5 Tips on Content Marketing for Business

I went to an excellent talk by Jasper Martens from Simply Business this evening.

Simply Business are an insurance company, but you wouldn't know that from their content (more on that later!). Jasper was brought in to manage their social media output and revolutionised their marketing approach through clever use of shareable content such as free user guides.

Here's the top 5 tips I took away from the talk:

1) Content doesn't have to be about your product as long as it is in line with your BRAND.

Jasper found that he didn't end up creating content about insurance - customers found that a turnoff and wouldn't share it. Instead he focussed on a brand 'attribute'  which was that Simply Business wanted to be known for positivity towards small businesses. From this it was a natural step to creating guides aimed to help and advise this market.

2) Don't waste time trying to grow platforms that don't work for you.

Simply Business recognised that Facebook was not very successful for them in their B2B marketing efforts. Instead of trying to improve here they focussed on producing great content which could be shared on Facebook but did not depend on that channel for success.

3) Activities can BE content!

Similarly, Jasper found that his Google hangouts were only attracting double figure live audiences, despite telling people about them via mailouts to a six-figure email database. Not deterred, he recognised that the discussions held on the hangouts made great short videos and put them on YouTube, where they continue to reach a much wider audience.

4) Benefits of content marketing aren't easy to quantify.

A question from the audience (and a very common one at all social media talks I've been to) is how does this improve acquisitions? The answer is it is very hard to tell - difficult to track a sale back to the free download which created the initial brand awareness. At this point I thought it might be an idea to experiment with offer codes unique to the user guides, to help prove business worth, although you would have to tread carefully in order not to erode goodwill by appearing salesy.

5) The content has to be GOOD.

Easy to forget this one. 'Content for content's sake' will be without substance and won't help anyone, least of all you! Simply Business produced a Google Analytics guide of such good quality that Google linked to it from their help pages. It doesn't take an SEO expert to guess what a link from Google will do to your search rankings!

Social Media Case Study - Twitter customer service

 

The conversation above started when I recieved an email from the trainline about thier new 'print-your-own-ticket' system. Not entirely convinced by the practicalities, I took to Twitter to see what others thought.

As I had used @thetrainline handle out of courtesy I knew they could see my tweet, but as it was not wholly positive - or directly addressed to them as a question or complaint - they had the option not to reply. Many companies wouldn't have done, shying away from negative publicity or thinking an interaction with me wouldn't be productive. 

Trainline however saw an opportunity to try and convert me and did so in a very friendly professional manner. A great example of how social media can be used to intercept negative public sentiment and win the individual around. They cited others using the system successfully (but without coming accross as provocative) and hashtagged the word 'convenience' (the aspect I had thought would cause issues) to reaffirm just how easy it is.

They also used lots of smiley faces to show that even if they were disagreeing with me, they were being helpful not confrontational and this kept the tone personable the whole way through. Angus identifying himself at the beginning meant that a level of trust was built up as I was now tweeting with an individual rather thn a faceless entity.

It really is a good example of company tweeting and I'm sure they actually wouldn't have thought in this level of detail about the language used (once tone of voice and editorial style is established, responding on social media in this manner begins to come naturally) but I hope it is useful to dissect the elements that make it successful here. 

Let me know if you've seen (or had) any other great customer service responses on social media.

Don't 'get' social media yet? Next!

As the consumer becomes more trusting of online purchases they also become more demanding of brands in the online sphere. It's no longer enough just to have a Facebook page - you have to maintain it and make it interesting. You can't just tweet out marketing messages, you have to engage and entertain. So when a brand hits a duff note with their social media interactions - bad service, lack of professionalism, whatever -  it's no surprise that customers react badly, and being social media they do so publicly.

Many brands are afraid of social media as they fear the reprisals of unhappy customers. There is an argument that you have to sort out your service before you 'go social' but however good you are, there will always be someone who has been on the unfortunate end of a human error and has cause to complain.

The social media 'secret' here is not to avoid it - but apologise, genuinely, and offer to make ammends. All this should be done publicly and may result not only in a happy customer but in an audience who admire your customer service. Turn the situation around to your advantage.

This is clearly something Next's social media experts weren't keen on recently though, or perhaps their digital agency's weekend cover isn't that strong. Whatever the reason, it wasn't advisable for Next to post the following, when a customer swore about their delivery service:

The user's original tweet said "Fucking Next wankers! It's a pissing Sunday you bastards & I've wasted four fecking hours for a delivery you forgot to tell me isn't coming." - admittedly not the most eloquent of complaints, and some people may well have been offended. Notice though that she doesn't use their handle or even a hashtag. It's really unlikely anyone except her followers will have seen it, well until Next tweeted about it that is. She also tweeted at them that she was "pissed off" and perhaps this was what they objected to - but it's hardly a hanging offence and I might be using that level of profanity if I'd been made to wait 4 hours on a Sunday for nothing.

What Next don't seem to realise is that they can't control the Twitter channel any more than they control an individual's chat with friends. @Ox_bex was just tweeting to her followers - telling her friends how she felt, and Next had no more right to ask her to stop than management could interrupt a conversation she was having in a pub.

The Twittersphere reacted badly. Word spread about the response, there was a big online backlash   and various media marketing and tech blogs wrote about it. Some felt the request was tantamount to censorship and the worst kind of brand protectionism, others thought it was just terrible customer service.

I would be more sympathetic if it as a small company or family business - when you are personally invested in a brand it can be heartbreaking to see it besmirched online, even if you were to blame for the bad experience. But a brand as big as Next should know better (or should employ people that know better) than to coerce people into keeping quiet about an issue. Why not try to solve it? An apology, an offer or even a bit of humour can go a long way to appease a disgruntled customer. Clearly this High Street retailer has yet to realise this. Until they do...well...next please!

What will happen to the Pope's Twitter account?

Pope Benedict XVI shocked the Catholic world on 13th of February with his resignation announcement, but the Catholics weren't the only ones left wondering.

A mere couple of months earlier, the Pope had joined Twitter, and gained over 70,000 vast amount of followers in mere hours, even before he had started tweeting. @pontifex, as the account is called, tweets religious statements and reflections and has posted 36 tweets to date.

But what made the Pope decide to join Twitter in the first place? Was it pressure from some sort of Catholic PR machine? A statement from the Vatican said

'The Pope's presence on Twitter is a concrete expression of his conviction that the Church must be present in the digital arena'

so perhaps the initiative was driven by his holiness afterall. The Pope's resignation, however, has been markedly absent from his feed and he has posted tweets about Lent since the announcement.

But the big question is - as with all temporary offices - what will happen to the Twitter account when he has left? Although the law may be yet to fully catch up with this, Twitter accounts are generally regarded as the property of the person that is named in the handle and whose email address is linked to it. If it is an official account run on behalf of a company it is the property of the organisation who employs the individual.

Some companies are become more and more savvy about this, with contractual clauses governing the retention of the accounts - meaning that any followers accrued are the 'contacts' of the company and cannot be 'poached' (or taken with) an individual when they leave.

In politics this can cause issues, for example the @MayorOfLondon account, and all it's 630,000+ Boris fans will all become property of the next mayor if Boris loses an election, as he has a role-related handle rather than a personal one.

For the Pope I suspect that the same will be the case. @pontifex (and also the 8 different language versions of the account) refers to his role rather than Pope Benedict as an individual, so it belongs to the Vatican and eventually the next Pope. Not that Benedict will mind I'm sure (some reckon it was Social Media that made him feel too old for the post in the first place!), but will the next Pope want to continue the tweeting?

A new Pope will undoubtedly be younger, as the Vatican will seek to prevent any more resignations and stay 'in touch' with the younger church, so I'd predict he will want to carry on tweeting. Watch this (140 character) space! 

LinkedIn Recommendations - online endorsement pitfalls

LinkedIn has announced the launch of 'Endorsements' in the U.S, a way to recommend someone with just one click. This isn't live in the U.K yet so I can't trial it, but it got me thinking about the various pitfalls of online professional recommendations. Certain issues should be considered and a 1-click endorsement may not always be a good thing!

When used properly, LinkedIn recommendations are a powerful tool for advancing your career but if you don't use them with care they can give a negative impression about you, your contacts and the company you work for. It's helpful to think of them as a 'reference' from a  previous or current employer, but they're not exactly the same, so below are some things to think about.

Consider carefully who you ask. Offline, a great reference might come from someone well respected within the industry and their endorsement of you would add something extra to your application. This is no different on LinkedIn - do not just ask your friends to do it! Before requesting a recommendation ask yourself the following questions of the individual:

- Does he/she have an established LinkedIn account with lots of connections? (it may be assumed that a new account is fake)
- Is it obvious that you know the individual in a professional capacity? (avoid anyone with the same surname for example!)
- Is this person your junior? (If you want to highlight your management skills, you may ask for a reference from someone who has previously worked under you. Note that a reference from someone currently working under you may have the opposite effect, as it shows you have put your junior in an awkward situation!)
- Have you already recommended this individual? Reciprocal recommendations do not look genuine!

You should also consider the impression this gives within your current position:
- Most HR teams and management are aware that individuals updating their LinkedIn profiles may well be looking to move
- Colleagues may wonder why you want a recommendation from them and it may indicate you feel insecure in your position.
- Business development roles can be the exception to the rule - if the company employs you to find new business through LinkedIn they won't be suspicious if you are trying to improve the credentials on your profile!

Even so, a good recommendation from the right person at the right time may well mean you are considered for a role, so follow the guidelines and don't be afraid to get recommended. I'll blog more about 'Endorsements' when they become available to U.K users - watch this space! 

Social Media Tips 2 - Tweetdeck Pros & Cons

TweetDeck is twitter’s own twitter ‘client’ - a program which acts independently of the website itself, yet pulls in twitter content and allows you to interact with it. It also acts as a sort of social media dashboard for other platforms such as Facebook, allowing you to view aspects of all your accounts at a glance and post across them all simultaneously.

It is a popular social media management tool for companies, agencies, community managers, or even just individuals with many social media accounts. There are many benefits of the platform, but it isn't for everyone, so I have summarised the key points below:

 Pros

• Notification pop ups - you can adjust settings so that Tweetdeck will run in the background but still alert you via a pop up window when your brand is mentioned.
• Scheduling facility - this function allows you to ‘schedule’ a tweet, which will post automatically at a set point in the future, so you needn't worry about missing optimal times to tweet.
• Customisable - its quick to set up customised columns within the 'deck' layout. You can then create a 'control panel' with columns displaying search terms, mentions, messages etc. how you would like them.
• Relatively easy to use - support documents and video tutorials exist and because Tweetdeck has been around for a few years there are plenty of free tutorials and articles online.

 Cons

• Speed - whilst generally quite fast the Tweetdeck platform can slow down when dealing with large volumes of tweets, which can make it harder to monitor multiple search terms in real-time.  
• Installed locally - Tweetdeck has to be installed locally on your machine, meaning all functons (including scheduled tweets) cannot work unless Tweetdeck is actually open and running on your computer. Not ideal for those 4am tweets to your followers overseas! 
• No analytics - Tweetdeck has no inbuilt analysis package, meaning that to analyse the success of your social efforts you will need another application. This is a big negative point for Tweetdeck as most users not prefer the simplicity of being able to create and analyse posts from within one platform.

Menshn'd in Despatches

I'd thought about doing a post on Menshn back in June when it launched, but at the time the new social network - created by Louise Mensch - was only available to people living in the U.S.

The network was set up by the (then) Conservative MP, with the aim of filtering out the 'noise' found on Twitter and focussing debate around selected topics. Louise Mensch has now resigned from her seat in Corby and East Northamptonshire to spend more time with her family. Good for her - every woman makes tough choices about parenthood and I wholeheartedly support a woman's decision to bring up her children how she sees fit.

What does concern me, however, is the suggestion raised in this article that she might use this time to work on her new social networking business.

This should be another 'good for her' moment, surely? Women in business - yeehaa! But the problem is, I really don't like the concept of the network. It's based on the premise that there is a lot of 'noise' on Twitter, tweets that Mensch thinks aren't sticking to the point and therefore shouldn't be heard.

Her ideal would be to keep the discussion slick and filter out anything off topic, which (she has been keen to point out) would also create the perfect engaged environment for advertisers and marketers. Sometimes that does seem very tempting. I agree it can be infuriating trying to make a point and that point hitting a wall of spam and trolls.

But surely the point of Twitter is that it's democratic? Everyone has a voice and everyone is free to listen to (or follow) whoever they choose. If you take away the destractions, the random input, the humour, you lose some of the beauty of Twitter and a lot of the character.

There are already a lot of constrained discussion forums on the internet and none of them are as popular as Twitter, possibly because they lack the human factor. It's that very human factor that is keeping the less talented advertisers and marketers at arm's length, because they fear the openness, transparency and freedom of speech that are the common currency of the Twitter crowd.

Just like a clued-up live audience, Tweeters have the capacity to praise the skilful and heckle the inept into submission, getting right to the heart of the matter. If you silence the 'off topic' jibes or the seemingly irrelevant comments, you risk missing something that will take the discussion to a whole new level or alienating a would-be supporter.

Perhaps the answer lies not in focussing the discussion, but focussing the interactions. Giving people more ways to find and follow people and conversations that might interest them. Maybe providing more more ways to avoid those that won't. I wish Mrs. Mensch all the best, but unless she addresses the issues above, I can't really see her network being a rival to Twitter. If it does succeed of course, I'll be sure to Menshn it here ;)

The Foursquare Special

Many predicted that the introduction of Facebook places would be the death knell for Foursquare, but the network is still going strong.

With 20 million users worldwide (although probably only a portion active), Foursquare is a popular geo-social  network, and brands look to make the most of this. When the network first became popular 'specials' were quite common. These offers were created and managed by brands and venue owners to try and attract custom, and were free to the promoter.

I have seen less of these offers in the last year or so - perhaps indicating that they weren't particularly effective in terms of RI - however this collaboration between Amex and EAT caught my eye.

Check in to Eat, pay £5 and you get £5 credit! Sounds good doesn't it?

Unfortunately I think it's another case of 'no such thing as a free lunch'. I think the offer is a bad idea, for both brand and customer, for two main reasons:

User Experience: The process requires you to 'synch' your Amex card. Forms (which will probably be filled in on a smartphone due to the nature of Foursquare meaning you are on the go), and handing over credit card details. Everyone knows this is a big turn off for the online customer, and will likely put off the majority of punters.

The process was also pretty clunky, having to synch, then check in to EAT, then use your amex to pay in EAT, then click load or something (I had lost interest by this point).

Proposition: Let's think about what the customer is actually doing here, and also take a look at the small print. You are paying for your lunch with a credit card. I personally don't usually do this. I will get out cash or pay with a debit card, but to me credit is something to be used in emergencies, or when I need protection guaranteed for a large online purchase. The small print says 'credit is usually issued 3-5 business days, may take up to two billing periods'.

So let's get this straight. We owe Amex £5 for up to 2 months, before our balance is restored. If just 1%  of Foursquare users took up this offer, that would be a credit card debt of £1,000,000. Perhaps I'm being too cautious about this, but considering how we got into the current economic climate should we really be encouraging the 'stick it on the credit card' culture? Why not just pay with a fiver from the cashpoint? I think Amex and EAT got this one wrong to be honest...

Social Media Case Study: Shell

EDIT: It turns out (thankfully) that this campaign is a hoax orchestrated by Yes Men. Very clever!

It's at times like these you might hear me say that social media just isn't for everyone. A company whose actions are generally quite contentious, would do well not to draw attention to them, no?

Not so for Shell, who thought it wise to open up one of their least popular ideas to the social sphere. 

They asked members of the public to design an advert for Arctic energy production, using beautiful pictures of Artic scenery and overlaying their own text. Here's what happened:

"Turn the power on, it's time to melt some ice"

"You can't run your SUV on 'cute'"

"Some say catastrophe, we say opportunity"

People wrote what they really thought on the posters. In an ironic twist the social voting system (usually employed to encourage users to filter out inappropriate content by voting it down) has meant that those who don't want to destroy the environment, are able to keep their views in the spotlight by others affirming their messages.  

It really couldn't have worked less in Shell's favour if Greenpeace had orchestrated the campaign.

I honestly don't know what Shell were thinking, and the PR department must be panicking now as the site is still currently showing these messages at the time of posting.

Where to go from here? I honestly don't know. They have a few options:

• Remove the website entirely - Not a very 'social' response and would lead to ridicule online and possibly from the press, but would blow over (relatively) quickly.

• Engage with the public, asking them to stick to the advert's intended messaging - although asking people politely to stop is the usual first response to trolling (and a good one) it doesn't really work here because what is being said isn't offensive, and the public have the moral highground.

• Remove the page and replace with a conciliatory message saying something like "we have listened to your concerns and are taking them on board. Please bear with us while we evaluate the best course of action" - Ha! Yeah right. Again, other companies may be able to make this approach fly, but when you're an oil company trying to drill the arctic we're not going to fall for it... 

Moral of the story? If your proposal is going to upset the majority of the general public then don't put it to them publicly via social media. Definitely don't give them a chance to respond. Oh and don't ever, ever, try to con them into creating an ad campaign for you and your morally dubious campaign! 

Social Media Tips 1 - Some LinkedIn Pros and Cons

Pros Professional information. Of all the social networks, LinkedIn is the most focussed on professional interests.	Cons Smaller Audience. Although LinkedIn has a huge user base, it is still not as popular as Facebook or Twitter.
Aids offline networking. After a networking events you can add people you've met on LinkedIn, reinforcing the relationship. Some people even have LinkedIn details on their business cards.	Lacks a personal touch. Online 'introductions' lack the depth of a personal meeting, and some people may prefer not to be put in touch without having met first.
Creates a forum for expertise. Taking part in LinkedIn discussions is a good way to demonstrate individual expertise.	Not as suitable for B2C/leisure&lifestyle As a more formal/professional environment, users are less susceptible to marketing and advertising concerning leisure time products and services.
Highly targeted professional advertising. People on LinkedIn are already in work mode so it's more acceptable to advertise B2B products. Adverts can be targeted by age, gender, seniority, job title and even company.	Not as fun! No farmville to see here people...move along now. As the most professional of the networks, LinkedIn lacks appeal for those who want  entertainment.
Competitor Intelligence Despite a general tightening of employee social media policies sensitive information can sometimes be gathered from CV's on LinkedIn.	Charge for some services  Some 'extra' services such as Jobseeker Premium, ask for a subscription fee.
Analytics Company page admins get data on visitors by industry, title, function and company, page views over time, clicks on jobs, clicks on employee Profiles, and clicks on job "Apply" buttons.

When to tweet and post - are you missing your market?

Social media marketing is still a dark art. Some do it well, some do it badly, and some are opposed to the very idea. For those trying to hone their social media marketing technique, there is a lot of guidance out there on what to tweet and post. What there hasn't been much focus on is when to do so.

The infographic below from Argyle Social got me thinking...

According to their research, B2C Facebook campaigns get better engagement at the weekends. When you think about it, that's not surprising - the majority of consumers are at work themselves during the week, no?

Does this mean Facebook marketing needs to embrace the weekends? Just as retail has seen the opportunities in staying open at the weekend, should marketers be tweeting and facebooking their way into a Tuesday-Sunday working week? If that's when the audience is most receptive, then perhaps they should.

But we need to be careful abut generalising. Does this apply to all sectors, not just retail? Should recruiters, for example, try to market new positions online at the weekend? This strategy might not apply here, as people are perhaps not thinking in a work mindset and would show less interest. Also, from a recruiting perspective, is it a case of quality over quantity? The people who are responding at the weekend are perhaps more conscientious workers. Would you put someone forward for a job if they were on Facebook replying to an advert at 10am on a workday? 

Additionally, the B2B data shown above may not be as straightforward as it seems. Many people have different work and personal accounts, and who is to say that the same individual that B2B's are trying to sell to during the working week, isn't more receptive from a personal account at the weekend?

Analysing when to post is great, but only if you're very clear on your target market and what they will be doing at that time. You need to ensure the audience is there, willing to engage, and engaging in the right capacity. This may mean not only adopting weekend and evening posting, but also adopting a different strategy for posts and tweets published at this time, compared to those posted during the working week.

Social Decision Making

Some of the hardest things about bank holidays, are all the decisions to be made. Go away or stay at home? Where to watch the Royal Wedding? Whether the in-laws really need to be invited for Easter... 

I often pester my friends or partner with this sort of trivial dilemma after work, but all these bank holidays actually mean I have so much work to 'tie up' I'm too tired for post 6pm drinks! I need a new method of putting questions to the panel. Preferably in warmth and comfort. Enter, the social network.

The collaboration aspect of Web 2.0 allows us to ask questions of our network, and amongst my own network more and more often I’m beginning to see people asking for advice. Many of my friends used to make decisions on purchases, for example, by googling the product and looking for review websites or forum mentions. Now, they are simply logging into a social network and asking friends, acquaintances or complete strangers for recommendations, in the hope that they will have insight on the matter.

For example:

Drew Benvie, managing director of agency 33 digital commented on his experience of decision-making via social media in their 2010 social media report:

“I spent one week asking my social network whenever I had to make a decision. Not only was my social graph of use to me in recommending places to eat, drink and be merry, but it taught me all sorts of interesting things. It persuaded me to exercise more, showed me the benefits of new things, and even how I should travel.”

Last year, a particularly astounding example of social decision making came to light. A blogging couple asked people to decide whether or not they had an abortion on  www.birthornot.com . Thankfully I can report that this was effectively a PR stunt by a pro-life campaigner, and no actual babies (or foetuses) were harmed in the making of the website. Her argument, however, was that the pro-choice camp would be absurd not to recognise a 'choice' no matter what basis it was made on. Whilst I won't comment on the abortion debate itself (or the morality of the methods she used to highlight it), I do find it very interesting that 'crowd sourced' social decision making is being applied to more and more situations, even ones where the (alleged) outcomes would have such a profound effect on a human life. 

Rowse Honey Facebook Campaign

At first I was skeptical. To be honest, any time someone on my television screen directs me to their Facebook page I'm somewhat sceptical. It seems a little convoluted for businesses to advertise social campaigns  - paying money to direct people to another promotion.

In this case, however, I was pleasantly surprised, both by the quality of the campaign, and the amount of interaction.

The concept is that staff have made their own adverts and the public vote for a winner to be aired on national tv. Not an entirely original premise (I'm pretty sure I remember a few campaigns like this using YouTube as a platform) however it is well executed and with a couple of nice extra touches.

The videos are good - bit arty but still with a homemade feel so not pretentious - and have sparked a few hundred comments on each one. There are also nearly a thousand votes or 'likes' for each video too.

An appealing feature of the page is the box on the right hand side - people will be more inclined to do something if they know their actions will cause some good, however small. And everyone likes fluffy little bees! 

The next appealing feature is an offer of a free pot of honey. Freebies are always welcome. The only slight hitch is that it's not very obvious where on the page you can sign up for a free pot, unless you spot this bit in the menu under the 'save the bees' feature:

They may not want to give honey away to all and sundry (in fact, the page now says they have run out), but making it less obvious will frustrate the user, and may lead to comments like this:

However although Rowse haven't dealt with the comment above yet, there are some good official responses on the discussion pages. The first one is a nice example of how companies can emphasise their social goals and allay claims of pure commercialism:

And this one below is a good demonstration of how brands can instil trust by being truly knowledgeable  about their product and issues surrounding it, in this case nature:

In conclusion, the Rowse Facebook campaign is a good example of how to use social media to encourage interaction from the consumer, asking for their input on a decision, offering them freebies, and adding an element of charity. It does have usability flaws, yet the friendly transparent nature of the company communications goes some way to mitigate any frustrations.

Overall 7/10   

Social Media & The Law 2 - Libel

As promised, here are some more thoughts on social media and it's interaction with the British legal system. As part of Social Media Week (#smwldn), this morning I attended a breakfast workshop entitled Big Brand Social Media & Dealing with Potential Libel with a guest speaker from law firm Schillings. 

Points of interest were:

• According to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) journalists are "...entitled, when reporting the death of an individual, to make use of publicly available material obtained from social networking sites. However, editors should always consider the impact on grieving families when taking such information (which may have been posted in a jocular or carefree fashion) from its original context and using it within a tragic story about that person's death". 

I'm glad the clause 'when reporting the death' is in there - it implies they have other sources. Otherwise would we see journalists prematurely reporting deaths via Twitter rumours?  

• Q: So is personal information in the public domain, eligible to be shared by the press? Does the premise of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" apply to social media? 

A: The breakfast speaker concluded it does in some cases, but noted that a High Court Judge has ruled "blogging is a public activity" in the U.K and this may have opened some flood gates. As the story here shows, the precedent has been set for social media content to be fair game for journalists - the PCC effectively decided that the civil servant who expected her tweets only to be seen by her 700 followers, hadn't a (feathered) leg to stand on. 

But clearly, long before this ruling made it official, social media has been a valued source for hacks:

235 results found for 'on Facebook page' on the Mail Online site, dating back as far as May 2007!

• So, when can (or should) people seek legal redress for issues arising from social media?

The lawyer this morning ascertained that only 1% of issues of this nature lead to legal action and that actions vary according to:

- the tolerance of the individual/company concerned

- who is the target, is it very personal?

- potential impact (financial being a big consideration)

and suggested it's best practice to find the lowest impact solution (both in terms of cost and negative publicity) and work with PR and social media teams to manage a response.

Digital Recruitment Confusions

Confession: I am a jobseeker. Otherwise known in recruitment as 'talent'.

Since leaving my previous job (end of 2010) it's been an interesting experience to say the least. The digital landscape is so new, and changes so rapidly, that it seems to be a confusing time for both the jobseeker and sometimes even the recruiter!

I'll give a couple of personal examples here and then a few thoughts on what could be causing all the confusion. The first example is a real conversation I had with a recruiter, X who rang me up after finding my CV on Monster.com :

X:   So, I see from your CV that you have worked in social media?

me: Yep, most of my roles have involved social media work, and it is definitely something that interests me.

X:   Great, so in these previous roles were you involved in structuring social media?

me: Uh, I was involved in developing the social media strategy, for the companies I worked for, yes.

X:   Yes but what about the structure? 

me: I implemented staff social media training, so I had a positive influence on the communications structure...

X: [long pause]

Me: Or do you mean the structure of the platforms? I'm not a developer so unfortunately I can't claim to have built or altered the structure of a social media platform...

At which point I was cut off. I'd be really interested to see what the brief for that job actually was! Was he talking about being a thought-leader, how I had shaped  and structured the social sphere itself? Was he trying to get me to describe myself as a social media 'guru' (I wouldn't, I hate the term)? Or had he just got the wrong end of the stick when my CV said I developed a strategy and thought I built a new Twitter? I guess i'll never know. He had called from an unknown number, and I didn't catch his name.  

Experience number two was with a recruitment company I sourced myself. I found their website (a bit flash heavy, but creative and professional) and sent them my CV. They called back for a chat and told me they'd email over a job description that suited what I was looking for. Less than 10 minutes later, someone else called from the same company, to ask if i'd be interested in a job 6k under my expected salary and for a fluent French speaker. He said he saw I had a French A-level and wondered if I'd be happy doing SEO in French??

I realise these two examples won't be indicative of digital recruitment as a whole, and I am also (of course) grateful that my CV is attracting calls at all, but it does seem a bit concerning. I think I may also know one of the problems: terminology. As I said at the beginning this is a very rapidly changing environment, and the English language is slow moving. Unsurprisingly there is a bit of disagreement about we call these people that do all these newfangled things! For example:

Content Manager - this is not necessarily a managerial level role. It could be executive or even entry level. What matters is that the individual is managing content i.e curating what copy and images are on the website. They could be writing the copy themselves or just co-ordinating and sub-editing it.

Web Editor - pre web 2.0 this used to mean the guy/girl that had built the website. This now more commonly means someone who edits the copy on the website, so needs much less technical experience. Of course the web editor should preferably know some HTML, and the principles of SEO but will nowadays be more likely to be editing text via a content management system (not to be confused with the content manager, above) than coding anything.

Q: What do you call the person hired to run the company Twitter, Facebook and Youtube presences? 

A: Social media Executive/Assistant,  Social Media Marketer,  Digital Marketer,  Online Marketer, Social Community Manager (again not managerial level), Community Moderator and many many more. If they also run the blog, this can extend to job titles including the aforementioned 'content' and 'editor' keywords as well.

I have held (and also applied for) many of these roles, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have a skillset to put a swiss army knife to shame! What it does mean is I have looked past the sometimes arbitrary titles, to what the role will actually involve on a day to day level, and seen whether my experience matches this. 

For the moment, until there is an established nomenclature for positions within digital, perhaps this is the best we - as individuals - can do. Recruiters can try to gain deeper knowledge of the digital sector, listening to their clients, and listening to the jobseekers and really trying to get what the person will be doing. This is no longer as simple as "agency side (check) , account manager (check), digital experience (check)" as that last term could me a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of contexts, with a bunch of different names! 

Of course I wouldn't tar all recruiters with the same brush. Some agencies specialise in digital, and others are just genuinely very good and take the time to get to know the client and the jobseeker. I have had the pleasure of meeting and dealing with both these types. I am just interested in the way recruitment has been affected by the myriad of changes in this developing sector, and what might be causing the communication difficulties which appear to be faced by jobseeker and recruiter alike. I'm interested, as always, to hear your thoughts.

The Great Cull - 'Unfollowing' on Twitter and 'Defriending' on Facebook.

The other day I was in an office at lunchtime and a colleague was checking his personal Facebook. Work usage aside (check the corporate social media policy post), it was his exclamation which interested me:

"Dammit Megan, I don't care whether i've survived another friend cull. Who does that?"

I've noticed that many of my Facebook contacts have started 'culling' their Facebook friends. Statuses like this are appearing regularly on my feed:

Announcing that you've de-friended people on Facebook can alienate some people (like my colleague) but judging from the number of 'likes' the post above got, it also has the effect of reinforcing the relationships you value.

But, why delete contacts?

These are two very different questions from a business and a personal perspective. On a personal level when I first join any social network I add almost everyone I know, a few people I almost know and a whole bunch of people of people i've just met (this isn't necessarily best practice, but it's very tempting!) A few weeks, months, years later and i'm left wondering who on earth that person is that has just posted a status about their cat on my feed, but leaving them be in case they get more interesting.

Yesterday I attempted my first personal Facebook and Twitter cull, and discovered it's not easy. I tried to be ruthless, and reasons for de-friending included:

• Irritating/immature statuses
• No statuses
• Couldn't remember who they were! 

To my shame also, a few people were saved from the cull because their work info included something interesting like Google, or UK Parliament. They may just come in handy one day...

Twitter was even more difficult as I tend to follow quite a lot of people and their statuses are generally interesting and informative. I do tend to keep my 'following' count under my 'follower' count as a rule of thumb however. Eventually I only ended up 'unfollowing' the accounts that I don't remember seeing a tweet from, and only then if any tweets on their feed are dull or spammy.

Should I ever delete, block or 'unfollow' people from a business account?


99% of the time, no. If you have a business Facebook persona that has friends (not adviseable anyway) then anyone agreeing to be your friend, knowing that you are a business, must really like your brand. De-friending them would be a complete faux pas. Even if people are posting criticisms or complaints, a complaint that you can resolve, will mean that a customer is 70% likely to do business with you again.

Unfollowing on Twitter is a different matter. Although websites such as TweetEffect can tell you which Tweets gained/lost you followers, it's very hard to find which individual has unfollowed. This means that on a corporate level you can unfollow without causing offence.

Important things:

• Don't be offended. If you are unfollowed learn from it and think what you can do to make your tweets/statuses more interesting.
• Some platforms (especially Twitter) can have 'bugs'. My 'following' count sometimes fluctuates of it's own accord, but is usually rectified.
• People can be useful. You never know when you might need to get in touch with the Ukelele society (well, ok, but you know...). Without sounding too cynical, maybe only remove people who you no longer know well enough to ask a favour!

I don't mean to sound ungrateful in this post. I have a great many people who I am friends with on social media platforms who I go back a long way with, and I truly value their online and offline friendship. Some people, however, I met once, possibly with drink in hand, and added them the next day because they made an impression. I doubt they remember me either by now!

What does anyone else think? Feel free to post your 'culling' experiences in the comments.

Social Media Policy (or "how, when, where and what to tweet. Love from, your employer")

Social Media Guidelines, Social Media Rules, call them what you will, now large companies have wised up to social media, they have started making policies.

For any company with staff tweeting and blogging their way into public consciousness, what these staff are saying will be a concern. Even on their own time, an employee that comments on a competitors blog, or tweets a company secret is a huge liability. There are two camps on this one. Some people leave employees (within reason) to their own creative juices, in their own time and ask that they provide a "these opinions are my own" disclaimer. Other companies actively encourage employee social media activity on behalf of the company and set out regulations to guide their posts.

It's a tricky path that companies tread, between stifling micromanagement and potential PR disasters, and I personally don't think the balance has been found in a lot of cases. Social Media is about openness and sharing, and the more you restrict that, the less value it has to the individual. Who wants to speak when they're being told what to say? More importantly, who really wants to listen to someone who can't speak freely? It's a very hard task juggling transparency and professionalism on such new channels and it often requires whole new outlook.

Some businesses have decided to go public with their corporate social media policies which is great news for us as studying the social media strategies of the giants can be interesting reading.

I'll leave you with a positive example taken from IBM

BM Social Computing Guidelines

1. Know and follow IBM's Business Conduct Guidelines.
2. IBMers are personally responsible for the content they publish on-line, whether in a blog, social computing site or any other form of user-generated media. Be mindful that what you publish will be public for a long time—protect your privacy and take care to understand a site's terms of service.
3. Identify yourself—name and, when relevant, role at IBM—when you discuss IBM or IBM-related matters, such as IBM products or services. You must make it clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of IBM.
4. If you publish content online relevant to IBM in your personal capacity use a disclaimer such as this: "The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions."
5. Respect copyright, fair use and financial disclosure laws.
6. Don't provide IBM's or another's confidential or other proprietary information and never discuss IBM business performance or other sensitive matters publicly.
7. Don't cite or reference clients, partners or suppliers without their approval. When you do make a reference, link back to the source. Don't publish anything that might allow inferences to be drawn which could embarrass or damage a client.
8. Respect your audience. Don't use ethnic slurs, personal insults, obscenity, or engage in any conduct that would not be acceptable in IBM's workplace. You should also show proper consideration for others' privacy and for topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory—such as politics and religion.
9. Be aware of your association with IBM in online social networks. If you identify yourself as an IBMer, ensure your profile and related content is consistent with how you wish to present yourself with colleagues and clients.
10. Don't pick fights, be the first to correct your own mistakes.
11. Try to add value. Provide worthwhile information and perspective. IBM's brand is best represented by its people and what you publish may reflect on IBM's brand.
12. Don't use use IBM logos or trademarks unless approved to do so.

This is only a small part of the full policy, although somehow the guidelines manage not to seem to restrictive, just professional. Maybe it's because i've already read this lovely paragraph:

BM is increasingly exploring how online discourse through social computing can empower IBMers as global professionals, innovators and citizens. These individual interactions represent a new model: not mass communications, but masses of communicators. Through these interactions, IBM's greatest asset--the expertise of its employees--can be shared with clients, shareholders, and the communities in which it operates.

It's got a nice feel to it, no? The final two lines are my favourite though:

Don't forget your day job. You should make sure that your online activities do not interfere with your job or commitments to customers.

Right, back to work then! ;)