! As Peter Shankman noted in prefacing a marketer’s new LinkedIn strategies book,
“I’m on LinkedIn, Now What?” it seems everyone’s response is to cash in on hundreds more followers they meet on Twitter. I’m guilty of one of these—for the simple fact that I really didn’t know this person when I added them to my pro network. Will I ever meet them? A slim chance if I’m not a quantity go-getter on Twitter. To really offer stronger takeaway both for users and the ‘at a glance’ prospects, LinkedIn might want to think about instituting a hierarchy of influence instead of link levels.
Censorship. I watched the comment stream over
a recent Mashable post regarding an assumed flub in Skittles’ new social media venture, and then I saw it scrolling down: “Skittles should use
search operators.” How is filtering comments social media when everyone is, by social media law, entitled to their own opinion? Let’s remember citizen journalism a.k.a. social media isn’t a far cry from real world politics.
Companies representing a brand via social Web space needn’t worry about the nay-sayers because fans will do their protective part by firing back, and soon after, silencing the antagonist. Naysayers still do have their place, and wall posts like the occasional "$%#! Apple” on Apple’s Facebook Group tell us that. Bad move not to take it down? I think not, because hiding behind a controversy or bad ad move (hoping someone like a PR spin-doctor will pick up the pieces) is no longer a reality. So keep that wall or feed adorned with the
bad and let the brand evangelists communicate the
good.
At the core, social media is a hands-off, all natural type of territory – so don’t get carried away with click-throughs, popularity, or climate control. It just won’t work.
With the news that we're all entrepreneurs and that we’re all brand evangelists, isn’t your Twitter feed really answering the question, “What are you endorsing?” rather than "What's got your attention?"