Join us September 15th in Atlanta for The Employee Advocacy Summit and learn how to unleash the power of your employees.
Post your event here and we'll share it with our community. If one of our members is featured, we'll promote as well on their profile.
Your resource for exclusive content and insights from Social Media Today, and opportunities to reach our community of professionals.
The Social Business Book Club brings you books, discussions, and insights from today's to business thought leaders.
Join interactive talks and and panel discussions with leading thinkers and practitioners on social media and networked business, or browse the catalogue of recorded sessions - all completely free.
Reach Social Media Today's community of marketing and communications professionals in an editor-approved context with a native advertising package.
I've worked for clients like: GE, Ford, VISA, BMW, Coca-Cola, Telus, Dove, Canadian Tire, AT&T, Microsoft, Soctiabank, Cineplex, AVIVA, Yellow Pages, Honda And worked for agencies like: Razorfish, Wieden + Kennedy, Capital C, TAXI, BBDO, Proximity, Ogilvy One and Trapeze
Yelp isn't all powerful, and users are smarter than you give them credit for.
Yelp has tools that allow businesses to engage in a dialog with reviewers, so troll posts can be mitigated with a little bit of work. Additionally, if a business relys solely on Yelp for reviews and doesn't have a social media presence; you're giving all the power to Yelp - and deserve what you get.
Users of Yelp don't just take reviews at face value, they tend to evaluate the reviewer when making decisions. If a user is clearly a troll, they won't give any credit to that review - regardless of whether Yelp decides to suppress it or not.
I don't like it when people blame a platform for bad press. If you're getting a bad reputation, you should seriously look at why people are posting those reviews - if it REALLY is just a fire-meme (i.e. Papa Johns) you need to do a lot of work to midigate the dammage - not just on Yelp.
I think blaming Yelp is more of a rant, and less of a solution-driven article I'm used to reading on this site.
Thanks for the comment, and I agree with all of your points. However, I don't necessarily think sending the same message across each social media channel is the best way to engage your audience.
I think each channel should have it's own custom message that's applicable to that channels audience. (You might not want to share the same message to group members on linked-in; as group members on Facebook.) But to your overarching point; whatever message/ conversation you engage in; it should ladder back up to your business (or personal) objectives.
Great question Glenn.
I agree that a users fear of making mistakes shouldn't prevent them from participating in social media. However, I think a user should have different objectives when starting out:
1. Users should start by observing - Check out the social media channel you want to participate in, note how other users talk, what they're interested in, and any memes and trends unique to the channel.
2. Users should create a test account to test social interactions - This account shouldn't be the account you'll end up using to build your social equity. This account will be used to test different interaction strategies to find out which content & which communications are most effective. - You can also test different tracking, aggregation, and monitoring tools during this stage.
The final stage would be setting up the account you want to build your social equity with. The research & participation you've done prior to this stage will help you avoid content mistakes. That said, it's important to track and learn from any mistakes you do make; no one's perfect. Continuous optimization is key in increasing social media ROI.
Thanks for the comments!
Brian - rpxnow is an awesome tool; will be recommending it to a new client and agree that it works great for connecting communities to e-commerce platforms. (I also really like the share tool you offer, great for product reviews)
I was asked how to use the matrix in this post; and what data I used to create it - I thought I'd share my response:
Here's how the chart was created:
I examined several dozen successful personal brands (individuals) and prioritized which channels they were engaging based on activity. I used the entire sample to indicate the maximum/ minimum usage for each channel. (So, if the most active blogger, posted 14 posts per day on average - I used 14 posts per day as the maximum activity number for the blog channel.)
I plotted each brand within the Venn diagram; indicating where in the spectrum each brand fell. (One might be more Entertainer, one might be more Expert... etc.) - This wasn't really scientific; it was based on my interpretation of who they are. I based my categorization on searches within each channel, and an analysis of what the brand was saying, and what was being said about the brand.
I was able to derive commonalities between those brands that were in the same category. (i.e. Over 80% of the brands that fell within the sphere of the Entertainer were engaged in social networks as either their most active account, or their second most active.)
Based on those numbers, I was able to compare how active each channel is, within each category, compared to each other channel.
It's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that blogs are more effective than micro-blogs, if you're an expert. It does mean that successful experts use blogs more than micro-blogs; and experts use them more often than the interested and the entertainers.
Because it's rare that any brand would be 100% one category, this chart is intended to be a guideline, not a proof.
Let's say, in your opinion, your brand falls between an expert and an entertainer: you can look at both lines in the matrix and say: The most active channels by successful entertainers & experts have 2 commonalities; micro-blogs, and social networks. It might be a good idea to try using those the most.
I always recommend measurement, and testing; so if one channel isn't panning out, you might want to try something different.
I know it's not the best methodology; but I've been getting value from it & and have passed it around to some clients who have gotten some value for their personal brand.
I've been reading a lot of hype about sentiment analysis - a lot of it was raised by the Fluent report published by Razorfish (http://fluent.razorfish.com/) although measuring sentiment has been around for a while longer.
I think sentiment measurement formulas (like the SIM score) offer some value as a quick look at whether people are saying good or bad things about your brand.
I think the real question (as Marta Strickland puts it in her post "Five Reasons Sentiment Analysis Won't Ever Be Enough" ) is "What are we trying to decide with this data?"