Google+ page vs Facebook page – the battle has just begun…

The first smoke has died down. But the war has just begun. Page vs Page. Facebook vs Google. Two Superpowers against each others.

In the first place these social networks giants was created for people to connect with people. Or “friends and family” as Facebook use to call it. With their “profiles” as a basis for the communication within the network.

Then the time came for the companies to engage with their target audience. With their “pages” as a basis for their communication. And I guess the battle has just begun.

As far as I can see and understand both of these giants have just ended up into a massive clash! Where the value proposition for their users (as companies, brands, and others) is very much the same.

Of course they both have advantages and disadvantages. The SiliconIndia says for an example:

The greatest benefit of branding products in Google plus will be the link up with search engine. The search engine will track the brands on Google plus pages easily and will bring them to the top list in the search engine. Just typing “+Google” will take the user directly to the company’s profile page.
Facebook has again got something that will affect their market. The like button of Facebook is similar to the +1 button on Google plus. The hangout button is simpler to use when compared to video chat in Facebook with Skype. Now Google plus also going corporate will be a tough completion to Facebook pages.

Well – as I said – the battle has just begun… and I’ll will follow this war with great interest.

Now – I’ve just created my own “Google+ page” and I’m looking forward to see yours, and follow your point of view in this matter. Mashable show you how to get started.

Mark won’t organize the entire web – the crowd will

Nielsen just released their Social Media Report Q3 2011. The social media’s popularity continues to grow rapidly from an US perspective, connecting people with just about everything they watch and buy. And the Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other U.S. website! Scary? Take it easy, Mark won’t organize the entire web – the crowd will.

Vinny Lingham, Entrepreneur & Search Engine Marketer, wrote the 13th of Juni 2007 that “Facebook is the new internet”. He said:

“I am constantly astounded by what FaceBook is doing – they just get it! Yahoo should have really paid the $2bn they asked for them last year – they’re probably worth $5bn by now! If FaceBook becomes another Google – I think everyone at Yahoo will probably revolt!
I personally think that MySpace sucks – and they are a bunch of Generation W’s that just don’t understand what the web is about! FaceBook will overtake MySpace globally well within 18 months – that’s my prediction!”

He was probably not the first guy that realized that something big was going on. But he was one of them. And I remember I did laugh at his headline by then. Maybe I shouldn’t. I knew that Vinny didn’t mean exactly that. Nor did Mark Zuckerberg when I once met him during an early FOWA conference in London, even though he already had some delusions of grandeur.

But – seriously – what’s going on – really?

Nielsen just released their Social Media Report Q3 2011, which shows that “the Social networks and blogs continue to dominate Americans’ time online, now accounting for nearly a quarter of total time spent on the Internet. In the U.S., social networks and blogs reach nearly 80 percent of active U.S. Internet users and represent the majority of Americans’ time online. Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other U.S. website.”

Since Vinny’s post, hundreds of engaged people has speculated if Facebook is the new Internet or not.

From my point of view, I still don’t think that Facebook will become the new Internet, if you may call it so, but what I do understand is that people are social, and we love services that treat us like that, with all of our social needs and wants. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Mark Zuckerberg has succeeded in doing just that – to provide social services for social people. And it is becoming increasingly clear that other web services haven’t responded to our requests on that point.

Around that time when Vinny Lingham wrote that “Facebook is the new internet”, Jeff Jarvis wrote the historical quote from Mark, in the Guardian, when the “powerful newspaper publisher beseeched Mark Zuckerberg” in Davos “for advice on how he could build and own his community. The famously laconic Zuckerberg replied “You can’t.” Zuckerberg went on to explain that communities already exist and the question these magnates should ask instead is how they can help them to do what they want to do. Zuckerberg’s prescription was “elegant organisation”.”

So as long as no one else will organize the web to help people “to do what they want to do” on the Internet, maybe Facebook will continue to take lead on that. The question is how far they could go?

From my point of view – not so far. Facebook is and probably will be one of the most important network for socializing, and – yes – we might book our flight tickets there as well. But… The most likely scenario is that the whole world wide web will be “Facebookalized”. Facebook will work in symbiosis with the rest of the web and vice versa. Thousands of small web applications will permeate Facebook. And thousands of Facebook applications will permeate the entire web. “Like buttons”, “Sign up with Facebook”-features, are just a few examples. I think the web – the Internet – will be socialized, and we have to thank Mark for inspired lectured the rest of us to execute on that.

Mark won’t organize the whole web for us; the crowd will. But Mark is one of them. A true thought leader. Thank God (Mark) for that 🙂

And – no – this is video doesn’t show the entire life of Alex Droner, but it might show a tiny part of it.

The company’s social graph – and how to benefit from it

I had a inspiring session during the Sweden Social Web Camp (SSWC) at Tjärö a few weeks ago. We were ca 50 social media evangelists that did discuss what ever a company has a social graph or not? And if it does exist; how does it look like, and how can the company use it?

At least my conclusion was that I don’t think the company itself nor the brand itself has a social graph. Because a brand is not a human being. Anyone may be connected to, and even have relations with brands but not social relations. Because you got to be human to socialize. But your brand is a social object and your products as well. Because people are talking about them. Some are more engaged than others, and some more angry than others. But people are sharing their thoughts about your brand. And I guess the sum of these people, that have your company (and/or your brand) as a social object, are the same thing as the company’s social graph, or at least the sum of the parts of their social graphs that are related or relevant to the company and/or their brand. We’re talking about the company’s employees, customers, stakeholders, and others.

Further on – if that’s the case – I do think the company can use and cultivate that kind of a social graph – with an extreme outcome. I’ll tell you why and how further down in this post. But first – let’s take it from the beginning:

We’re all human beings, right? We’re people. And people are social. We group ourselves into social networks, and talking to each other about different kind of social objects, and engage ourselves in communities.

It doesn’t matter if we’re consumers, suppliers, communicators or journalists. We all got to understand how we socialize, which is “the process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies through conversations, behaviors, practices, rituals and education”…. that “provide the individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within their own society”.

A network is just elements connected to each other. But social network is individuals connected to each other.

And the Social Object is “the node” in these social networks. The Social Object is the reason why two people are talking to each other, as opposed to talking to somebody else.

And a group of individuals that have these social objects in common and share these interests with each other – are members of a community. Everyone on this planet is a member of a community, I guess?

Then Mark Zuckerberg took a part of this social environment to the web, and more or less invented the term “Social Graph” which describes the relationships between individuals online. Frankly it’s the global mapping of everybody and how they’re related.

My experiences are that companies and their marketing staff intellectually do understand the situation, and are in some sort of consideration phase, but that they are truly stressed about this “social graph” and the relationship-humbo-jumbo talk.

But if we do agree that “the sum of the people, that have your company (and/or your brand) as a social object, are the same thing as the company’s social graph, or at least the sum of the parts of their social graphs that are related or relevant to the company and/or their brand”. Then it wouldn’t be to hard for the company to benefit from this social environment. Let me give you a few examples what you as a communicator can do:

1. Identify who’s connected to your brand.
2. Find out if your brand is a social object (with sub subjects), and if that might have resulted in different kind of communities.
3. Find out how these communities look like.
1. Who are members.
2. What exactly are they talking about.
4. Become a member by yourself and serve the other members in these communities.
5. Inspire those who are only connected to your brand but not talking about it, to become members and engage, the company’s employees in particular.
6. Help these communities to grow and flourish as a whole.

I think for an example these guys (and organizations) might be connected to your brand, among many others:

• Employees (and former employees)
• Members of the Board
• Owners
• Customers (and former customers)
• Supppliers
• Retailers
• Partners
• Industry spokesmen and thought leaders
• Industry colleagues
• Competitors
• Ambassadors
• Journalists

They know your company. And they are all connected. And they all are important to you. But that doesn’t mean they are talking to each other nor with you or your staff about your brand. They might only be connected. They might be connected to your brand and talking to each other about it, but not with you and your staff. They might be connected to your brand, yourself and your staff as well, but not talking about it with anyone. Or they might be both connected to your brand, yourself and your staff, and talking about it with everyone.

These ones who are talking about your brand, have for sure different kind of needs and wants. And they probably talking about that specific angle of your brand in different kind of forum, in different sub communities.

No matter what group they belong, they all can be a member of these communities that talking about your brand.

Can your company own a such communities? Probably not. You can’t own a social object. You can’t even own your brand as a social object. They all are parts of the social environment!

But you can help an existing community to grow and flourish. Especially the ones who are connected to your brand.

You can be a proud member of the existing ones. You can invite other peoples to the existing ones. You can also set up “your own” (another) forum for an existing community to help it grow. And you can call that “your community” if you like. Just because that’s the community you’re involved in, or created a new forum for (as the owner / administrator).

But a community is boundless. Some of the members can easily pop up somewhere else, and the rest of the members will follow.

If you’re interested in this topic, please read “Your company has a social graph” as well.

Sign up for a Google+ business page now!

Hey PR communicators and others. Do you’ve got a Facebook fan page for your business? And think that’s a great way to get in touch and interact with your audience?

Then you should create a business page for Google+. But hold it! Maybe you should wait for a while, until Google show you the green light.

Some companies like Ford just run into the field for action. They created a personal profile as a company brand. Exactly what business did in the good old Facebook era when pages didn’t exist.

Google is of course aware of this, and telling us not to.

Google+ Product manager, Christian Oestlien, says on his profil:

“We have been watching Google+ take shape over the last week and we’ve seen some really great companies get involved. But frankly we know our product as it stands is not optimally suited to their needs. In fact, it was kind of an awkward moment for us when we asked Ford for his (or was it her?) gender!

How users communicate with each other is different from how they communicate with brands, and we want to create an optimal experience for both. We have a great team of engineers actively building an amazing Google+ experience for businesses, and we will have something to show the world later this year.”

But also add that:

“If you represent a “non-user entity” (e.g. business, organization, place, team, etc.) and would like to apply for consideration in our limited program (and be amongst the first to be alerted when the business product launches) you can sign up here:”

http://goo.gl/zq95C

One small paradox is that Christian Oestlien uses his personal profil for business matters like this… 🙂 It’s a mess, isn’t it?

Communication a huge and confusing melting pot

Everybody in communication business talks about it everywhere! The new and ever-changing communication landscape has turned the media industry on its head. The confusion is now complete. Much of what we have learned and become accustomed to is no longer valid. This applies particularly to media, journalism, public relations, marketing, and sales. The professionals within each of these fields are either desperately holding on to their old identities, or are groping around for new ones.

The role of journalists is questioned. Previously clear concepts such as “journalist” and “journalism” have become blurred. The same goes for “media”. What is a media today? And “PR” … what is PR? It’s obviously something else today than it was yesterday. And what about “marketing”…

“Markets (and marketing) are conversations” as the Cluetrain Manifesto puts it. Conversations are based on relationships. Just like PR. Because PR’s is all about relationships, right? It’s all about relationships with both the market and those who influence it, including journalists. However, since all consumers now have access to almost exactly the same “tools” and methods as traditional journalists, it seems like the market has in some way also become the journalists. The market represents a long tail of new journalism and new media that perhaps has the greatest influence on a company’s market and might perhaps be their key opinion leaders. “Put the public back to public relations!” as Brian Solis put it long ago.

People have started to talk to each other in social media at the expense of, or sometimes in tune with, traditional media. They’re no longer writing letters to editors. They would rather publish their news ideas directly on the Web. Media consumption, and production, publishing, packaging and distribution in particular, have rapidly moved in to the social web. And both the PR and Marketing communicators are following, or are at least gradually beginning to do so.

As the market moved to the web, and the web has become social, marketing communication has become “social” too. Companies have started to talk directly with their market. And I mean “talk”, not pushing out information. Campaigns with no social component become fewer and fewer. “Monologue” ad banners, with decreasing CTR and increasing CPC, are becoming less acceptable. Google revolutionized with Adwords, Adsense and PPC. Press releases written by former journalists synchronized with Adwords and presented as text ads, turned things upside down.

Aftonbladet has been very successful with advertorials where only a small ad-mark distinguishes the ad from an article produced by journalists. This method is about as successful – and deceptive – as “product placement” in TV and film. That method has gone from small product elements in parts of a program to a complete sellout of the entire series or film. (In Sweden, think Channel 5’s Room Service and TV4’s Sick Sack.) But what can the television business do when the consumer just fast-forwards past the commercials, or worse still, prefers looking at user-generated TV like YouTube?

What will newspapers do when consumers ignore their banners? They will convert advertising into editorials. Or vice versa: they will charge for editorial features and charge companies to publish content on their platform, without involving any “investigative” journalism.

IDG calls their version of this “Vendor’s Voice”, a medium where companies publish their “editorial material” (it used to be called press information) directly on IDG.se and its related websites. The service is conceived and hosted by Mynewsdesk. It works pretty much like the Apple App Store; it is possible for any media to set up their “channel” (the media) on Mynewsdesk, promote it, and put a price on its use.

Essentially, when companies publish their information in their own newsrooms via Mynewsdesk, they can also easily select any relevant channels for the information in question. The service still has the internal working title “Sponsored Stories”, which today may seem a little funny when that is the exact same name Facebook uses for its new advertising program, where a company pays for people in its network to share information about that company with their own friends.

Isn’t that pretty much what PR communicators strive for? It’s in the form of an ad, but this type of advertising is simply bought communication – just like some PR seems to be – with the purpose to “create attention around ideas, goods and services, as well as affect and change people’s opinions, values or actions…”

But the press release… That’s information for the press, right? Or is it information that is now a commodity, often published in the media, directly and unabridged, much like the “sponsored stories”? Maybe it is information that can reach anyone that might find this information relevant. They might not be the press, but they are at least some kind of journalist, in the sense that they publish their own stories, often in same media as “real” journalists, in platforms created for user-generated content.

Everything goes round and round: side by side are readers, companies and journalists. All collaborate and compete for space and reach.

The causal relationship is as simple as it is complicated. People are social. People are using the Web. The Web has become social. People meet online. The exchange is rich and extensive. The crowd has forced the creation of great services for production, packaging, processing and distribution. These are exactly the same building blocks that have always been the foundation for traditional journalists and the media’s right to exist. Strong competition has emerged, but there is also some  interaction and collaboration.

People have opted in to social media at the expense of the traditional media. They rely on their own networks more and more, which has forced advertisers to find a place in social media too. Traditional ads are replaced by social and editorial versions that are designed to engage or become “friends” with your audience, talking to them as you would talk to friends.

The media are in the same boat and are becoming more social and advertorial. Users are invited to become part of both the ads and the editorials. UGC (user-generated content) is melded with CGC (company-generated content) and even JGC (journalist-generated content). Journalism goes from being a product to being a process characterized by “crowd-sourcing”, before ringing up the curtain on a particular report or story. As the newspaper Accent writes on their site:

“This is a collection of automated news monitoring that we use as editors. The idea is that even you, the reader, will see and have access to the unsorted stream of news that passes us on the editorial board. Please let us know if you find something important or interesting that you think we should pick up in our reporting. ”

This is similar to how companies today present their increasingly transparent and authentic communication in their own social media newsrooms, where the audience is invited to contribute their own experiences and opinions, and partly acts as a source of story ideas for journalists.

All in all, it’s a wonderful, fruitful, but oh-so-confusing melting pot.

Räckvidd inget med inflytande att göra

Låt dig inte luras av räckvidd när du söker inflytelserika personer på webben. Personer med stora nätverk behöver inte med nödvändighet ha stort inflytande.

Min pappa sa alltid: “Håll dig god vän med de som sitter längst bak i klassen, för det är hos dem du kommer söka jobb.”

Andemeningen var förstås att göra mig uppmärksam på hur viktigt det är med lite attityd, integritet, bångstyrighet, etc, för att komma någonstans här i världen. Men också för att påvisa värdet av goda relationer med de som har, eller kommer att få, makt och stort inflytande.

Sistnämnda har varit ledorden för de som jobbar med PR ända sen de gamla grekerna. Det som dock förändrats under resans gång är det kommunikativa landskapet, opinionsbildarna, och de kommunikativa metoderna.

De som länge har haft störst inflytande på företags och organisationers marknad är den första, andra och  tredje statsmakten. Sistnämnda – de traditionella medierna – har lite slarvigt uttryckt länge varit synonymt med PR.

Men nu, när vem som helst har fått verktyg att uttrycka sig fritt på webben, talar man om en fjärde statsmakt; den skara människor som plötsligt och sammantaget förmodligen har störst inflytande på företags och organisationers marknad, av dem alla.

Cisions Europachef, Peter Granat, säger i en intervju med PRWeek:

“In the social media era the word ‘influencer’ is fast overtaking ‘journalist’, ‘analyst’ or any other ringfenced descriptive term that we were once comfortable with. Influencers are everywhere and they’re not simply confined to journalists – now we have bloggers, tweeters, podcasters; a constantly changing variety of people to whom PR professionals need to reach out. But finding the right influencers on the right channels that make an impact for our clients’ brands can seem like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

Detta är ju minst sagt omtumlande för Cision och liknande bolag vars intäkter till största del och ännu så länge kommer ifrån försäljning av just tillgång till mediedatabaser och utskick med utgångspunkt från dessa.

Branschen skakas ånyo av en omdaning som får stora konsekvenser på alla inblandades sätt att arbeta med PR. I synnerhet de traditionella PR-verktygen som hittills har utgått från att journalister och redaktioner på traditionell media är de med störst inflytande på marknaden, och de enda som är värda att “bearbeta” för att på så sätt nå och skapa goda relationer med sin marknad.

Bortsett ifrån att företag idag med framgång kan skapa goda relationer direkt med sin marknad utan att gå via opinionsbildare, söker nu dessa företag tjänster som hjälper dem att finna dessa nya och inflytelserika personer.

Jag har tidigare skrivit om hur nära nog samtliga sociala tjänster på webben som kartläggar folks uttryck på webben och resultatet därav, kan ligga till grund för att identifiera folks inflytande på företags marknad. Men också om de tjänster som tagit positionen att bygga gränssnitt mot dessa tjänster med syfte att försöka redogöra för vem som hänger ihop med vad och vilka, vad som sägs, till vem, i vilken omfattning och på vilket sätt.

Plötsligt har vi kommit väldigt långt ifrån de klassiska “mediedatabaserna” och “distributionslistorna”. Dessvärre kvarstår ofta den traditionella synen på att inflytande har med räckvidd att göra; där en journalists inflytande förknippas med sitt medias upplaga/täckning, och där nu personer med stora “nätverk”, anses ha större och bättre inflytande, än de med små nätverk.

Detta är en stort misstag.

Brian Solis skriver “Influence is not popularity and popularity is not influence” i ett blogginlägg i höstas. Och fortsätter:

“Over time, our net worth is measured not by the size of our social graph, but our place within it.  As a result, social capital is visualized as influence. It is influence that shapes the agenda of social communities and the resulting activity and conversations that contribute to their resonance.”

I ett inlägg med rubriken: “Digital PR – Trends from 2010 into 2011” skriver Mark Berrryreid:

“It isn’t always the smart move to go to the blogger with the largest reach.”

Utan poängterar istället vikten av engagemang och entusiasm vad det gäller positivt inflytande:

“Investing in the people  (evangelists) who love your brand will create a ripple effect.”

Om PR-kommunikatörer uteslutande strävar efter att nå och bygga relationer med de som har stora nätverk, så riskerar de att missa de som verkligen har inflytande på deras företags marknad.

Jag gillar Wikipedias definition av “Social Influence”: “Social influence occurs when an individual’s thoughts, feelings or actions are affected by other people.”

Stora nätverk kan lätt konstrueras utan att innehålla ett uns av “social influence”.

Människor som verkligen påverkar andra människor, kanske gör det inom en sfär som är irrelevant för dig och din verksamhet?

Kasey Skala på SocialMediaToday är kritisk till den allmänna uppfattningen att människor med stora sociala nätverk också skulle ha stort inflytande. Han skriver i inlägget “Does online influence matter?” att:

“Mr. Social Media Expert/Consultant/Guru might know a little something about the online space, but does he really have any influence on which brand of cereal I’m going to buy? Absolutely not. Keep in mind, outside your little social bubble, the vast majority of people in the real world have no clue who you are, nor do they care about your opinion.”

Journalisters inflytande härrör ofta till det media de jobbar för, och den status de har på mediet ifråga. Vilket inte på något sätt spegler hur många följeslagare journalisterna ifråga ev har på Twitter där deras tweets inte sällan även rör frågor av privat karaktär, som vida skiljer sig från deras professionella sfär.

Det är därför märkligt att exempelvis Cision listar de mest inflytelserika journalisterna på tjänsten “Journalisttweets” med utgångspunkt från Klout. Klout säger sig kunna mäta just dessa journalisters “inflytande” med utgångspunkt från 35 olika variablar tagna från deras konton på Twitter, och numer även Facebook. Men vad säger egentligen detta om journalisternas verkliga inflytande?

Liksom Kasey så har jag inget ont att säga om Klouts verksamhet, men kommunikatörer som vill skapa relationer med inflytelserika människor inom deras intressesfär gör sig en rejäl björntjänst om de går efter “Klout score”.

Lika förbryllad blir man av det faktum att 61% av de tillfrågade journalisterna i PRWeeks Media Survey 2010 har blivit pitchade på Facebook. För hur många av de 79% journalister (enligt undesökningen) som har ett konto på Facebook, har det av professionella skäl? Och hur många vill bli pitchade den där? Något som inte framgår av undersökningen.

Läs också “Are marketers overestimating the impact of influencers?” och “Your Followers Are No Measure of Your Influence“.

Röda “followers” ersätter PR-slampa på Spinn10

Från vänster: Kristofer (jag) och kollega Pernilla

En PR-slampa och en skyltdocka i rött papper med obegripligt budskap borgade för megaflopp för MyNewsdesk under fjolårets spinngala. I år lanseras röda followers och ny tävling som utan jury belönar företagets sociala kompetens. En del talar för ännu en flopp. Och det är ok.

Det är bra att floppa. De företag som inte söker sig utanför komfortzonen blir inte långlivade. MyNewsdesk är ett ungt, modernt företag som inte hämmas av konventioner. Vi tänjer på gränser och välkomnar alla floppar som en del av vår framgång. En del tycker vi är oseriösa. Men inget kan vara seriösare än att prova, lära sig av sina misstag och försöka igen.

Det var under fjolårets Spinngala som MyNewsdesk stod för det märkligaste spektaklet i SPINN’s historia.
Redan i dörren möttes uppklädda och förväntasfulla gäster av en skyltdocka inklädd i rött papper. Den stela lekamen mässade ut PR-propagande som ingen av gästerna varken hörde eller än mindre begrep. Redan här började det lukta flopp lång väg. Men kreatörerna bakom upptåget vägrade att ge sig utan fullföljde med en idiots envishet. Så när det var dags att presentera MyNewsdesk som huvudsponsor kom grundaren insläpandes på den nu livs levande och vilt skrikandes dockan på axlarna. Samma obegripliga budskap, dock något högre denna gång. Ingen förstod någonting. Inte blev det bättre av att MyNewsdesks VD gick omkring som en transvestit med texten “Årets PR-slampa” på ett sidenband över de konstgjorda brösten.

Aldrig har väl något företag missat målet med så bred marginal? Budskapet att PR inte handlar om adresser i distributionslistor, utan om relationer med människor, är fortfarande höljt i dunkel. Och det är ytterst osäkert om någon hann uppfatta att MyNewsdesk då hade för avsikt att belöna företagens dagliga och sociala kompetens.

Som huvudsponsor av Spinn har MyNewsdesk i år fått förmånen att bidra med en utnämning som på ett kreativt och spännande sätt kompletterar de befintliga kategorierna. Strategin blev förstås att ta fram en tävling som MyNewsdesk själva kunde vinna.

MyNewsdesk kom upp med två riktigt bra idéer:

1. Major Fucked Up PR Price.
2. Hur social är du lille vän?

“Major Fucked Up PR Price” – skulle belöna alla de som vågat göra en radikal PR-kampanj som fullkomligt floppat. Tävlingen skulle ha ett förstapris och 200 tröstpris.

“Hur social är du lille vän?” skulle vara den kampanjlösa tävlingsformen som utan jury belönar de företag som på daglig basis lyckas skapa goda och bestående relationer med sin omgivning på webben med utgångspunkt från sin sociala kompetens.

MyNewsdesk skulle utan tvekan vinna den första, men även ha hyfsat goda chanser att vinna den andra.

Vi valde “Hur social är du lille vän?”.

Tillsammans den nya monitor-tjäsnten Lissly har MyNewsdesk börjat kartlägga de nominerade företagens social kompetens. Man har titta på i vilken omfattning, och på vilket sätt, de nominerade företagen har varit delaktiga i dialogen på den sociala webben senaste tiden, och fått några första indikationer på deras kapacitet och färdigheter. Vinnarna kommer presenteras under spinngalans prisutdelning.

Välkomna till Spinn!

Från mediadatabas till nätverk

Efter att ha föreläst vid sex frukostseminarier i Stockholm, Göteborg och Oslo för sammanlagt hundratals kommunikatörer, så är det ett par frågor som sticker ut ur mängden och som de flesta av åhörarna tycks vilja få svar på:

Hur ska jag lyckas identifiera och kommunicera med hela den nya och brokiga skara människor som har inflytande på mitt företags marknad?

Jag svarade att det kanske de varken kan eller bör göra, åtminstone inte hela skaran, då det finns risk för att de då tar sig vatten över huvudet. Men jag rekommenderade följande:

Gör ditt företag extremt tillgängligt och transparent. Se till att all information om förtaget och dess verksamhet når ut i alla relevanta sammanhang, där din målgrupp förväntar sig att den ska finnas, inte minst när de söker efter den. Lyssna på din omgivning, hjälp den, och skapa förutsättningar till självhjälp. Och fokusera dig på den exklusiva skara som har störst inflytande på din marknad.

Beroende på vilken verksamhet deras företag bedriver är en hel del av de sistnämnda sannolikt journalister, men bli inte förvånad om majoriteten av dem återfinns bland deras kunder, branschkollegor, anställda, partners, återförsäljare, leverantörer, m fl.

Ben Cotton på PR-byrån Edelman Digital i London skrev nyligen ett blogginlägg där han tipsar oss om tio gratis verktyg för att finna inflytelserika människor. Gissa en gång om något av tipsen omfattar någon mediedatabas i traditionell bemärkelse? NOT. Tjänsterna är av typen sök och nätverk med webben som spelplan. Och fler tips av liknande slag finns. Jag gillar dem alla, även om några inte funkar i Sverige. Men om jag känner typen Ben rätt, så organiserar han dessa människor i något CRM-liknande system för bearbetning. I bästa fall med några sociala plug in’s. Det gillar jag inte. Jag förordar nätverket framför CRM’et. Dessutom så tycker jag att Ben förbiser en viktig faktor; att den som ger är också den som får. Det räcker inte med att hitta dem, du måste bidra med något. Ben snuddar förvisso vid frågan, när han poängterar vikten av att bara prata med dem som är engagerade och intresserade av dig. Men vaddå “prata”? Utöver Ben m fl’s tips så skulle jag vilja lyfta fram kraften i att förse målgruppen med verkligt värde; intressant och relevant information, tips, hjälp, nyheter, med utgångspunkt ifrån vad du lärt av den. Materialet driver trafik. Bland trafiken finns fans. Några av dem är dina viktigaste opinionsbildare. Vig en del av ditt professionella liv åt att serva dem. Och – gör det i ett nätverk.

Flest vänner när han dör vinner?

Kom ni ihåg den där slogan på T-shirten: “Den som har flest prylar när han dör vinner”? Strax efter kom varianter som “Den som har flest vänner när han dör vinner.” Båda är i högsta grad tidsaktuella. Men jag tänkte beröra sistnämnda här.

I ett nyss publicerat inlägg skrev jag om att ett av skälen till att använda Twitter är ett “behov av att vara en del i ett sammanhang, att synas och finnas. “Jag twittrar alltså är jag” som Owen Thomas skriver i Valleywag.” Vilket ju inte riktigt var andemeningen med nätverket ifråga, för Twitter är ju “a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected” vilket framgår av beskrivningen av tjänsten.

Men kikar man i den relativt nyss gjorde undersökningen “Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope” av Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero and Fang Wu, så kan man skönja två typer av nätverk i Twitter: Dels det som bygger på vänner (någon man kontaktat direkt minst två gånger, allt så rätt vag benämning) och dels det något ytligare som baserar sig på följeslagare och de man själv följer.

Inte helt otippat så är det förstnämnda som bygger på vänner det nätverk som genererar mest användning, engaemang och inflytande, och det sistnämnda mer flyktigt.

Och jag kan inte låta bli att spekulera i värdet av sistnämnda; hur stort är det egentligen och varför? Är det inte bara en ny variant av den gamla slogan på t-shirten; den som har flest följeslagare vinner?

Bloggaren Zenpundit skriver i ett inlägg “The hidden networks of Twitter“:

“My usual answer based upon my own usage has been that twitter will make sense for you if you have an established network of people with whom you have a reason to be in frequent contact and a common set of interests.”

Och jag kan inte låta bli att hålla med honom; när jag i skrivande stund stirrar in i Tweetdeck och det poppar upp inlägg efter inlägg – var och varannan minut – från knappt 300 pers om jag valt att följa.

Läs också Brian Solis inlägg om detta.

Andra bloggar om: twitter, mikroblogg, network, social network, social media, media, internet, undersökning, kommunikation