RonAmok!

In this video, I show The Real Time Web, in action:

Transcript:

Although many people talk about the real time web, or write books about it, the concept is hard to understand without having a concrete example. Such an occurrence happened this afternoon, June 27, 2011 when news broke about former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich, being convicted on multiple counts of corruption.

Anyone doing a Google search at the time would see something like this. They’d also be able to see the real time Web in action. Note this little number here. Each increment represents a new piece of content that not only is being published, but Google is also indexing it. That, my friends is the real time Web in action.

No longer able to hide behind daily news cycle lags, companies need to understand that people are are talking about them live, publicly, and that those conversations are being indexed for people to find at a later time.

And if your company decides to ignore the real-time web, that’s okay. Just make sure that you’re making this decision on solid information instead of blind ignorance.

As creatures of habit, we needn’t look too far to find examples on how much we resist change. We once:

• called automobiles horseless carriages
• called refrigerators iceboxes
• and we still call the act of capturing moving pictures “filming” or “videotaping–” even though we’ve eliminated film and magnetic tape from all of our solid state recording devices.

And if these examples don’t prove how unimaginative we are in naming new things, just look at the lengths that we go through to avoid using them.

Take public relations for example. Today’s PR firms who define their role solely in terms of earning media attention are simply retracing the footsteps of those whom we now look back upon and chuckle. They’re stuck in a rut. Just as the old saying goes: “If all you have is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail,” myopic PR firms can only see social media as yet another way to place their client’s messages in front of yet another audience. They fall in love with social media guy and his 100,000 Twitter followers. They gush over social media gal and her 50,000 blog subscribers. Yet, after lackluster “campaign” results (meaning their media alerts or press releases weren’t tweeted or blogged about sufficiently) the firms come to one of two conclusions: either social media doesn’t work or there’s something more to it than the summation of readership numbers.

Those who conclude the latter soon stumble upon the oft-used buzzword, influencers. ”We need to get your brand message in front of influencers,” they’ll say, before turning to services like Klout to help find them. Klout calculates someone’s influence based on a collection of metrics that includes audience, channels, and the propensity for people to share that influencer’s content. Klout does a great job of creating comparative indices for successful online content creators, yet it doesn’t identify those who are most influential on topics that your customers care about. Specifically, Klout can’t help identify nichefluencers, those whose opinions are respected by specifically the people who care about your products and services. Think about it. Even though Guy Kawasaki has a Klout score of 85, Ashton Kutcher an 84, the New York Times an 86, and the Wall Street Journal an 82, what do these numbers mean to a company that is trying to sell synchronous demodulators to users of rotary variable differential transformers?

A company called Traackr is attempting to solve that problem. Based on a premise that influence is more complicated, the company is also studying who’s responsible for delivering content to the audience that your company cares about. Traackr’s mission is to help companies ”…find the influencers who matter most to you.”

Both companies, Klout and Traackr, illuminate pathways to online influencers. Both can assist PR firms to earn influential media. But herein lies the rub. Considering all of the ways we gather information today, can  these services always identify the most influential people in our respective industries?

What about those who share their valued opinions using private networks such as:

• telephone
• email
• text messaging on their mobile phone
• instant message on a social network

What about those who share their expertise through semi-private networks such as:

• A Facebook account with its privacy parameters set conservatively
• A Twitter user who listens more than tweets
• or in-person events (family gatherings, the golf course, church, the daily train or bus ride).

It’s likely that the most influential people in your industry are hidden behind their private and semiprivate personal networks. But before jumping to the conclusion that invisible nichefluencers are irrelevant, let’s consider how well they’re respected. Have you ever asked a friend for an opinion on an upcoming purchase? Did they send you a link to more information? Was this this conversation available to search engines, Klout, or Traackr? If not, you’ve identified your own invisible nichefluencer.

The past has taught us to not define today’s games by yesterday’s rules. So, in addition to the traditional methods of earning access to other people’s audiences, companies must also build their own.  Audience-building starts with publishing great content that appeals to niche of audiences, where it’ll be found and subsequently shared by nichefluencers–both visible and not. If done correctly, your company will increase it’s own Klout score and Traackr ratings.

Which brings up a very interesting twist on the technologies:

How would your communications activities change if your company earned a higher influence score than its most influential influencer?

Last Tuesday’s announcement of the Twitter follow button demonstrates yet one more way for the social graph to embed itself within traditional corporate web silos. Joining the powerful, one-click buttons of the Facebook Platform, website visitors are not only just one-click way from becoming a fan of your company’s Facebook page, they’re also just another click away from following your company on Twitter. Oh, and these two actions can happen without the visitor ever leaving your site.

All around the globe, traditional markers are licking their chops, trying to figure out a way to inflate the number of “likes” and “follows” through the use of these buttons. Unfortunately, most are orchestrating their plans without understanding their real value, which increases the possibility of costly mistakes.

The value of one of these buttons can be determined by answering simple questions such as these:

• Why should people click our button?
• Is there an equitable exchange for doing so?
• Will their lives be more enriched by clicking?
• Will they be able to solve their problems, save money, become more profitable, increase productivity, be entertained, or just be “marketed to?”

But alas, these aren’t the questions that traditional marketers answer. They’re only interested in growing the numbers will try anything to do so.

For example, three days after a killer tornado ripped through Joplin, Missouri, a local company launched a fundraising campaign, promising to donate $3 to the Red Cross for every person who “liked” their Facebook page. Assuming that their intentions were pure, I’m reminded of that old saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Pressing the Facebook “like” button is much more complex than simply specifying a preference:

1. It allows a company to market to us
2. It puts our personal endorsements on a brand
3. Those endorsements are then shared publicly with the rest of our Facebook networks.

Therefore, by pressing their “like” button to donate, the company has asked us to place a value on both our reputations and preferred access to our eyeballs. At the moment of truth, when we are deciding whether to push that button, will such a value increase or decrease the probability of pushing the button?

And the shenanigans of the traditional don’t stop there.  Recently, I clicked on a hyperlink in my Twitter feed that brought me to an article that sounded interesting. Upon arriving at the website, I was faced with one of those annoying pop-up “roadblocks” that obscured my view of the article. Usually, I just click on the little “X” and the roadblock closes, but not in this case. Nope. In order to close this box, I had to select from one of two choices:

1. “Like” the organization’s Facebook page
2. Reply “No thanks, I hate web video!” (See the image to the right)

I’m sure that some traditional marketing hack enjoyed this clever spin on the old dilemma-question: “So Senator, do you still beat your wife?”…but really? Is such a clever play on words supposed to endear me to your brand?

In the end, I chose neither–foregoing the article and leaving the site with a bad brand taste in my mouth.

As the social graph encroaches onto the most sacred of corporate online properties, it’s important for marketers to understand the ramifications of their actions. Pressing “Like” or “Follow” buttons has less to do with expressing a preference than it does in establishing the basis of a trusted relationship between client and vendor. Relationships are much more complicated than preference statements; they come with responsibilities. Therefore, if you’re fishing for “likes” or “followers,” make sure to have some respect for those who you want to push the button.