I’ve been on an intentional hiatus the last week or so (yes, it was also Chinese New Year here in Singapore so it’s been busy with public holidays and visiting and all that), but also to take some down time to think.
Something that I keep thinking about (partially influenced by Seth Godin’s Linchpin) is wondering who matters.
Why do we chase digital business from the huge corporations who say they want digital but time and time again the end result is “go peddle your social media stuff somewhere else” and buy a TV ad.
Because the big organisations look better on a company portfolio than the mom and pop shop who really does want to embrace digital and probably will pay you less?
Why do we spend hours on decks and creative for an audience that isn’t receptive?
Aren’t they the equivalent of your whining customers that we always tell ourselves (or our clients) to sacrifice and go after those who love you, your business, your service instead?
Mark started the ball rolling with his 2010 predictions for social media, and now it’s my turn to weigh in on what I think are trends going forward and what that means, particularly for businesses engaged in (or thinking of engaging in) social media.
In no particular order, here we go:
1) Simultaneous fragmentation and consolidation
From blogging platforms (Typepad, Wordpress, Blogger, Livejournal and now Posterous) to analytics platforms (Omniture, Web Trends, Google Analytics) to listening tools (Radian 6, TNS Cymfony, Techrigy, Brandtology) to social networks (Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, QQ) to search platforms (Google, Yahoo, Bing, Naver, Baidu), the choices that arise just to decide where to ‘play’ can be overwhelming.
Part of the social media sphere is that it’s inherently easy to set up these platforms at low costs and immediately compete with the big boys. As a business, have you done your due diligence to know where your target audience is and which platform works for you? Or are you really going to assume that Facebook solves all problems and use it to reach China (where Facebook is blocked)?
At the same time this fragmentation isn’t going to go on forever. We’ve seen Adobe acquiring Omniture and Facebook acquiring FriendFeed this year. The danger of investing in a platform that may have a very real chance of disappearing or swallowed up by another company in the next 12-24 months is real, so choices have to be thought through more carefully than ever.
2) Social media is becoming more exclusive
Private Facebook profiles, walled gardens like Google Wave and Twitter lists all make it even more challenging to reach the ever-elusive ‘influencer’. If someone has 2,000 friends on Facebook but his profile is private, you’ve lost a way to reach 2,000 people. Twitter lists are naturally exclusive but penetrating the right one could really help you. In-groups are forming and the later a company gets with the programme, the higher the barrier to entry. How high a barrier do you want to deal with?
3) Social media policies will be set in stone.
From the NFL to Honda to Dominos, companies are feeling the heat of not putting down hard guidelines to encourage employees to participate in social media, but to participate responsibly. Nothing is secret anymore and if businesses let employees run unchecked, it could spell big problem for the company.
4) Sentiment analysis will become increasingly important
More emphasis will be placed on sentiment analysis. Perhaps not necessarily the accuracy of it, but what can actually be done with the data. A free Google Alert can tell me everything I need to know about my brand, but can the sentiment analysis tools put data together in a way that makes cohesive sense? Can they understand native language nuances? Can they segment by country? Will the phrase “a terrific example of bad customer service” be recognised as positive or negative sentiment? As advancements in the language recognition software gets more advanced, these questions will have to be answered and listening will be more crucial than ever.
5) Mobile access points
To me, netbooks can fall in the category of ‘mobile’ these days, not just handphones. As access on the go becomes even more ubiquitous (at least in developed countries) are you ready for a proportion of your customers to be accessing your site or service online? Or are they going to be even more frustrated at the lack of usability (I’m looking at you, local cinemas)? Are you enhancing your services with the idea of mobility and flexibility, or are you still operating with the mindset that customers only think about your products and services when sitting at home, thus losing the opportunity to snag them when they may be walking right by your physical store?
6) Transparency and disclosure
Beaten over the head to death. Companies and agencies who don’t understand the idea of transparency and disclosure aren’t going to last very long. On a personal note, I think bloggers who get into pay-per-post kind of schemes are doing themselves a disservice and there needs to be a better way for bloggers and companies to work together.
Bonus: Singapore special – Blogger outreach has to change.
Speaking purely as a blogger, I’m really frustrated, no I’m more than frustrated, I’m sick and tired of agencies reaching out to me for events, products and services which are so far from something that I might be interesting that it really grinds my gears. Agencies need to learn this is as cardinal a sin as pitching the technology editor a piece of fashion news (and I don’t mean tech-news with a bit of fashion in it).
The way of doing outreach aside, the events themselves have to change. This one off ‘come to my event and touch my product and read my press release’ has to change. And bloggers need to make it known that they’re tired of it by not going, rather then going for the sake of being invited to the next one.
So there you go. Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments.
[this was originally a post on Digiramblings, a shared blog by four Gen Y agency folk in Singapore trying to make sense of digital and social media
For some reason today it hit me how many tweets I read from the local Singaporean bloggers have become increasingly brand-focused over the last few months. And in many instances not because they are genuinely fans of the brand, but because they’re part of this programme or that outreach or whatever it is.
If Twitter (and social media) is a channel, then these brand-pushed tweets are no different from the ad in the middle of my magazine, billboard when I drive on the road or 30 second ad in the middle of my tv show. They’re disruptive and we’re back where the whole problem with traditional media began.
The problem here is twofold:
1) Agencies are lazy
I think it’s time to go beyond blogger outreach. This is a whole blog post on its own so I won’t get into it here. The other problem is
2) Bloggers allow it
I don’t even know if this is a conscious or subconscious decision, but how many bloggers are blogging about what got them started in the first place? I look at a couple of blogs who I used to follow and now the word “advertorial” is in every other post. I think we (bloggers) need to remember what got us those readers to subscribe to our blogs in the first place. What got the first 10, 50, 100, 200, 500 people to follow us on Twitter in the first place. I’m pretty sure 9/10 times the reason is not “so they could get messages from brands” and to be free walking breathing tweeting advertisements for them. As Jo from Flowing Motion put it to me today while discussing the topic: “what about your reputation?”
The whole promise about social media was that it would be a conversation. People would feel passionately (or not) about products and services and by communicating with each other, hopefully community is built and advocacy is developed. And yes, I recognise that it won’t always be organic and that sometimes a brand will reach out and we bloggers will respond, but really, let’s try to maintain some decorum of self-dignity and refuse to be the new marketing vehicles of companies because we have worked hard to build up our credibility and to be relevant to our audiences and have their trust.
Is that really worth that extra blog post just so you’ll get invited to that next event that has barely anything to do with your blog content?
Entirely tongue-in-cheek post. While familiarising myself with some Google tools earlier in the week I curiously checked out what the trends are here in Singapore in terms of search volume.
Fact #1: searches for Facebook have been on the up starting 2008, but are rising exponentially in 2009.
Fact #2: Singaporeans are too lazy to facebook.com and login, prefering to instead search “Facebook login” on Google, and brought to the login page directly, as shown by this screenshot, capturing two of the top three rising searches in the last three months:
Tonight I came home to discover that there was a little bit of a rant (to put it mildly) by @TweetSG, the person behind tweet.sg, which allows people in Singapore to update their Twitter statuses via sms. My understanding is there have been lag updates (from the time the sms is sent to the time it appears on the person’s profile) and the developer basically had enough.
Tweet.sg
So I don’t run a business or a service, but announcing to almost 8,000 followers on Twitter that you can just remove any of your service at users at will is a little bit much, as is throwing around the f-word.
So in one night, what has happened is:
Lose many people who have used the service previously
Get bad press out to many others (like me) who have never used it and never will
Given a competitor (Sgbeat.com) a great opportunity to swipe some market share
Granted, service users might have been unreasonable (I don’t know if that is true), but doesn’t everyone face this in every market? Losing our cool is not the way to go.
Awhile back I was talking to a friend who I went to school with, and she was telling me about a social media training session by an “expert” who was teaching them how to use social media to monitor their brand. This apparently covered the usual Google Alerts, as well as some of the more popular forums here in Singapore. So I asked the obvious question: “When’re you going to start participating?”
“Oh. We have to pay more for training for engagement.”
Say what?
I’m definitely not against having training for engagement. It’s way too easy to do the wrong thing when commenting on a blog, using Twitter, using Facebook or just replying on a forum. Not to mention there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution for participation, and it’ll have to be customised to fit your company’s needs, which will differ from industry to industry, and even within industries, between companies.
Here’s the thing though. If I were an agency or a self-proclaimed “expert” (a term I really don’t like), I’d love it if a company contacts me and doesn’t include a request for engagement in the “training package”. Great for greed, great for money.
It’s like going to an agency and asking for something “viral” just because it’s the latest buzzword, but not having an inkling what it’s actually about, and when the agency comes back to you with an idea which is far from viral, you won’t know any better and have to take their word for it. Do you really want to take that kind of risk with your money these days?
So I think as a client, do yourself a favour and do some research on what your agency should be offering you and what you should be asking for. And if you don’t know enough and don’t have the time to know about, at least bring someone on board in your company who can tell you when your agency or “expert” is obviously shilling you.
I suppose this isn’t news, but Starhub (one of the three telcos here in Singapore) has brought its presence to the social media scene in the form of a Twitter account, @StarHubCares.
During the first few weeks, there were a few issues like @StarHubCares replying other Twitter users, asking them to direct message (dm) @StarHubCares directly, but because @StarHubCares wasn’t following them on Twitter in the first place, there was no way for a dm to get through.
Thankfully, with some help from the community, this was quickly sorted out and @StarHubCares quickly followed these people (myself included) back, and got down to replying their issues.
Here are a few questions that I do have about the initiative:
1) Should it be more transparent that the person behind @StarHubCares is not actually someone from Starhub, but their agency? Some online feel yes, I’m slightly on the fence.
2) Is Twitter the best (or even a right) channel for them to be on?
3) @StarHubCares seems to do a good job of listening in and replying to questions/problems, but are there actual accounts from them or from the general public about cases being closed, problems being solved?
4) Do regular Starhub employees know about this service, so that maybe when they close a sale at a retail outlet, they can tell customers about this service in addition to the customer helpline?
What do you think? When should a company be on Twitter? Does it fit Starhub? Should they be doing more with it? Less?
It’s been three weeks but the next episode of The GennY Podcast is finally here! Full disclosure: This was actually our first recording, but we felt that the episode we released first was better suited to be our first, introductory podcast. Coincidentally, some topics actually touch on what was said at Social Media Breakfast | Singapore 6, but in slightly more detail.
Once again, this episode was brought to you by the same people behind episode 1 (Krisandro, myself, Dorothy, Yin and Yinqi), but we hope to shake that up for subsequent episodes.
GennY Episode 2 Team
The show notes:
00:00 – Daryl starts us off – introductions all round
00:55 – Yin starts us off on the topic: How can we get traditional companies to start slowly on the social media path?
01:35 – Social media allows you to know what your consumer wants, what trends they’re picking up, and hence customise your communications/marketing
03:02 – Why don’t companies go where their audience is?
05:42 – Is there a perceived credibility problem with social media?
06:48 – How well received would brands be on Plurk?
07:50 – Maybe if they talked about things other than just selling, they might be better received.
08:31 – No messages from unknown faces please!
11:46 – Should employees reach out from their own identity, or create one aligned with a company?
13:02 – “Dear All” = Fail
15:03 – How about Facebook Groups?
15:39 – Facebook Groups more as personality “labels” rather than a communication channel
16:40 – Maybe Facebook Groups would work if the creators made an effort to communicate to the group
16:47 – But this can be overdone too
18:20 – Is this an intrinsic problem because Facebook Groups have no RSS?
A number of weeks ago, I was invited by Text 100 to attend an event by Norton (yes, the people who make the anti virus), held at Equinox here in Singapore.
The first thing that I noticed at the event, was that it was a huge event. There easily over 60 people present, and further investigation revealed that some were bloggers like us, some were people interested in technology (like Tech 65), others were Norton enthusiasts and fans, others still were Norton detractors.
What? Norton’s paying money to feed detractors?
Yes you heard me right. If you watch the video by Effendy Ibrahim, he explains why it’s important to have a variety of people present to get meaningful feedback and conversations.
Later in the presentation, Norton said that while they have always been known for providing good protection, they were also known for being a computer resource hog, and agreed with that assessment. However they have learned their lesson and their latest version of Norton 360 takes up minimal resources.
That really blew me away. How many companies are mature enough and secure in their product to invite people who don’t like them, interact with them, and openly admit past mistakes? Not many, I can tell you that.
After the presentations, we broke up into smaller groups, depending on interests. I ended up in the “lifestyle” segment, where we talked about how to be safe when surfing the web. During this session it was mentioned that Generation Y spends the most time online compared to any age group, which prompted me to ask if Norton was aggressively going after this segment, given that Norton programmes are expensive and most of us students just go for the freeware.
The reply was surprisingly open (or maybe not surprising, by this time), saying that it was indeed an issue and that they were looking for an “in route” to the tertiary crowd. I was also informed that the student edition is not as expensive as I thought it was, estimated in the mid double-digits.
All in all, I was impressed not by the new version of Norton 360, but the openness towards communication with which Norton approached the session. This wasn’t an instance of a client engaging an agency to do an outreach programme for the sake of it, but the client genuinely wanting to reach out and create that connection with their audiences, knowing it will benefit them in the long run.
I have a copy of Norton Anti Virus (Gaming Edition) and a copy of Norton Utilities to give out (generously provided by Norton, of course). And all you have to do is comment why you should receive either of the products (specify which you want). Also, if you tweet this blogpost with the hashtag #Norton, you stand double the chances of winning. Closes Monday, 6th April!
My mum showed me this article from the Straits Times a few days ago, with the headline: “Blogs’ reach limited: Study“, stating that mainstream media is still the key source of news and views, at least socio-politically. (Straits Times: It literally took me just about four minutes to find the link to that page. Why doesn’t Google pick up your stuff and why is your archival system so bad?)
So what I want to comment on, is this paragraph:
Mr Tan compared the several thousand readers who tune in to socio-political websites The Online Citizen (TOC) and The Wayang Party Club to The Straits Times’ circulation of nearly 400,000 and its readership of 1.3 million.
Without going on all day, here are my quick thoughts:
I suppose newspapers being awesome have nothing to do with the numerous newspapers shutting down worldwide. (Here are some Google search results)
Of the 400,000 circulation, how many people actively care about the “socio-political” commentary?
Straits Times has a “readership” of 1.3 million, which means the 400,000 circulation is roughly passed along three times. Or in the case of my family, seven of us (including the dog) have access to the Straits Times, but maybe one person reads it regularly. (The dog used to eat it regularly. Talk about consuming the news.)
I suppose the “readership” applies to army camps where they have one copy of it but it’s shared by 30 people, most of whom don’t manage to get their hands on it
The websites with “several thousand readers” (why no figures?) are actively being sought out, compared to newspapers.
The people seeking out that content are particularly motivated and highly engaged in the source material
If I were in an organisation (non-profit, cause, school, company, government), I’d easily trade 5,000 newspaper “readers” for 1 person actively searching for my content
Reach means nothing.
What are your thoughts? Are articles like this just plain in denial? Or is there really something here?
I’ve been on an intentional hiatus the last week or so (yes, it was also Chinese New Year here in Singapore so it’s been busy with public holidays and visiting and all that), but also to take some down time to think.
