Biznology Blog: May 2010

« April 2010 | Main | June 2010 »

May 27, 2010

Let's Face It For Facebook: It's All About The Benjamins

by Frank Reed

Privacy is an illusion when it comes to Facebook. All of this talk about how Facebook listens and has heard the cry of the dear Facebook faithful is bunk. I hope the world isn't gullible enough to think that the greater good is the first priority of this company. Honestly, it's not the first priority of most companies, so why would Facebook be any different? Bottom line is that Facebook is about money. They need to make it and they need to do whatever they have to in order to make it.

Here are just a few observations.

Facebook is as Facebook does. Like Forrest Gump's momma told him, "Stupid is as stupid does," the same applies to Facebook. Stomp your feet, pound your fists and shout from the mountaintops about your take or angle on this Facebook hoopla--it just is what it is. Facebook needs to get their information in the open for marketers to spend money with them. They will stop at nothing to get to that end.

The little person is who really matters here. We talk amongst our industry selves about our outrage at (or indifference to) Facebook's privacy antics. While the industry is influential, it is not truly representative of the supposed 450 million or so users of Facebook. The VAST majority of Facebook users don't even know this stuff is happening, and guess what? Facebook is banking on this reality because there will be enough of their user base who remain clueless that can be led around by a leash to the altar of "openness" and thus give certain advertisers just what they need: a well-defined demographic that will pay attention to their ads.

Money talks. All of this altruistic talk about contributing to the world by helping everyone communicate etc., etc., is great fodder for the PR department but at the end of the day this whole thing is about money. As a result, people will do things that will trample others' altruism because when money is on the line, not everyone can be made happy.

You have to make your own call. As marketers, it will be on each individual decision maker to decide whether Facebook is a good place to be. Whether you trust Facebook enough to get fully engaged is your call. Heck, even one of the biggest Mark Zuckerberg fanboys, Robert Scoble, is holding back. If we sit around and listen to each other dissect each and every time Mark Zuckerberg and his team breaks wind, then we are going to get what much of social media produces: lots of activity and little action. Let's avoid that.

Self preservation drives it all. Please let's not lose sight of the fact that there is plenty on the line for relatively small numbers of people regarding Facebook's success. Just as when Michael Lewis (author of The Blind Side, Moneyball and other books) said on 60 Minutes that only 10-20 people knew about how the financial meltdown in the US was going to happen, it's the same way for Facebook. There is a small group of investors and invested individuals who stand to make "generational wealth" if Facebook becomes the advertising and marketing machine it aspires to be. Don't fool yourself that those folks are not going to do whatever they need to do to preserve this opportunity. By the way, in order for this opportunity to see its fullest potential they need your information to be available for use by businesses. Oh, and they also need to do whatever they can to keep the government off their backs. This latest move will do just enough to slow that train until another approach can be crafted.

Having said all of that, the bottom line is this. Facebook is banking on providing advertisers with information about Facebook users. They have made a lot of mistakes along the way but do you really think they are done with this? No way.

They won't (maybe even can't) stop until your data is public in some way. Otherwise, what are they doing other than providing a way for people to communicate for free? I think we can all agree that free gets the door swung open but it can only stay open if someone pays for it. The only thing they will pay for is the data and opportunity which each Facebook account represents. Unless Facebook can deliver that information I'm not sure what's next for Facebook. Maybe a Friendster- or MySpace-like case study in b-schools?

Personally, I am looking forward to a long weekend where I don't have to think about Facebook unless I am using it rather than it using me.

Posted by FrankReed at 11:20 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

We have nothing to fear except social media itself

Is your company afraid of social media? I don't mean merely uncomfortable or inexperienced. I mean white-knuckle teeth-clenching afraid. I frequently talk to companies that live in deathly fear, and they have their reasons. The question for them is what to do. Do they give into their fears and avoid social media or do they plunge in and overcome their fears? Usually, the right answer is neither. Instead, you need to try to let your rational brain break through the wall of fear and take a first step that doesn't feel so big.

It's more often large companies than small companies that live in social media fear, and that fear is often rife within the executive ranks and especially the legal department. In regulated industries, there is usually a compliance department that spends every minute of the day mitigating risks and social media is the biggest risk they can see out there.

But I see it in small companies, too. Owners of businesses terrorized by the prospect of a bad review on Yelp. Many big businesses and small would be thrilled if social media disappeared from the face of the earth.

What can we do to get over these fears?

Part of what's needed is for us to recognize that fear is an emotion that often alerts us to real danger. We must always tap into our emotions to notice when we are in a truly threatening situation. If we had no fear, we'd get ourselves into real trouble far more often.

But with social media, although the risks are real, we must figure out how to cope with them rather than avoid them. When we are afraid (or angry or any other "negative" emotion), we must always make the choice as to whether we are going to act on that fear or whether we want to override it.

For example, if a policeman pulls your car over and starts writing a ticket for a violation that you absolutely did not commit, you'd be justifiably angry. Yet you are unlikely to begin yelling at him. You experienced a very strong emotion, but your rational brain overruled your emotions and decided to stay calm and fight the ticket in court. Or pay it even though it is unfair. Or engage in calm discussion with the officer to explain the error. Or just about anything except losing your temper and taking a chance of getting arrested.

Fear of social media needs the same approach. You might be experiencing real fear, and there are real dangers. But social media is here to stay and we need to use our rational brains to overcome our fears, starting with a small step that seems less risky.

My advice is to start by listening. Read your Yelp reviews. Start subscribing to blogs. Follow someone on Twitter. Set up a Google Alert for your business. If you are a large business, get s listening service like that of Converseon. [Full disclosure: I serve as Chief Strategist for Converseon.]

Whatever you do, don't just sit there in the fetal position, wondering if you can make it to retirement without having to deal with social media. Accept the fact that you are fraidy-scared and make a rational decision to start by listening and gaining experience. After you listen for a while, you might feel the impulse to participate. And then you are on your way.

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:13 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 26, 2010

Working your social network

I'm blessed. I'm the first to admit it. I've never been out of work, and although I'd love to tell you that it is due to my superior skills and hard-working attitude, the truth is that I've needed a lot of luck over the years. I was on the right side of a lot of IBM layoffs over my 30 years there, and I know many people who are just as skilled and hard-working as me (if not more so), who ended up on the unemployment line. So, I can't say that I have been in the position of needing a job. But I am going to give some advice to those of you that are. And the advice is simple: Don't just ask for help from your social network. Provide help. Instead of using your social network, work your network.

I can't tell you how many requests I get from people to help them find jobs. Well, actually, I can--it's several each week (sometimes several each day). And I always do what I can to help them. If I know what they are looking for, and I know there might be a match, I immediately try to hook them up. If not, which is the more likely case, I file away their name and information and I go through the pile when I do hear about someone needing to hire a person.

But there are a few people that I do a lot more for. I've worked a lot harder on behalf of people who I know really well, especially if they have helped me in the past. I don't forget about them--I am always on the lookout.

So, what can you do if you aren't one of those people? How can you get on my radar when you don't know me? How can you get me to know you? It's simple. Help me.

More than once, a new acquaintance has ended up in my trusted zone because they started writing regular posts for my blog. Or introduced me to a new potential consulting client. Or recommended me for a paid speaking appearance. If you know how to do things for me, trust me, I will remember you.

Sometimes, people have done much smaller things that stood out, such as writing a kind review of my books on Amazon, or commenting on my blog, or retweeting things I say. Or recommending my books on a message board. Or sending someone else to me that can help me.

What you need to understand is that the less contact that I have with you, the more you seem like everyone else. And if all of my contact with you is receiving requests to help you, trust me, you definitely sound like everyone else. If you want to stand out from the crowd, find out what I need that you can do. Perhaps this makes me sound craven—I'll take that chance—but the truth is that working with me gives me a chance to evaluate you and lets me be a much better advocate for you when a position does open up.

Think about the difference between me telling someone, "I got a resume a few months ago from so-and-so that looks like the kind of background you need, but I don't know her so I can't vouch for her" and "I have someone that I've worked with a little bit recently who I think could help you—she has good writing skills and seems very reliable and hard-working." Which person would you like to be? I can't give that second kind of recommendation if I don't know you and haven't worked with you.

I'm rather certain that I am not alone in this. I bet that this approach would work for lots of people that you are merely asking for help from right now. It's hard to imagine anyone being bothered by someone who is legitimately trying to help them. I never am.

Perhaps this sounds difficult. I mean, you are already out of work. You're depressed, possibly. Exhausted, certainly. I can only imagine how hard the work must be of finding work. So, I know that it is counter-intuitive to give you more work to do. But the truth is that you are probably better off investing heavily in fewer relationships than scattering your resume like Johnny Appleseed. Social networks are built for creating close relationships in simple ways and you don't need money or fame to do it. But the currency of social media is helpfulness--if all you do is ask for help, you'll probably get a lot less of it.

Posted by MikeMoran at 11:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 25, 2010

Customer service, 140 characters at a time

It's no secret that companies are using Twitter for marketing, but are you monitoring tweets for customer service? Last week, I ran into a striking reminder that companies are increasingly taking Twitter seriously, even when I am joking. Let me explain what happened last week when I slept in a Select Comfort Sleep Number bed and tweeted about my experience the next morning. If you aren't yet using Twitter for customer service, perhaps this experience I had might give you ideas for how to the make the most of Twitter.

I was traveling on business (as usual) and stayed in a nicer hotel than I normally do, which happened to feature a Select Comfort Sleep Number Bed. I have back problems, so that should have been welcome, but I was also tired because I got to the hotel quite late, so that meant I wasn't about to adjust the defaults on my bed—whatever it was set to is what I slept in.

So, you probably guessed what happened next: I woke up the next day with my back really bothering me. I was feeling a bit snarky, so my tweet that morning was, "When you wake up with a bad back after a night in a hotel, blame the hotel bed. But this hotel has a sleep number bed, so is it my fault?"

I wasn't trying to complain about the bed, honestly. You should see how often I wake up a bit creaky, even when sleeping in my own bed at home. It just struck me as a bit funny, so I tweeted it. And I thought nothing of it until I got this reply from @SleepNumberHelp: "@MikeMoran Hi, I work with SC and I'm sorry you had trouble with the Sleep # bed! You might need a different Sleep #. http://bit.ly/cgB7x4" (and I got that reply not very long after my original tweet, too).

Clearly, my buddies at Select Comfort are actively monitoring any tweets that include keywords such as. "sleep number bed." They honestly seemed interested in helping me. And, I have to admit, for the first time ever, I am wondering if there might be something to this sleep number thing. If Select Comfort can get this kind of reaction from me, when all I did was toss out a laugh line, how much more do they think it would help if they reached out to those who are serious about their complaints?

Ask yourself what would happen if one of your customers tweeted some dissatisfaction. Would someone of your team find that tweet quickly and ensure that it was responded to? Or would the twitterer get radio silence form your company? If your customer service people don't monitor Twitter the same way they answer the phone or check e-mail, you're missing a great opportunity to differentiate your brand from the others.

Posted by MikeMoran at 3:13 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

May 24, 2010

Foursquare in favor of location-based marketing

Have you been hearing about location-based marketing? You might know about mobile phone ads, but have you herd of Foursquare? It's a neat game that is catching on, especially among the 20-somethings in large cities, and some local businesses, especially bars and restaurants, have been jumping on board. If you've wondered how your local business can take advantage, check out my latest post on Search Engine Guide, "Foursquare in favor of location-based marketing."

Posted by MikeMoran at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 21, 2010

Laughter, the best medicine, but for marketing?

by Frank Reed

OK, I admit it. I am old as compared to many of the Internet gurus/wizards/ninjas of today. Trouble is, I can't change that. I have looked, but there is not an app for that. Because I am a little older, I have reference points that many of the young whipper-snappers of the Internet age will simply shake their heads at, so that their cool eyeglasses will fall off their heads (whether they have lenses or not). I remember a magazine called The Reader's Digest. I think it still exists, but in large print only ;-). Actually it does still exists in an online form and in a written format but I have no idea who reads it.

What I remember as a kid, though, when leafing through Reader's Digest (it was actually a big deal to me way back then in the Stone Age) was one section of the magazine called "Laughter, the Best Medicine." It was just a section of jokes. One-liners, short form jokes and more. It was a place to go and forget about the world. A place to chuckle and, for a youngster like me, it was sometimes a place to get confused because I didn't get the joke. Interestingly enough, I always felt better after reading that section, because a good laugh is like a tonic or an elixir, and has therapeutic properties.

That's why it is so funny to watch the Internet age whiz kids try to make each other laugh as if they were the ones that invented the very act itself. Viral videos of stupid human tricks and other things created for the sole purpose of giving people the same escape I sought as a boy.

Now, though, we make it a contest and while the volume of funny stuff has increased a gazillion fold it's still there to do the same thing. To heal, to make us forget or to make us relate laughter and the feeling it elicits with a product or service.

We are doing the same thing we have always done, but just with more volume and more glitz. Maybe we should all just step back from the manic pace of creating a good vibe and just let it happen at a more real pace. That's when someone really gets healed. That's where connections are made.

We need to stop forcing good feelings on people to sell things. It's not what laughter is really meant to be. It's the best medicine, not the best marketing tool. If you can sell something along the way, then more power to you, but don't force the issue. Medicine takes time to work.

Posted by FrankReed at 12:22 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

May 20, 2010

Can experimental marketing alienate your customers?

I thoroughly enjoyed my first trip to Winnipeg, speaking to a couple of hundred marketers at the Canadian Marketing Associate Digital Days conference. (You can download the slides for my talk, "How Web Marketing Changes the Old Marketing Rules.") I spent lots of time hammering away at how to do it wrong quickly, how to experiment in marketing, and how to measure the results. And someone from the audience asked a great question, "Can experimental marketing alienate your customers?"

It's a great question, because there are things you can do that would be horribly alienating. If your insurance agency is considering a titillating ad to run on YouTube, I might say, go slow. There are definitely risky behaviors in Internet marketing that might not be your best first experiment. But most things you do are not so risky. You can try them and take them down if they don't work.

When I was at IBM, I remember testing something in Russia to see if it worked, because testing it in the US would have gotten too much attention to reverse if it was bad. You can usually find a way to test things under the radar.

But what if you really do alienate people? What if you screw up and do annoy someone? Or even a lot of someones? The way this plays out depends a lot on your response. If you just take the offensive material down and pretend it never happened, don't expect people to be impressed. You might find the conversation to be decidedly negative and perhaps even grow worse, all because you are not responding, so it looks like you don't care.

On the other hand, you might apologize. You might answer as many of the negative comments as you can, no matter where they are found on the Web. You might continue the conversation so that you really understand what ticked people off, so that it truly will never happen again. If care about your customers' feelings more than your own, it will show. And you'll end up alienating very few people.

Next time you screw up, pay attention to what you do next to mend the relationship rather than running away and hiding. Then try your next experiment now that you are a little smarter.

Posted by MikeMoran at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2010

How does a bank improve customer relationships?

You might not have thought much about how your bank treats you. In a world of drive-through windows and automated teller machines, you might not even think about what kind of relationship you have with your bank You take for granted that its policies are more important than who you are, but does it have to be that way? Ben Cooper says no. Ben is the Vice President of Marketing for Think Finance, responsible for marketing for all of their products, including online marketing, offline marketing and brand development. I recently met Ben at the Search Insider Summit conference in Florida and thought you'd be interested in his take on what some traditional businesses are doing wrong in their customer relationships--in this case, banks.

Me: For readers who don't know about Think Finance, how would you describe it?

BC: Think Finance develops next generation financial products that help people manage life's everyday expenses. Consumers choose our products because they provide more convenience, speed, ease of use, and transparency. We operate three brands today

• PayDay One. A traditional, online payday lender. However, unlike most online lenders, we池e state licensed and offer a great rate guarantee.
• ThinkCash. Provides a new way to pay bills, avoid bounced checks, and catch up on life's expenses. ThinkCash provides access to short-term loans from $250 up to $2500. Customers choose payment terms that fit their lifestyle, with easy installment payments and no penalties for early payoff.
• Elastic. Gives consumers more flexibility with two products that work together to help them gain more control over their money. The Elastic Card is a Visa Prepaid Debit Card that can be used to pay bills and make purchases anywhere Visa debit is accepted (which is just about everywhere). There are no overdraft fees and if a customer sets up direct deposit, there are no monthly fees. For a millions of people, the Elastic Card is better than a traditional bank account. The second product, the Elastic Line of Credit, gives customers even more flexibility with access of up to $500 in emergency cash to cover unexpected bills, car repair, and other urgent financial needs. The fees are simple and affordable, and customers choose how they want to pay us back--we're flexible!

Me: Why do you think traditional banks haven't taken on this role in the industry?

BC: Over 60 million adults--one-quarter of U.S. households--use alternative financial services, such as check cashing, payday loans, and pre-paid debit cards. These people aren't on the fringe of our economy--they're the bus drivers that take our kids to school, the teachers that teach them, and the nurses that mend their bumps and bruises. They've seen years of flat wages coupled with a rising cost of living, and many of them have fallen out of mainstream credit. And they've been told no too many times by traditional financial services institutions. Most banks have become addicted to overdraft fees--they collected almost $42 billion in overdraft fees last year alone. As a result, they've had little incentive to innovate and create new products that meet the needs of today's consumers. It's our goal to say "yes" to these consumers and create innovative products that help them deal with the everyday expenses of life. Our latest product, Elastic, provides customers with access to an affordable emergency cash line of credit and a lower-cost alternative to a traditional bank account. Think of it as "banking for the rest of us."

Me: What's your favorite Think Finance client success story?

BC: That's a tough one, because we're had a many great testimonials from customers. However, there is one that always stands out. We had a ThinkCash customer named Amparo with a Springer Spaniel named Coco Giselle. Amparo had kids, but you could tell that Coco Giselle was the "baby" of the house. One Thursday, Coco Giselle was acting strangely, so Amparo took her to the vet. The vet discovered a gastric issue that require immediate surgery or "the dog would not survive the weekend." The surgery cost about $700, and Amparo had enough money in a CD with her bank. However, her bank wouldn't give her access to the funds. Fortunately, Amaparo found ThinkCash, was approved, and had the money in her bank account the next day for the surgery. I'm happy to say Coco Giselle is doing fine, but Amparo's words to me when we met in person really sum it up: "I've been with my bank for years and they wouldn't give me my money. You don't know me from Eve, but still approved me for $700. ThinkCash literally saved my dog's life." Those are the kinds of testimonials that make it fun to come to work every day.

Me: I've heard you speak about how important it is for companies to be contributing to the greater good, helping people, not just making profits. What would you say to someone who thinks it's impossible for a company to really do that and stay in business?

BC: We have six core values at Think Finance that hang on the walls of our office, guiding every decision we make. Two of those core values address your question above: "Respect our Customers" and "Do the Right Thing." These values and making a profit are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one of our other core values is "Make the numbers." I'm an avid cycling enthusiast and there is a sign above the register at my favorite bike shop that perfectly sums it up: "The biggest disservice a shop can do to its customers is not make money and go out of business." You must be profitable to be able to serve customers, but companies that are focused only on profits tend to lose in the long run. So it's all about finding the balance.

Me: Can you provide a real example of how Think Finance takes to heart this philosophy of doing good?

BC: We have a program we call "Random Acts of Kindness." Each month, we randomly select several customers and forgive their loans. It might not sound like much, but it's a huge blessing for these customers. When we call with the news, about half of the customers cry with joy. It's such a positive experience that we use it as a reward with our customer service representatives. The CSRs with the highest satisfaction scores are the ones that get to make the Random Acts of Kindness calls.

Me: What other companies do you see that are trying to make a difference in more ways than raking in cash?

BC: I really appreciate companies like TOMS Shoes that have made "making a difference" an integral part of their business plan. I'm really intrigued by the future of social entrepreneurship and hope that some of its values start to rub off on other companies.

Me: How do you see this philosophy catching on? Can hard-nosed business people be persuaded that it is in their best interest?

BC: In the age of Social Media, I think you have to adopt this philosophy to survive. If customers have a bad experience with a company, it's easy to get the word out and potentially tarnish a brand that took years to build. The goal should always be to give your customers enough value that they would recommend you to a friend. That's why we pay close attention to our Net Promoter score, which is driven by the ultimate question: How likely is it that you would you recommend our company to a friend or colleague? The Net Promoter score for our new Elastic product is three times the banking industry average. If you aren't creating products and services that delight your customers, it's hard to run a profitable business. Traditional banks are now learning that very expensive lesson.

Me: What do you see coming next for Think Finance?

BC: We want to continue to make our Elastic product the best financial tool on the market. We're going to add high interest savings accounts, budget tools, mobile accessibility and build even more transparency into our underwriting process. We will tell our customers exactly what they can do to increase their line of credit and decrease their fees. We won't hide behind an ambiguous credit score--we're going to give them the specific steps that can improve their credit options with Elastic.

Me: What do you see coming next for this whole space in the industry in the long run?

BC: I think all financial services products are going to become more consumer-focused and more transparent. Consumers want products that help solve financial issues, do it quickly, with no hassles, and at a fair price. The companies that evolve will thrive and the companies that stick to the "old rules" for financial services products will experience a slow death.

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 18, 2010

Search marketing gets specific

When someone asks you what keyword you most want to be #1 for, how many words is it? For most people, the answer is one. We all know the one-word query that we'd love to bring our site back at the top of the list, because so many people search for that popular query. But the game is changing. Now, more than ever, more specific queries are becoming valuable in ways not sen before. To learn more about why this sudden shift of popularity is cresting for more specific keywords, check out my latest my latest post on Search Engine Guide, "Search marketing gets specific."

Posted by MikeMoran at 8:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 17, 2010

Social media redefines the "Remember me" box

by Janine Swenson

The 99th week of my unemployment was also the week of my first day in a new job. I won the remember me game. I think of this as I log onto Biznology's site to post this blog. Beneath my secure sign-in panel for ID and password, I read the following question. Remember me? It is innocuous. A harmless inquiry with a box that, if checked, will prompt the site to remember my log-in information so I do not have to.

I wrote several posts for Biznology. Possibly you read them. If you have, you may remember me. I love writing, however, freelance writing, as many bloggers understand, will not pay the bills, unless that writer is well remembered, read by many, and in great demand. My readership is not yet there--someday. Therefore, I was a job seeker. Writers want to be remembered, and so do job seekers. They need to be remembered.

Nevertheless, back to winning the remember me game. Like millions of job seekers, I had to get potential employers to remember me, or at least to get my resume noticed and cover letters read, my number phoned, my interview achieved, and, of course, an offer received. In today's economy, where the traditional job seeking norms have changed and hundreds of resumes are received for each job posting, I advocate social networking to increase the chances of being selected. In my last post, "I need a job, so chat me up," I gave my top ten list of how a job seeker can increase their professional network or connect to a prospective employer through social media. I used all ten.

My main surprise using social networking in my job search was that to this day, I never met face-to-face with the key individual who helped me connect through his network to my eventual employer. My key contact writes a popular newsletter for B2B marketing. I subscribed and in one issue, he invited readers to connect with him on a popular social site. I did. He accepted my invitation and we periodically exchanged communication. On several occasions, I had need of his business contacts and I would send a pleasant email, "Hey, Paul, remember me?" He remembered me and always helped. I always thanked him.

Here are a few points to think about regarding social networking in a job search. First, go back and read the top ten list in my post, "I need a job, so chat me up" (really, I just want to increase my hit rate). Two, reread my opening line above-- in the 99th week of unemployment, I started my new job--see #10 in my list. I found my opportunity through social networking and my social network extended beyond my comfort zone of family, friends and past-colleagues.

If you are a job seeker, ponder what it is that you are bringing to new relationships that will help others to remember you. Stay connected with people you meet through social networks--not necessarily everyone--those with whom you would consider becoming associates, friends or have common interests. When you can help others, do so, whenever you can, for no reason and without expectations. Ask if your network can help. If you never ask, you will never know.

Remember me!

Posted by JanineSwenson at 2:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 14, 2010

Life Without Facebook?

by Frank Reed

I think this post could be categorized in several ways. The reason for this is because I don't think there has ever been a more polarizing, misunderstood, loved, revered, admired, hated and puzzling entity in the history of business than Facebook. Depending on who you speak to they can either be completely dependent on the service (ask some kids at a Ridgewood, NJ middle school) while other industry bigs, like Matt Cutts, deactivated or deleted their accounts.

Facebook brings out some very visceral reactions from many people. There is infatuation with the ability to be involved with everyone else's lives. Many people crave the strange cocktail of voyeurism mixed with direct involvement in other people's stuff topped off with a shot of "Privacy? What privacy?". They alternately love the service and the business opportunities it presents but then bemoan how Facebook basically flips the bird at their users with regard to privacy.

I am not sure how I feel about it all. Honestly, I suspect I could live without Facebook pretty easily. I would miss being in contact with some people from my past that I have reconnected with but if the "relationship" is now real, it will survive and if it's not then it won't.

As for Facebook introducing me to new ideas and products? That's a hit or miss proposition as well. I find new things and I get interested for a day or two then it's back to regular life. I discard the new things so readily because I already have so much to keep track of that, unless it is something ridiculously spectacular, the likelihood of anything supplanting the things already important to me is slim at best.

Oh, and advertising to me on Facebook? Total waste of time. I don't click on paid search ads with Google and they are light years ahead of Facebook in terms of having my trust. In fact, I really don't like the idea of putting any money in the pockets of a Mark Zuckerberg when you consider the following instant messaging string that the Business Insider SAI site shared today. Please note there is some offensive language, but it helps paint the picture of the character of Zuckerberg. And of course, if it lives at the top, it breeds through the masses in any organization

According to SAI sources, the following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb f**ks.

Gives you the warm and fuzzies, huh?

So what would life be without Facebook? I suspect it would be quite good. Why? Because something else will come along that is better suited for how we actually interact. A new friend of mine (actual live handshake kind of friend) who did very well during the first round of the commercial Internet told me that he believes Facebook is not even close to the best way for online "socializing" to take place. It's just that we are kind of stuck with it right now. On many levels I have to agree.

So what would life without Facebook be like? Honestly, I am not ready to find out. I think that will come with time because I am already finding myself checking in with it less often and with less zeal. That's not a reaction to who is running it. It's a reaction to what it provides for me. When I look at the quality of life issues it's really not making things better. In fact, it may make things worse. Time is valuable, and when I look at my personal ROI on my Facebook time, it is running in the negative these days. If I treat my life like a good business I should cut the loser out, right?

So what would life be like without Facebook for you and your business? Would you REALLY miss it? Be honest. Please, share your status with us.

Posted by FrankReed at 8:01 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 13, 2010

Using Viral Marketing to Build Links

by Chris Angus

Viral Marketing is highly fashionable at the moment, and big brands all seem to want to jump on the band wagon. We've seen brilliant viral marketing from Blendtec and successful (if controversial) videos from Diesel. Not only do these create a loyal group of followers and help raise their brand awareness, but they also attract thousands of links as bloggers clamour to link to the unique and relevant content.

Creating viral campaigns just like the above examples is no easy feat. They require oodles of creativity and typically a not-so-insignificant budget as well. However, you can create a successful viral campaign without having to re-mortgage your house by following some simple rules:

1. Make it interesting and give people a reason to spread it. People love telling others how clever they are and there is a reason why there are so many viral IQ quizzes around that are, shall we say, perhaps a little bit biased. Inflating people's egos for any other reason works really well too.
2. It needs to be easy to spread—no more than a few clicks to send to a friend. If it's overly complicated and people have to "work" to spread it, it is bound to fail.
3. Make it easy to embed links on Web sites. For example, you can embed links with the results of the quizzes.Or, you can incorporate a badge that bloggers can display on their site. On the other hand, if the viral "bait" was really good people would link to it naturally anyway.

It must be noted that viral marketing will fail if you don't "seed" it by giving it the bump start it needs. Viral marketing needs people to spread it, so you need to get your clever campaign in front of as many eyeballs as possible at the beginning. There are hundreds of creative ways to get it going initially, but here are some of the top techniques used today:

1. Contacting popular blogs and seeing if you can get a mention
2. Getting it popular on a social network such as Digg.com
3. Buying advertising on a popular social network such as Facebook
4. Mailing your entire list of contacts and hoping for the best (although this is my least favourite)

Viral marketing isn't difficult, but as it becomes more popular it naturally becomes very competitive. Smart people are all vying for the same time and attention, particularly as standards increase and viral marketing becomes even more sensational and attention grabbing. That is, until people get really tired of it and marketers find something else to do.

Posted by MikeMoran at 9:41 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 12, 2010

Is there room for another search tool? Springo says yes.

I recently had a chance to interview Aviv Refuah, founder and CEO of both Springo and Netex Ltd. Netex Ltd. is a global Internet company that develops innovative Web navigation solutions and just launched in the United States under the Springo brand. Springo is a tool that helps people find information, just like a search engine, but with a few twists. read on to find out more about Aviv and Springo.

Me: Can you tell us about your background? It's an interesting story.

AR: I founded Netex when I was 17 years old, and was among the first Israeli entrepreneurs to successfully develop technologies that influence the way users interact with the Internet. Like all Israelis, I served in the Israeli Defense Forces, but during that time, I also simultaneously nurtured the growth of Netex, and was awarded several patents that are fundamental to our platform. In 2006, I oversaw the public offering of Netex on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, and I'm now managing the roll-out of Springo in the United States.

Me: For readers who don't know about Netex, how would you describe it? Why do you think it has been successful?

AR: Netex is a global Internet company (founded in 1999 and based in Hod Hasharon, Israel) that develops innovative Web navigation solutions. We're the number one Internet navigation service in Israel and second only to Google in the search space. In 2009, we were awarded several patents, including the U.S. patent for www addressing, which allows users to type a Web site's name directly into the URL field in a browser and be forwarded directly to the desired Web site.

We've been successful because our tools make navigating the Web easier and more efficient. It's really as simple as that--we're not trying to compete with regular search engines, but instead, our tools provide an unbiased look at the most popular Web sites on the Web. Through extensive research, we've found that more than 20% of all Internet searches are navigational by nature. What I mean is that the user's goal is to find a Web site or group of Web sites about a particular topic. Our tools not only directly address this market need, but they also offer a new perspective on Web navigation for those who are used to traditional search engines. We're not saying that you should only use Springo, but that you should use Springo to complement your traditional search methods.

Me: Now that you have created Springo, can you describe what it is and how it works?

AR: Springo provides users with a suite of innovative tools designed to accommodate their individual style of navigating the Internet. These tools provide users with a clean visually-enhanced solution for finding the most relevant and popular Web sites that address their needs. We offer users the following tools:

• The Springo Homepage is an entry point for users to browse the Internet, offering customizable settings and quick links to the most useful and frequented Web sites. Users can also type a categorical search term into the Springo address and be redirected to search results that fit their query. These search results are presented visually and work great on any desktop or mobile device.
• Springo Express is an unobtrusive Internet browser add-on that enriches the browser with a various navigational functionalities including enhancement of search engine results, direct navigation and Web site recommendations. Again, we're not trying to replace Google or Bing but instead, work in conjunction with them. If a user is searching using a traditional search engine like Google, Springo Express will slide out on the left hand side of the browser to give visual, unbiased results that fit their search query. In addition to this, once a user navigates to a specific Web site, the Springo Express toolbar will intelligently show similar Web sites to the one they are currently browsing. So, if you were looking for a specific recipe, instead having to navigate back to Google, you could instead click on the next Website that contains recipes in the Springo Express toolbar.

Me: What led you to create Springo?

AR: We offered similar services in Israel, and saw an excellent response from the market. When we examined the international markets, we learned that users in the United States were facing similar challenges when navigating the Web as those in Israel, and we decided to develop a targeted solution for the United States. We made changes to the original service to address the unique characteristics of the US, such as the enormous number of Web sites (over 200 million), the existing habit of using search engines for navigational proposes, and the availability of excellent vertical search engines and expert sites.

Me: Why do you think people will use Springo instead of or in addition to Google and other traditional search engines?

AR: Regular search engines provide excellent services for mapping the world's information. We believe that in many cases there are better services that meet the different queries of users, such as when searching for a job, for a recipe, or for an apartment. Springo directs users to the most appropriate destinations and saves users time and effort when looking for the most relevant results. Another advantage of Springo is that our search results are concise and to the point. We provide users with four top results, and allow for up to 100 tested and proven results to complement them. Traditional search engines by nature give users all relevant results and can often provide millions of results, including, articles, blog posts, and results biased by SEO. As I've said before, we want to work in concert with search engines, not replace them.

To address these often cluttered and confusing search results, we created a special service for users in the United States called the Springo Slider--a feature of Springo Express. If a user is searching using a traditional search engine like Google, the Springo Express Slider will slide out on the left hand side of the browser to give visual, unbiased results that fit the search query.

Me: How do you expect to get the word out so that people will hear about Springo?

AR: We've invested a lot in making sure people hear about Springo. We talked with several people to get a better perspective on what our product should look like in the United States.

In addition to the traditional outreach we've been doing to influential journalists and bloggers, we also have a robust social media campaign, online marketing plan, a plan for byline opportunities, and we're always exploring partnerships with other companies. We're confident that over time, we'll be consistently adding new users as they see the many benefits of using Springo.

Me: What is Springo's business model and why do you think that model will work?

The Springo's business model is based on focused advertising and premium services for users. We will integrate those models when the time comes; right now we are focused on getting the Springo's users community as large as possible.

Me: What do you see coming next for Springo?

In the near future, we're going to increase the involvement of the user community in Springo. We will allow users to affect the results of Springo, based on their real-time feedbacks and habits, including sharing their feedback with their online friends. In addition, we'll be developing more and more solutions that directly target the mobile and TV markets.

Me: What do you see coming next for this whole space in the industry in the long run?

• More vertical search solutions, including newcomers, offering solutions that better meet the required information formats
• An emphasis on concise presentation and selective results to meet the smaller screens that take a lager part of Internet browsing
• Movement towards a visual interface, both because more and more devices do not offer a friendly keyboard, and because the amount of information makes text-based results difficult to manage and review
• Development in the natural language component of search
• Tighter integration with social features and user generated content

At Springo, we are trying, of course, to stick to all the above-mentioned trends because we believe that is the future of the field.

Me: Thanks, Aviv, for sharing this information with my readers.

Posted by MikeMoran at 7:59 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 11, 2010

Is your FAQ page a crutch for a bad Web site?

Do you have a frequently asked question (FAQ) page on your Web site? Many do. And you customers might be finding their questions and getting answers with no trouble. But many don't. In some ways, you can look at an FAQ page for a Web site and tell a lot about whether that site is good or bad, just by examining where else the answers to those questions appear on the site. If you want to know what I am talking about, check out my latest post on Search Engine Guide, "Is your FAQ page a crutch for a bad Web site?"

Posted by MikeMoran at 6:40 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

May 10, 2010

Defining and Refining Your Social Computing Guidelines

by Aaron Kim

At the end of April, the NBA fined Orlando Magic star Dwight Howard $35,000 for criticizing league officials on his blog. In the first NBA season where players, coaches and other team personnel involved in the game were bound to a social media policy, it's a bit ironic that, despite the fine, the offending post is still there for all to see. Considering that Howard is set to earn over 15 million this season, the penalty for infringing the rules does not feel like a potent deterrent to prevent social media misbehavior. Furthermore, were his words bad enough to deserve punishment, or was that just a case where the policy has not caught up with the evolution of employee communication channels? The bottom line is that defining and enforcing Social Computing Guidelines may be tougher than you think.

But the self-proclaimed Superman is not alone. The Bleacher Report just published a good summary of "The NBA's Most Controversial Tweets and Blog Posts of the Last Two Seasons". Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, summarizes it well: "can't say no one makes money from twitter now. the NBA does". And poor Brandon Jennings even got fined for a positive tweet! So, if you are in the process of defining the social media policy for your company, where should you draw the line between what's okay and what's not?

Many companies base their first set of social media policy on existing guidelines from early adopters such as IBM or Wells Fargo. The major issue here is that one size does not fit all in the social computing guidelines arena. For example, financial institutions and government agencies tend to be much more heavily regulated than technology companies, and may want to keep stricter policies and controls. Other industries, such as Media and Entertainment, may not fare as well under tight rules.

In a perfect world, your guidelines should only restrain what is clearly wrong, and would look like this (where green represents the things that are OK and red represents what is off-limits):

But this is not a perfect world. Having very specific guidelines is not practical given the pace of change in tools and technology in this space. Moreover, having tons of rules make it difficult for people to remember them. This is probably a more accurate visualization of the collective perception your employees have on what's acceptable in social media behavior within the enterprise (yellow and orange here represent the blurred boundaries):

In other words, they know that some things are OK and others are not, but they are likely to have different opinions on specific cases. Because of this uncertainty, many companies tend to be over-conservative and set very strict guidelines, following the principle of "better safe than sorry":

Such a limiting approach tend to scare people off and suffocate the effective use of social media for business purposes. When defining your social guidelines, you should try to get as close as possible to having simple, easy to understand, easy to memorize rules that keep you safely far from the "red" zone but still give your employees lots of latitude to explore:

Naturally, this is more easily said than done, so you may want to follow a phased approach instead, where you don't even try to get the guidelines right the first time, but keep updating them as you grow comfortable with the use of social media within your company:

Hopefully, in a few years, the use of social media in the enterprise will be a common place, and all those policies will be incorporated to your overall Business Conduct Guidelines. Until we get there though, more specific guidance is required, and I urge you to get the word out as soon as you can possibly can.

Posted by AaronKim at 9:43 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 7, 2010

If it's all content, then you had better be tracking it

by Frank Reed

Last week, I discussed how all content can be online content. No matter what kind of correspondence or connection you make with a client or a prospect in the offline world, there is now potential for that to become an online piece of content whether you want it to or not.

So, if everything that your business produces is now either online or could get there, do you just sit back and hope for the best? Do you assume that everyone is going to talk about your content, ideas and service in glowing terms? I sure hope not, because that would mean you are living in a fantasy world and good business doesn't take place in Fantasyland.

So, how do you keep track of what is going on with all of your online efforts? How do you keep track of your online reputation? How do you monitor these things efficiently and effectively? Do you even need to do this?

The answer to that last question is an unequivocal, "Yes." No matter the size of your business, you have to be tracking what is being said (or not said) online about your business. The reality is that something is being said whether you are monitoring the situation or not. If that is the case, then you'd better be paying attention.

So how do you do this? If you are already stretched thin with limited resources how do you now do yet another thing that everyone like me says is a "must do"? There are a few tools out there that can provide options from self-service to full service. As with everything else in business, you can go from free to fee quickly and there are as many options to consider. Here are just a few.

Google Alerts - This is the most basic form of tracking what is being said online. Most people appreciate the fact that this option is free but managing many alerts can quickly become a very cumbersome task. If you do nothing else, use Google Alerts.

Social Mention - Another free tool that promotes itself as the Google Alerts of social media. There are a few measurements around sentiment but I will be completely honest here: I am not a proponent of automated sentiment analysis. In fact, most companies that offer this feature will admit that best practice is to check behind the automated "assessment" to make sure that it really is correct. Heck, if you have to do that, then why pay for the service from the onset?

Trackur - So, you know I work with Andy Beal who created this tool, and I also work on behalf of Trackur with agencies who are interested in finding a monitoring solution for their toolset. That being said, I will simply encourage you to visit the site and sign up for a free version of the tool to see what you think. I like it ;-).

Alterian's SM2 (formerly Techrigy) - Another tool that offers plenty of bells and whistles. There is a limited free version of the tool, and agencies can get their own white labeled version of the tool.

Radian6 - As far as the ORM industry goes, most are familiar with Radian6. Price points are higher for this service but they do a great job of being out in front of the industry with their online community and their constant presence at industry events.

There are many ways to keep an online eye on your brand, competition, industry, and more. In fact, there are about 30-40 tools that are competing in this increasingly crowded space. I wish I could say that the competition has created better delivery and service, but I am seeing the industry starting to look a lot like the SEO industry did in its earliest stages, with lots of promises and strong sales language but with delivery often falling short of the pitch.

Regardless of what the industry looks like, though, I believe that every company (yup every single one) should be at least using Google Alerts to keep an eye on the online space they play in every day. Remember, the conversation is taking place whether you choose to get involved or not. I think most will agree that the risk of not participating is too high to just leave it to chance.

Are you involved in your online reputation or are you now nervous because you are not?

Posted by FrankReed at 9:05 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 6, 2010

Is the social media hype fading?

Some of you might be familiar with the typical trend of new technology adoption, best characterized by Gartner's hype cycle. The technology is introduced, quickly undergoes increible inflation of expectations, only be dashed by naysayers before emerging as something useful, albeit of less promise than at the peak of its hype. Social media has undoubtedly followed that curve until now, and a new study gives us a clue as to where it is landing on the hype cycle right now.

I'm a member of the Marketing Executives Networking Group (MENG), which published its 3rd Annual Marketing Trends Study (link to PPT) back on March 2nd, had several interesting findings in its survey of marketing executives (conducted early this year):

• Social media is viewed as even more important now than last year
• Social media is, however, one of the buzz words marketers are most tired of hearing
• About 70% of marketers are planning new social media initiatives in 2010

At first glance, these findings challenge us to place social media into any particular phase of Gartner's hype cycle. I mean, if they think it is more important, it might be at its peak expectations, but if they are tired of hearing about it, it might be in the trough, but if they are going to do it, then is it emerging to have real usefulness?

I think the answer lies in the steep adoption curve that we are seeing for new technologies. Where previous technologies took decades (or at least one decade in the case of the Internet) to reach 3/4 of the population, newer technologies move much faster, with social media being no exception. What you see now is that the disparity between the market segments (early adopters, the majority, laggards) is more of a factor than the overall technology adoption itself.

Here's what I mean. When the Internet took a decade to be adopted broadly, you could see the boom and bust cycles quite easily. When social media is being adopted broadly in half that time, the early adopters are heading to usefulness before the laggards have even bought the initial hype. So the answer to where social media is in the curve: Everywhere. Where you think it is becomes more of a personality test than anything else.

So, what am I really expecting? The early adopters are already pushing to usefulness. One of the other findings of the MENG study is that Marketing ROI is the most important idea the executives see today. If social media can stop being a buzz word and starts being a way to get ROI, I think we'll push through the hype cycle faster than the technologies that have come before it.

So where do you think we are on the hype cycle? More importantly, what does that opinion say about what you and your company are doing with social media? Understanding that answer might be the most important one of all.

Posted by MikeMoran at 3:59 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 5, 2010

A Case Study in Handling Customer Disputes

The Internet creates its own set of customer service issues that require their own creative solutions. If you've never heard of the site Squidoo, it's a place that provides expert content that search engines love, so Squidoo must have strict rules to protect its reputation by keeping out search spammers. To hear a story about how Squidoo balances its policies with customer service, check out my latest post on Search Engine Guide, "A Case Study in Handling Customer Disputes."

Posted by MikeMoran at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 4, 2010

How does a company use its Twitter identity?

Friday, I presented at a private event for IBM's marketing teams worldwide, on the subject of the Digital Marketing Challenge, where I explained how to make the case for more investment in digital marketing by showing how to track the return on that investment. It was a fun event, marked with good speakers, but also a good audience. By far the most burning question of the day, asked of multiple speakers, was, "Should a company use a single corporate Twitter handle or allow individual handles for different employees?" And the answer to that question is, "Yes."

Clearly, the questioner wanted to know the answer for IBM, but the question is applicable to any size firm, and my tongue-in-cheek "yes" answer is really a challenge to each company to figure out what makes sense for them.

Almost any company can benefit from having a corporate Twitter presence that is impersonal, which can be used for impersonal things, such as making announcements, talking about news and events, and serving as the punching bag for irate customers that don't know any other Twitter handle at which to direct their ire. For large companies such as IBM, it makes sense to have such impersonal handles for IBM divisions, IBM countries, IBM product families, and even individual IBM products.

But don't stop there. If you have a small company, it might be fine for one person to be the only presence on Twitter, and you can identify who that person is even if the handle is as impersonal as the company name. But if more than one person at your company wants to tweet, and especially if your company has more than a couple of dozen employees, it makes sense to have real individual people have their own personally-identifiable Twitter handles.

Twitter is a very personal medium, so it helps to actually have a personality. Some people have been able to bring some personality to a company handle, but more typically those handles have all the excitement of a press release. For many companies, they are managed by multiple people who strain to remove any personality whatsoever from that corporate image. If your company works that way, it is even more important than ever for you to have separate handles that individuals can be themselves with--it will only make your company look human and personal, rather than cold and clinical.

But even if you have a corporate presence that lets the real human being show through, it's still better to augment that presence with more people. Each person will have a different expertise to help solve customer problems. Each person can develop a fresh following. Each person can be part of the company's Twitter presence, rather than one person being the whole thing.

Because if that one person leaves the company, two things happen. First, they might bring some of their followers with them, stripping some energy from the company's Twitter presence. Second, you'll be scrambling to support the old handle with a new person.

If you have many Twitter handles out there, you won't be able to prevent people from leaving the company, but any individual departure will have limited damage. By having your Twitterers talk to each other, it encourages their followers to cross-pollinate, so that you'll maintain substantial attention even if a high-profile person leaves.

It's a serious issue to consider, because social media raises new stars from within your ranks that can walk out the door to your competitors or to other companies. Think carefully how you will cope with that end-game scenario and it will inform how you play the Twitter game between now and then.

Posted by MikeMoran at 5:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 3, 2010

For social media, it's not the heat, it's the anonymity

If you follow my blog, you might have seen that there was a big story in my hometown of Ridgewood, New Jersey last week, where my son's middle school principal wanted to ban Facebook for students. I didn't agree with him, but it is hard to disagree with his concern over cyber-bullying. In some ways, businesses grappling with social media run into some of the same issues, where foul language, angry rants, and lots of venting sometimes bring more heat than light to discussions. But after thinking about the discussions of last week a lot more over the weekend, I am starting to wonder if the problem with social media is not the heat, but the anonymity.

If you read my post from last week, I hope you checked the great discussion in the comments about this issue, even by students. One of the things that came up over and over was the difference between Facebook and Formspring, which mainly has to do with the level of anonymity allowed the participants. Too often, people lump together all social media into the same bucket, which happened in last week's discussion. The principal wanted to ban usage of all social networks, regardless of how they work.

Now, I don't want to be too critical, because middle school principals shouldn't have to be experts in social media, any more than my business clients are. But I see social media misunderstood all the time, including by businesses, which can make social media scarier than it should be.

Social media is a tool, not unlike a telephone. But there are many uses for telephones. Most of the uses are extremely helpful and valuable. Some of those uses (such as dialing a phone sex service) shouldn't be something we allow children to do. And some behavior on the phone (threatening calls) are nothing any adult should have to be subjected to either. Social media, unfortunately, is the same--just a tool. While banning social media for children might seem to solve the problem, it doesn't, any more than banning use of the phone solves those problems. And businesses can stay away from social media because of these problems, but they will soon suffer the consequences, just as if they banned use of the phone.

We don't expect parents to ban phone usage for children to keep them from calling phone sex numbers--those services need a credit card to be provided, which keeps (almost all) kids out. It's illegal for anyone to make an obscene or threatening phone call, so it's (mostly) safe for kids to answer the phone, too. Likewise, businesses can be comfortable allowing their employees to make and receive calls, even though they know that the phone can sometimes be a nefarious or dangerous venue. We've placed enough restrictions on phone usage that we don't have to worry. We might need to do the same thing for social media, even though those controls might be different.

I keep coming back to the anonymity as a big part of the social media problem. Think about how you think about an anonymous phone call versus calls where the callers identify themselves, even though you don't absolutely know for sure who they are. If you looked at my post earlier, and then you looked at a similar post on the same subject that allows anonymous comments, you'll see that the differences are striking. His post was a bit more inflammatory than mine, but check the difference in tone between the anonymous commenters and the ones who identified themselves on his blog.

That is what bullying is all about. Bullies are cowards by nature, so they won't do what they do if they can be found out and held responsible. Online bullies want to be anonymous, whether they are children bullying other children or adults bullying businesses or celebrities or others.

So, where does that leave us? I think that we so-called experts in social media and the social networks themselves must step up and make this whole industry safer for both children and for adults. To me, the big thing that distinguishes safer places from less safe places is the policy on anonymity. Anonymous social media users are usually more coarse, more reckless, and more prone to the "more heat than light" problems that both children and businesses would like to avoid.

So what can be done? Clearly every person has a right to be anonymous online should they choose to be, and everyone (in most countries) has a right to free speech, even if that speech might offend other people. I would never want governments or other powerful forces to eliminate that kind of speech, but I do want people who should not be or choose not to be exposed to this kind of thing to have ways of using social media safely.

So, the first thing that we need to do is to allow people to authoritatively identify themselves if they want to. (And parents would then be able to tell their children that they may only participate in social media if they are identifying themselves.) Now, the privacy implications of this are enormous--we'd need to have a good discussion about how to ensure that our identifiable information is shared only as we want.

But we have precedence for this. Paypal knows exactly who you are, even to the point of knowing your checking account number, because it must avoid being defrauded. Paypal is extremely careful about who (if anyone) receives this information, but it's clear who you are at all times. Facebook could do the same thing, for those that choose to participate. (In some ways, this would be similar to Amazon's Real Names reviews, although the identification might need to be more stringent.)

To be fair to Facebook, it already prohibits those under 13 from participating, so the middle school principal should have no issue with them. Unfortunately, the students know how to game Facebook's identification process by choosing a high school, lying about their ages, and getting other Facebook users (other kids) to confirm them. A better identification system might stop this underage usage. Or we could adopt better identification processes so that we felt that we could allow kids on social networks, but perhaps with different rules--such as they can interact only with other identified users. As for Formspring, it's anonymous nature makes it a place that kids probably don't belong on--think about that if you are a parent.

We constantly lament our children's lack of judgment at times over what they are willing to post. If we clearly identified who people are, it might actually help children realize that they are not as anonymous as they think they are. It might actually help activate their judgment.

Businesses might adopt the same kind of approach. They will respond to everyone who complains about them, perhaps, but they have a different set of responses for those who identify themselves, much as an anonymous letter to a government official carries less weight than one from a registered voter. And their employees must identify themselves, too, and identify that they work for that business. Then anyone can judge the credibility of statements based on who they are from, just as you might want to know the political party of a speaker on a public issue.

And suppose we all decided we were all going to be ourselves online. I'm not saying that there is no place for anonymous discussions, but can we change the culture so that being anonymous was not the default? Not in a legal way--we would always allow people free speech--but could we set the expectation that there are places online where you know who everyone is and that identity is part of credibility in taking part in the discussion?

And could we emphasize that those are the places where children belong? And can they learn to use cyberspace in a place where there are training wheels? Can we run our businesses so that we respond differently to people who identify themselves than those who don't?

I don't know that there are no holes in this idea. In fact, I suspect that there are many. But I need to take my own advice and do it wrong quickly. I'd rather put out this half-baked idea and ask people to shoot holes in it than keep thinking about it and have nothing happening. What's wrong with all of us deciding to identify ourselves in our online lives and asking others to do the same? Please let me hear it in the comments below.

Posted by MikeMoran at 3:47 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack