Tag Archives: social media

The Google Gap: Useful? Yes. Emotional Pull? Well…

A rather stunning irony occurred to me as I was thinking about the latest tool Google is introducing, Google Plus.

For all the tools I use from Google, I don’t believe I ever got extraordinarily excited about using them before or during the time I’ve actually used them.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of certain tools and highly recommend them. In particular, I regularly use Google Calendar, Gmail, Google Reader and Google Alerts. I’d even describe them to others as “great.”

So what’s the problem? The problem is despite the fact that Google delivers a highly efficient, highly productive group of tools for me, none of these tools have stirred the senses with a “got to have it now” factor. And this wouldn’t be such a big deal if Google weren’t aiming to stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Facebook to be our all-everything place for connections, searching and relationships.

Say what you want about privacy issues, but Facebook owns a great deal of emotional investment from people. It’s the place where their family and friends commonly are when it comes to online community interaction, if not their business associates too. The technology to keep and enhance those connections is important, but technology is almost secondary to why people are there and stay there. This emotion is not to be underestimated.

Take another company, like Apple. Apple has the “got to have it now” factor in spades. It’s safe to say that for a large number of people like you, there’s been at least one Apple product released in the last 10 years that you really, really wanted….NOW. It’s why people had to have the iPod, stood in line for the iPhone and they’re salivating over the iCloud. And if you didn’t have it, you felt left behind. Even with the one product that met a bit more skepticism at first, the iPad, there’s little question now that people who bought into it love what it can do on a personal or business level.

And there it is – the “L” word. Love. There are many companies that produce useful, efficient, productive products that people buy and even keep buying…but don’t love them. This is coveted territory that not everybody can own. Dare I say that Google has never produced anything that’s, well, FUN. It’s never ENTERTAINED. Absolutely, it’s helped me get the job done, find what I’m looking for and keep me organized. But it’s never brought a lasting smile to my face.

Love isn’t always attained by adding more to an existing solution but actually stripping away what isn’t needed. One of my favorite examples here is 37 Signals with their Basecamp product for project management. There’s more emotional pull here not because it’s complicated but because it’s more simple than other tools with just enough to give me everything I need, nothing that I don’t. It doesn’t hurt that 37 Signals is great at customer service and exceedingly quick to inform its customers of enhancements or technical difficulties they’re working on.

And by the way, I didn’t have to wait for an invite to use their software.

Therefore, the Google Gap has nothing to do with technology but an emotional pull. A legion of fans that are passionate about spreading the word to others unsolicited because that product enhances their life just SO MUCH that they want the people they care about to experience that feeling too.

Never had that situation with Google. Never had a “Oh wow, you’ve got to try Gmail” moment. Instead, the exchange goes like this:

Them: “What’s your favorite calendar program?”
Me: “Google Calendar. It’s great.”

That’s not love – it may sound like it at first glance, but it’s not. That’s a positive recommendation that wouldn’t have come unless it was initiated by someone else. To close the Google Gap and be seen in a different light, Google Plus and future products from Google need to be more than just useful and efficient. We also don’t need versions that seem better in appearance but in practicality are more complicated to use.  They have to bring remarkable new categories of technology we haven’t used yet or dramatically strip away the complications of technology we’re using to the point of where it almost feels like a brand new category.

By virtue of his product line, Steve Jobs enjoys this emotional capital. By virtue of the relationships he has ownership over, so does Mark Zuckerberg. If Larry Page wants to stand on the platform with these gentlemen, this is the challenge before him to shape a new chapter of the Google era.

What’s the Plus Side, Google?

The concept of the phrase, “Facebook competitor,” almost makes you giggle at this point. Kind of like staring into the Grand Canyon and imagining then and there what could be better. Oh sure, there are other picturesque places. But it’s pretty hard to imagine them being more beautiful than what you’re looking at right now.

Facebook isn’t always beautiful. Far from it. But what it does have are a boatload of relationships between existing friends and family members. And that’s going to be pretty darn tough to break.

Yet, Google is out to try anyway with their new Google+ product. To cut to the chase, Google+ sounds a lot like Facebook with its profile pictures, feeds, etc. The big difference appears to be that you can better organize groups of people – and share what you like with those people specifically rather than your 690 friends on Facebook, 10 of which are real friends. But I digress.

Great idea, Google. And yes, Facebook has had major challenges concerning privacy controls. No doubt about it.

But here’s the challenge – you don’t have to just jab at Facebook with nicer tweeks to the model. In order to dance with the undisputed heavyweight of the social networking realm, you’ve got to full-on throttle Facebook with features that kick its ass. And even if you do, you’ve got to consider just how difficult it is to motivate people to uproot themselves from Facebook and the myriad of relationships they have in place.

It’s not impossible (Exhibit A: MySpace). It’s just that where MySpace was geared to a younger audience in general, the average age of a Facebook user is 38 years old. So there are more categories of demographics that have to get in the moving truck over to Google+.

Of course, maybe Google just wants a piece of the social networking pie. But if I may put on my more demanding customer hat, we don’t just want better technology. We want tools that are easy to use and fun. Google Buzz sounded kind of interesting, but did it enhance our lives over what was already in place? Not really. Same with Google Wave – kind of cool, but also kind of hard to understand.

Probably one of the most frequently mentioned books on business is “Blue Ocean Strategy,” the concept of getting out of the same pond as many competitors and fighting within that pond like sharks. Which essentially Google is not utilizing here. It’s fishing in the same pond and saying to people, “Hey, look at this cool new pole we’ve got for you to try!” We’re looking at that pole, agreeing that, yes, it probably is nice and even better than what we have, but still not enough to make us put down the pole that we’re already using. I think we can agree at least that’s this has been the experience with Google’s most recent efforts.

Google’s had just a little bit of success with that ol’ search engine of theirs. And Gmail. And Google Reader. And Google Alerts. But if you’ll notice, several of these are in the search, research and online storage realm. Not in the “connecting with others” interactivity realm. Anything outside of this set just feels like tinkering to me.

I will say Google has this much going for it: 1) It’s a giant in its own right and 2) If you read the comment streams of articles speaking about Google+, there is a LOT of pent-up frustration about the privacy issues of Facebook. These people want Google+ to succeed and they can’t wait to try it. That raw emotion, acted upon, is going to be honestly more important to the success of this endeavor than the bells and whistles of Google+ alone.

But with all due respect to those folks, Google didn’t work on this project as long as they did just to nab some Early Adopters. To avoid being mentioned in the same breath as “Google Wave” and “Google Buzz,” Google+ has to feel a whole lot of love from the mainstream too.

I don’t think we’ll have to search too long before we know the answer.

I found my Klout on Empire Avenue while staring at the PeerIndex.

The other day, someone bought 200 shares of me. I was flattered, but would’ve been even more excited had it been real money. Still, the virtual game that measures your influence, Empire Avenue, had shown that in my brief period of time on it, my shares were going up and up. Mind you, I’m not really sure what the algorithm was for this other than the fact that I’d participated in several social media outlets including Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, all while doing a blog post.

Hey, driving up your simulated shares is hard work.

Meanwhile, I noticed that my Klout score was similarly going up and up. Normally, I would be very excited by this, except for a few things.

There are people in my industry who I look up to who I can’t imagine having less real “clout” than me yet have less Klout than me. I’ve enjoyed reading Bart Cleveland for years as an AdAge columnist along with his work at McKee Wallwork Cleveland. I’ve admired the work of David Oakley at BooneOakley – frankly, I am looking up at them in a balanced world, not the other way around in a Klout world.

The second quibble I have is that while it says I am influential about social media and social entrepreneurship (OK, I’ve written about those plenty, I’ll buy that), Klout also says that I’m influential about, of all things, Groupon. I wrote about Groupon in one blog post in my life. Unless that was a hell of a post, I don’t see how that’s possible.

The third issue with Klout is that, unless I’m off, the system can be potentially gamed. If you like someone and are influenced by them, you can give them a “+K” to their Klout rating. Which sounds fine and good until I convince 20 of my closest friends to get together and Klout our scores into the stratosphere.

Meanwhile, over at PeerIndex, I have a similar issue with the influentials as I do with Klout. I’m a humble man and there are some peers that are ranking lower than me that just shouldn’t. My score is fine enough, trending higher and nothing to sneeze at. Kind of like my Klout score. At least here I can tell it’s from a combination of Audience, Authority and Activity. So I know which “A” to work on most.

What to believe? Who to believe? Are these tools helping or hurting?

I think I have the answer – you have to take these “measures of influence” for what they are – the best methods we currently have to measure social media capital that have room for improvement. Better than nothing? Yes. I would not ignore or blindly dismiss them. They do have meaning. They are a fair measure of activity, reach, etc. And like most other tools, they will probably be replaced by something more efficient and accurate, if these tools can’t tweek themselves fast enough.

But don’t get so wrapped up in your score that you can’t stop looking at your Klout, Empire Avenue share price and PeerIndex rating. I’m not proud to admit it, but I was doing just that when I first signed up. The worst thing you can do is say to yourself, “Oh heavens to Betsy, my reach isn’t far enough, what do I do?”

Breathe. Relax. These are algorithms that need work and will get better. Embrace the technological steps forward for what they are and realize there are slight imperfections – hey, Google’s algorithm isn’t perfect, but I’ll bet you still used it to search today, didn’t you?

Meanwhile, focus on what you CAN control:
Creating great content regularly and interacting with people who matter to you most on the channels where they “live.”
I believe when you concentrate on that consistently, the rest will hopefully take care of itself anyway when it comes to influence.

Of course, if this post influenced you and you’d like to throw a few “+K” to DanOnBranding or buy a bunch of shares….ah, never mind.

Your Comment turned into an E-book and now it’s a full-on Buzzkill

Hanging out in enough discussion forums, from LinkedIn to the AdAge Small Agency Diary blog/forum, I enjoy the generally good discourse that takes place between people. Opposing views can be great for the conversation. But what I can’t stand is when someone takes over the discussion with what can be only described as the equivalent of a filibuster.

I’m talking about the dreaded Comment From Hell.

You know what I’m talking about. The CFH is not a few paragraphs. It’s a 10-paragraph-or-more “look at how intelligent I am compared to everyone else here” comment. And it’s like tossing a grenade into the room. I’m exhausted trying to read the point, whether it’s good or not. Recently in LinkedIn, I had to power my way through a guy’s lengthy diatribe over why he wasn’t convinced on the power of social media. He didn’t think he’d seen enough proof that it worked.

Great. I respect your viewpoint. I don’t agree with it, but I respect it. But when your Comment is that long, there are a few things you should ask yourself.

1) Is this my blog? My website? My Facebook page?
No. You’re a welcome invited guest into a conversation with others. You’re in someone else’s “house.” If you want to deliver a speech, go deliver one. Elsewhere. If you want to have a conversation, have one that doesn’t consist to grandstanding and shameless self-promotion. Show you care about what other people have to say other than the voice in your own head.

2) Is there another place I could be posting this opinion?
Yes. Your blog, your website, your Facebook page. Just for starters. Even there, you should be inviting commentary back. Which I do here, by the way. Nobody is telling you not to share your thoughts. But could you apply that energy to a place where it is better suited?

3)  Is it taking me longer than 4-5 minutes to make my point in the Comment area?
That’s right. Time yourself. How long is it taking you to get the words out? I can recall writing an radio spot for my boss with entirely too much copy – no wonder his response back to me was, “This screenplay sounds great, but what I’d really like is a 30 second spot.” You can write something impactful and compelling in fewer words. I guarantee it.

4) Do people have to scroll down very far to read my comment?
Let me be very clear. When I see an ocean of words associated with one person compared to everyone else who can generally make comments in 2-3 paragraphs or less, my first thought is: Angry? Frustrated? Egomaniac? Not interested in having a real conversation in a place where conversations are supposed to occur?

Of course, maybe this isn’t you at all. But think about the impression and effect you have on the rest of the discussion.

So what to do to be a Conversationalist and not a Buzzkill via a comment manifesto?

Simple. Imagine yourself at a party where you join an ongoing conversation. Are you going to listen first? Hopefully. Are you going to enjoy the conversation more if there’s a bunch of give-and-take? Probably.

Or are you going to just butt in, interrupt everyone and start talking about what happened to you today on the way to work, regardless of whatever else the rest of the group was talking about before you got there?

Unless it was a laugh-riot, they’re probably going to look at you funny with an expression that says, “Who invited this guy?”

Embrace the dialogue in these groups and the genuine opportunity to build relationships by self-editing. If you want to promote the heck out of yourself that badly, provide a link at the end and if you’re at all interesting, we’ll go there. If you’ve bored us to tears, we won’t.

I see I’m approaching a word count that would be totally unsuitable for a Comment Area. But not bad for a Blog. So I’ll wrap it up here.

Comments welcome. Seriously.

3 reasons why we need journalists more than ever

It’s apparent to me that the very fact that some people wondering if journalism is “dead” in light of the decline of newspapers that there’s a whole lot here that’s getting overblown.

3 reasons why journalists still deserve a seat at the table in the era of new media:

1. All of us can’t repost stuff we find on the web at once and call it “news.”
We need people who take that aggregated flow of endless info – some of it useful and some of it not – and give it greater context. They help us decipher how that information fits together in a world where we’re getting a whole lot more information, not less. Some innovators feel that the world is a better place when info is compiled on top of itself in one infinite stream for us to figure out what we want to do with it. I disagree. Info is good, but we could use better ways to organize, compartmentalize and understand that info. Are we really there yet?

2. If you hear a thousand voices on one topic, it can sound a hell of a lot like noise. You need some trusted authorities on that topic to help provide you with opinions that make sense. It’s not like we’re all experts in every subject. We need reliable sources to help us understand the issues among the flow of information that is often entirely too biased or just plain wrong. Oh, I know some will bring their own bias – but there have to be thought leaders/influencers on all sides that rise to the top of the conversation. It may be a free country where anyone can speak their mind, but it’s good to have these people to help us frame the issues at hand and the corresponding sides to those issues. That way, we aren’t all just talking or – please no – shouting at once.

3. Compiling content is not inherently wrong. But there’s still much more of a need for original content.
To me, it’s not he who has the most content who wins. It’s he who has the most relevant content. So of course we’re going to re-post, retweet, share, etc. But people who merely do this and only this at high velocity each day aren’t content sharing. They’re content shoveling. It’s like my dog who digs a hole at the beach – when she kicks her back legs in the air, a lot of sand goes flying in all directions aimlessly. Well, when someone just repeatedly shares without creating or commenting, there’s just a lot of content flying around without direction. Some will argue that some people are just more natural-born “sharers” and it’s not in their nature to comment or create. I get that to a certain degree. But the balance of those who create and comment is woefully unbalanced on some channels compared to those who share, particularly on Twitter. Sharing is great, but it’s the conversation and dialogue that helps define our stances online. Better to share than not share, but I wonder if some of us can’t come out of our writing/commenting shell to help balance out the audience just a bit better.

For example, when news such as the recent uprisings in Egypt surfaced and we heard voices from inside the revolution via Twitter, I was fascinated. But I couldn’t have understood it all from a steady diet of Tweets either. I needed to hear from an inside voice like Wael Ghonim’s and an outside voice like Anderson Cooper’s. One brought authenticity, the other brought context. Just because we had a new and exciting stream of information to witness, it’s ludicrous to suggest we didn’t need CNN there and that they were “beat” to the story. Their role changed. The need for them to be there didn’t.

Final thought: It’s OK to share, retweet and comment. More than OK. It’s what helps the engine of social media go, after all. But we need more influential creators of content to rise up too. As well as people who provide valuable commentary on existing content. Both of which, by the way, are probably opportunities your brand isn’t seizing enough, but that’s a post for another day.