Facebook’s Graph Search – The good, the bad and the ads

Mark Zuckerberg took a page from Steve Jobs‘ playbook today, with a cryptic announcement that it would hold a press conference today at 10 a.m. PT. With Apple, however, we usually have an idea of what to expect – the next iPhone and/or iPad – though we may not know all the features.

Well, Facebook isn’t a hardware company, and no one really knew what to expect until Zuckerberg took the stage to talk about the three pillars of Facebook – Newsfeed, Timeline and… Graph Search. This is essentially an improved search function – which they needed. Before launching it, Facebook had to do a lot of legwork to ensure privacy and that users only receive results from people in their networks, whose information was already shared with them. This is differentf from web search in that it is insanely personal and relevant to you. Here are a few of the features:

• You can search anything within your Facebook network that was already public to you. This includes photos, places updates, what your friends like, etc. For photos, this is ranked by the most “Likes” they received.
• If you search for something specific, such as “soccer,” all of you friends who “Like” soccer are listed, ranked by who’s most important to you.
• You can search Places to see who of your friends have been to, for example, a new restaurant you’d like to try.
• Graph search auto-completes (like Google), so it will start to finish your query for you based on what it knows about you.
• You can search for “friends who live in Boston,” and it will show you a list of those friends, in case you want to visit (and why wouldn’t you?)
• Dating on Facebook? Okay, this part is creepy. As Emily Price of Mashable noted, you can search for something like “People named Chris who are friends with X” to find someone you met at a party. Oh, and you can search for things like “single women in Boston.” There is certainly a potential creep factor here, but we do have to remember that our networks are choosing to share all of this information.
• If Facebook can’t find the results, they show results from Bing, just adding more fuel to the fire between Google and Facebook.

What does this mean for users, brands and advertisers?

Ad monetization has been top of mind for Facebook for a long time, specifically mobile ad monetization. This may dramatically impact that –  just look at Google’s success with search advertisements for proof. Especially if they hone in on this for mobile searches and incorporate location and behavior targeting, this could turn things around for Facebook. Could, is the key word there – this isn’t a guarantee. If Facebook launches this thing well and can show positive search results, accuracy and that users are actually engaging in Graph Search, then Facebook could offer advertisers the opportunity to buy “ad words,” much like they buy Google ad words. Better yet, they could be locally relevant on mobile devices.

Privacy is top of everyone’s mind, as it should be. I guarantee people are flocking to their privacy settings to see what people will be able to search. They are concerned that people will see their information, and are guaranteed to freak out even though they are the ones who made this public in the first place. The big issue I see here is that you can search for something such as “friends of friends who are single.” I realize we decide if our friends’ friends can see our information, but that one is often overlooked because no one thought a query like this was possible. So my recommendation is that you should probably update that one, if you haven’t already.  Realistically though, all Facebook did was make it easier for you to find information that you already had access to, even if you didn’t know it.

Accuracy is also a concern, because people are not always telling the truth on their pages. For example, I put that I speak Gaelic on my Facebook page as a joke a while ago – I do not speak it other than a few choice words. Yes, slainte is one of them. That’s a small example though, of how I could inaccurately show up in someone’s search results.

Community managers are all in a Twitter tizzy about how excited they are about Graph Search so they can better connect with people on their pages, and to see who “Liked” what posts, etc. Also, anytime you search for something, such as a new hair salon, you can see what salons your friends liked. This is huge for brand pages, especially those that have a lot of Likes.

Personally, I welcome this update. Am I going to replace Google with Facebook? Of course not, and that’s not what it’s meant for. But Facebook’s search feature needed a major face list – pun intended. It has been a pain for some time now to search even your own timeline. Major events in my life and my friends lives have all been recorded in one way or another on this social networks since 2005, and I welcome a way to access that. Also, who’s opinion am I more likely to trust about a restaurant I want to check out – a stranger on Yelp, or a couple of my friends from high school?

What are your thoughts about Graph Search? Are you excited about it, or are you on you way to block all your information so it won’t appear in search results? Will this solve, or at least help, Facebook’s advertising problem?

Facebook 's Got 99 Problems, And Advertising's One

For those of us who pay attention to social media news, we’ve all heard it – Facebook needs to figure out its advertising platform or else their advertisers will jump ship, just as GM announced it was this week. This is bad for Facebook because it will lose the $10 million in advertising revenue GM spent with Facebook last year, but it’s far worse because of the publicity this move is generating in the media. GM executives didn’t achieve the ROI they expected from Facebook. If a well-known brand like GM is spending a ton of dough and not seeing consumer impact, it will prompt other companies to second guess how they spend their marketing dollars, too.

From a consumer’s perspective, one might think that it doesn’t affect me if advertisers are opting out of Facebook’s platform, except that I may see fewer ads. The issue though, is that much like a PR agency’s success relies on client revenue and making sure we deliver results, so does Facebook rely on its clients. Although we want to believe that we, as the consumers, are its clients – we’re not. That role belongs to the advertisers that pay the social network’s bills. And as Forrester Analyst Nate Elliot blogged this week, companies across several industries are deciding that Facebook isn’t the best place to spend their social marketing budgets, regardless of its massive user base. As Nate states, if Facebook paid as much attention to its advertisers as it did to enhancing the end-user experience, it may not be in this pickle, right on the eve of its IPO on Friday. 

Facebook’s Mobile Experience

Even if Facebook figured out its advertising problem on desktops, there are still major concerns regarding its mobile platform. I don’t even recall when the last time I saw an ad on my Facebook mobile app was, let alone what it was promoting. Of course, for me it has more to do with the fact that I rarely use my Facebook app, due to its incredibly slow load times that GigaOm’s Kevin C. Tofel addressed in a post this week. For those who do use it regularly, what’s the last ad you saw in the app? Did you engage with it – do you even remember what company or product it was for? I can’t stress enough how much of an issue this is for Facebook and its advertisers, considering that users spend more time accessing Facebook via mobile apps per month than by the traditional website. It seems that Facebook makes a new advertising announcement about how it’s enhancing its platform every six months. Well, the next announcement desperately needs to address its mobile marketing strategy, and it needs to be better than sponsored stories. 

A Fortune article on Thursday details how Facebook can collaborate better with Apple and Google, who manufacture the two most popular mobile operating systems. The article expresses concerns about Google integrating supposed Facebook competitor Google+ into its devices. Here’s why this doesn’t concern me – no one would care. It would probably get a lot attention from the tech press, some critics and some supporters. But this integration would follow in the footsteps of everything else in Google+’s short history: a lot of talk and no engagement. All these people would have Google+ easily accessible on their smart devices, but much like its 170 million users now, there would be little activity and engagement. Then again, maybe this mobile integration would prove me wrong and drive more usage out of its members. Google+ would still have to tackle the millions of mobile Apple consumers, and I don’t foresee Apple agreeing to Google+ integration on their devices. After all, they won’t even let me share a photo to Facebook directly from the iPhone photo app yet, which is incredibly frustrating, by the way.

Maybe Facebook’s IPO tomorrow will kick its mobile ad planning into high gear, since they’ll critically need to maintain current advertisers to remain profitable, as well as sign new ones. For now though, we’ll sit back and watch Zuckerberg fumble his TV interviews while the IPO hogs the tech media outlets tomorrow. Down the line, we’re hoping for big things from the Facebook mobile team. The number of Facebook end users is unparalleled to any other social network, so the advertising potential is there; it just needs to be capitalized on much better than it is currently. That's my PR thought for the day. 

A version of this post also appeared on prSPEAK, a blog by PAN Communications. 

Public Relations Redefined…Supposedly

If you’re in the PR industry, then you probably didn’t miss this New York Times article by Stuart Elliot regarding the latest official definition of public relations. As Stuart’s article states, this initiative to redefine public relations began this past November out of the supposed need to redefine out practice in the era of social media and “spin doctors” – his words, not mine. The initiative drew a lot of interest from PR professionals, organizations, critics and the general public. Gerard Corbett, the 2012 chairman and chief executive of the Public Relations Society of America, led the initiative that resulted in three final options to be voted on this past February. Those three definitions are below, and the second definition was declared the winner:

• “Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.”
• “Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”
• “Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.”

Most PR practitioners would agree that all three are solid definitions of our field and what we do every day. Particularly, I’m glad to see that ‘strategic’ made it into two definitions, and ‘relationships’ into two as well. Still, I need to beg the question – what has changed? To be fair, I only graduated from the Newhouse School at Syracuse University less than two years ago, so maybe the difference is unclear to me because I learned it so recently. For the veteran PR pros out there – is this not what you learned was the definition? Has it changed all that much?

That being said, has the rise of digital and social media actually created the need to redefine our industry? Our role remains the same: we are the communications professionals that develop and maintain relationships with our clients and their publics. It’s true, how we communicate with those publics has changed. It’s not all about picking up the phone anymore – though we don’t forget the importance of that tactic as well. Often, these relationships are built through social media and engaging in new ways – over Skype, through a Tweet, group discussions on LinkedIn, etc. Our role has not changed and therefore, the definitions above are not as evolved as this attention makes it seem.

That’s not a bad thing; it’s because the time-tested best practices of public relations will always remain effective – the medium to how we implement those best practices and build relationships may change with new media, but not the practices themselves. That's my PR thought for the day.

What do you think – has the rise of social media created the need to redefine our practice? And if so, did the chosen definition fulfill that need? Drop a line in the comments and let us know.

A version of this post originally appeared on prSPEAK, a blog from PAN Communications.

Another Blog About Super Bowl Commercials: Mobile Versus Social

Are you sick of hearing reviews and trends about Super Bowl commercials yet? Apparently not, because you're here, reading this blog even after you checked out the title. I felt it was time to add my two cents. Prior to the the big event, I had my own thoughts about mobile's play in the Super Bowl. I agreed with experts who said it would be a huge factor, and that brands would use TV commercials to drive awareness of both their mobile and social campaigns. I thought we'd see some "Download the App," or "Visit our website" to view more. I didn't see that. I saw a few short messages to send texts and even fewer QR codes. I thought these would have a bigger play, even though I wasn't sure how effective they would be. Don't get me wrong - as I stated in my last post, I think QR codes can be very effective. But maybe not so much during commercials. Consumers have approximately 30 seconds to reach for their smartphone, find the scanning app - likely one out of many apps - open the app and then scan the code. The timing just might not be ideal.

What we did see this year, however, was a lot of brands driving awareness of their social channels, often with the use of hashtags. Audi cleverly played on the hot topic of vampires to engage consumers. The commercial was alright to start, but not my favorite - and that's coming from a reluctantly self-proclaimed Twilight fan. But what drove it home for me and made me laugh was the ending, driving the message home with the hashtag, #SoLongVampires. It's quick, witty, relevant and most importantly, easy to remember. That's the key for using hashtags.

If mobile and social were in a fight over who would get more attention from brands this Super Bowl, I'd say social beat mobile out. In my opinion, the reason is that brands had to outwardly choose to promote one or the other. It's clear that brands see social as a bigger priority to mobile right now, though I don't see that being the case next year. Though these brands outwardly promoted social channels, the majority of these consumers likely accessed these social brands via their mobile devices - since they likely didn't race to a desktop to Tweet about cars and vampires.

Brands need to stop thinking about mobile or social, and combine the two. Of course, we're seeing this in different industries, but often times there's a larger focus on social. Here's what needs to happen - brands need to think about how consumers access their brands (mobile, desktop) just as much as they think about where consumers access the brands (Website, Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Integrating them will be key, of course, but don't leave mobile in the dark. Mobile creates an opportunity for brands that we've never had before - the ability to deliver timely, relevant messages. Next Super Bowl, I'd like to see two things, and I think we will see at least one of them:

1. Better integration of mobile and social campaigns.

2. The Patriots defense learning how to block and tackle, leading to a Patriots championship. Did I mention I'm based in Boston and a die-hard Pats fan?

Next Super Bowl and throughout the year, there needs to be better integration with mobile and social channels. There shouldn't be two separate campaigns for brands - one for mobile and one for social. Today's average consumer isn't choosing one of the other, so why should brands? That's my PR thought for the day.

We're Doers, Not Watchers: Defending the Social Media Generation

The other day I came across an article by Dean Obeidalla on CNN.com that posed the question of whether or not social media is creating the laziest generation. An interesting question - one that I strongly answer with a heck no! I can see why the question was posed, and there is validity to both sides of the argument. There's even a Toyota commercial about a girl who judges how "social" she is by how many Facebook friends she has. Still, I argue that social media is certainly not creating the laziest generation.

First of all, while I respect Dean's viewpoint and enjoyed his article, I have to offer a bit of criticism for providing reality TV as a valid argument that social media is making us lazy. The two simply aren't related. Sure, people share opinions and engage with each other around these shows on social media platforms - but that's just because people are talking about nearly everything on social media, TV included. To partake in social media does not mean that you watch reality TV. I love social media, in fact, my friends and family call me mildly obsessed. But I don't watch reality TV, ever. There are plenty of people who do both, but to engage in one does not mean that you engage in both.

Some will argue that we've become lazy in our writing. Everything needs to be shorter - 140 characters on Twitter even. Well I say we've just mastered the elevator pitch. What used to be communicated in lengthy presentations and long conversations, we accomplish in 140 characters. Yes, we watch. We watch to see what comes next and how we can take that idea to the next level. Or implement it into our start-up, or our campaigns.

Dean was right, one Tweet will not change the world. But one Tweet can spark another, and then a trending topic and then start a revolution. Social media has incredible influence, and we're all in the midst of a game-changer for politics and business.

People are using social media to make their lives better. We're using it to do things, not just watch things. We're obtaining new information and using it to make a mark on the world, look for job opportunities or connect with like-minded people who share interests. That way, we can connect on and off line. We're exercising our minds endlessly online, sinking in all the information we can from the many channels we're tuned into. We Tweet, we update, we connect. We find roommates on Craig's List or Roommates.com. We meet boyfriends and girlfriends through online dating. We support our favorite political candidate with Tweets and statuses of support, which is actively shared with all of our friends and family. We blog about places we've been, or activities we've participated in. We are doers, not watchers.

So, social media isn't creating the laziest generation, it may even be doing the opposite. We engage with more people and wider circles than ever before and are able to meet people that we never would have without the emergence of new media. That's my PR thought for the day.

Yup, this is another post about Google+

You might be getting sick of Google+ posts by now, but here's my two cents on the latest social network - just a few basics.

Pros:

1. You can edit posts. Can't tell you how many times I had wanted this feature when I had one silly typo in a Facebook post or Tweet. Solid move.

2. Google grabbed all my info from LinkedIn, Blogger, etc. That saved me a lot of time, and I had the choice to publish it or not.

3. I'm sharing with colleagues, journalists, bloggers and clients on a happy-medium level. Not as much as we should be sharing if we were Facebook friends, but more personal than on Twitter. I'm getting to see new sides of people's personalities, many of which I've never met but have connected with online or over the phone.

4. Circles - awesome. I don't care about the fact that you can share with certain groups and not others, which is the main pitch point of circles. And maybe I will start to care more about this as time goes on. What I like about it is that I can filter the stream. If I want to get some info, news or pitch ideas about mobile tech, I'll only look at those in my mobile circle. I'm seriously loving this feature. And I love that people can't see what circles I put them in, though I'm morbidly curious what circles people are putting me in. Annoying PR folks? :)

Cons:

1. No contact connection to other social networks. I realize other sites are the competition, but you're not going to win me over by limiting my access to them through Google+. I don't connect my social networks usually because I think they each serve a different purpose for me, but I'm new to Google+, we all are. And I want to find friends from Twitter and Facebook who are using it so we can connect, not just my connections from Gmail. That would be huge for me as I get started.

2. No link shortener in the mobile app - super annoying.

3. There's no button yet to share articles from other sites, only to +1 them. Facebook has a "Like" and a "Share" button. Hopefully this is only a matter of time...Or I'm just proving my last post wrong because I'm too lazy to actually copy and paste a link into Google+.

4. No "smart screen" for the mobile app. That's probably not the technical term. But when I turn my iPhone horizontal for easier typing, the screen in the mobile app doesn't turn with it. This is beyond irritating when you're typing.

Google+ certainly has some kinks to work out, but it's brand new and that's the whole purpose of beta. On the whole, I think it's a pretty solid social media platform and it will continue to improve. I'm excited to keep learning and sharing. That's my PR thought for the day.

Oh, and be sure to add me to your circles folks.

Relevancy, Engagement, Value - Why You Should or Shouldn't Follow Me

I love Twitter. Well I love all social media, but I have a special place in my heart for Twitter. It continues to prove itself to me, both for personal and professional networking. Too often though, I hear negativity about following too many people - as if it's a bad thing. I'm not attempting to defend spam bots here or anything. But I've heard and read many comments about the ratio of people you are following to people who are following you. It even affects some influencer measurement scores such as Klout. I understand that perspective, because there are certainly people and organizations who will follow anyone and everyone in an attempt to increase their own follower count. However, I do think other other factors need to be considered. Here's just a few of those factors:

1. Relevancy: Are the people who you follow relevant to you, on a personal or professional level? Sure, I follow a few hundred people - Kim Kardashian is not one of them. That's not to say anything against her or those who follow her, but her Tweets simply aren't relevant to me. I follow my friends and colleagues to stay connected, as well as folks in industries that interest me - PR, journalism, mobile, marketing, IT, etc. Oh, and of course I follow both of my alma maters, Merrimack College and the Newhouse School at Syracuse University.

2. Engagement: Are you engaging with the people you follow? Okay, I haven't retweeted, mentioned or sent a message to every single Twitter handle that I follow. But you can bet I've engaged with people across all of the industries and interest areas I follow. I may not retweet everyone, but they're on my list of followers because I think they have potential to share compelling content with me - content that teaches me something, makes me think or just brings interesting news to my attention.

3. Value: Are the people you follow actually sharing anything important with you? If not, why the heck are you following them? Value doesn't have to mean that you should only be following the likes of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Value's different to everyone, and there's all different kinds of value too. You could find value in a humorous Tweet when you needed that comedic break in your day. Or it could be that news or research report that brings you the perfect angle to pitch a trend story for your client. Value doesn't mean any one thing in particular, but all of those you follow should bring it to you in some form or another.

Maybe I'm naive or drinking too much Twitter Kool-Aid, but the way I see it, you should follow as many people as necessary to obtain value. I don't follow people just because they follow me, and I certainly won't unfollow anyone who chose not to follow me back. If they decide they will not gain anything from following me, then why should they? Sure, there are definitely some industry folks out there I wish would follow me back (ahem @BrianSolis). But I won't stop following them because I'm too proud. If I'm getting value out of their Tweets, then I'll continue to follow them and retweet or respond to anything I find compelling enough to share.

Again, I understand both perspectives here, but I think there's more to consider than a simple comparison of followers/people you follow can provide. So when friends and family ask my opinion, I never preach "don't follow too many more people than who follow you." I preach to follow those who will make Twitter as valuable and fun as it has been for me, whether that's 10 people or 1,000 people. That's my PR thought for the day.

Keep it Real: Welcoming Friends and Family to Twitter with Open Arms and Retweets

As somewhat of a social media geek, Twitter has been a big part of my daily life for a while now. Recently, my social media social life has been overlapping with my good old fashioned social life more so than usual. My friends and family, who have perviously made fun of me for my love of Tweeting, are starting to sign up for accounts. I was thinking about why that is, and then I started noticing how much it's showing up in mainstream media, not just in my work and online circles.

When I say mainstream media, I don't mean celebrities Tweeting. I mean that Twitter is being talked about in venues that my friends will actually pay attention to - their TV shows. Two weeks ago Grey's Anatomy included Twitter as a main theme of the episode, as Dr. Miranda Bailey Tweeted her surgeries live. On the Big Bang Theory, it was a main theme when Sheldon Cooper's lecture became a trending topic. They even discussed supposedly well-known Twitter acronyms like KMN - for kill me now - to convey boredom. These were both main themes, but I've seen Twitter mentioned in many other shows as well, even if it's just a passing comment here or there.

Now, as a lover of Twitter, I get excited seeing these themes in a few of my favorite shows, and I even point it out to my roommate with a quick, "See, I told you Twitter isn't lame." But I had to step back for a minute and ask myself, are they setting the expectations too high?

In PR, of course we'd love to have all of our clients become a trending topic each day, but that's just not always plausible. These shows make it look simple, when it isn't always. Is it realistic that while live-Tweeting a surgery, a fellow surgeon would Tweet a recommendation that leads to saving a life? And would a boring lecture from a nerdy physicist really become such a trend on Twitter when there are so many exciting things going on? Isn't it more likely that a compelling human interest story or massively-engaging current event will trend?

It's certainly interesting to think about, and maybe it could be some day, but I think we're still a long way from these things becoming reality. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe a Tweet can save a life. There is that case of the girls who updated their Facebook statuses and were thereby rescued from a storm drain in Australia. Of course, my thought was that if they had her phones, it probably would have been more efficient to dial 911, but maybe I'm just being old-fashioned that way.

Twitter's great - I love it for real-time updates on news, staying connected with friends and people in my industry and so much more. I welcome my friends and family to the social network with open arms and retweets. But when my friend has to ask why she doesn't have as many followers as me after only a week of Tweeting, I think it's important to keep our Twitter expectations realistic. That's my PR thought for the day.

With Foursquare, Life's a Game

This year, Foursquare’s considered one of the most up and coming social media players. And I do mean player, because in the world of Foursquare, life is a game and everything is worth points or badges. Foursquare’s founder, Dennis Crowley, made it that way because he enjoyed earning points in video games so much. He wanted to see his video game world become a reality. Check-in to different places on campus, or anywhere else, and earn points each time, watching the points value increase with each check-in that day. Check-in to some place the most, and you become the mayor. Each Sunday night the points system restarts, so you’ll find that when your best bud is beating you by five points on a Saturday night, you’ve got some extra motivation to leave your usual hang out and check-in to a new venue.

Foursquare makes being social in your daily life just like a game, creating incentives to try to new places for more points. And even the least competitive personalities will find that when they’re ousted as the mayor of their favorite hot spots, they’ll feel that impulsive, stubborn need to go for a check-in to gain their title back.

Not only is Foursquare creating a little friendly competition, it’s connecting us too. Checking our smart phones, we get to see where our friends are hanging out, or where there’s a trending hot spot in real time. Maybe you’re headed to Dunkin’ Donuts for your usual fix, but you see your friend just checked-in at a local mom-and-pop bakery down the street so you head there instead. So much of social media is about connecting. With Foursquare, we get to take the virtual interaction of new media and make it social in a face-to-face setting.

Some late adopters have argued that social media actually makes people less social. Foursquare helps to prove quite the opposite. That's my PR thought for the day.

Image was taken from Google images.

@CocaCola Ties Brand to World Cup via Promoted Tweet

I didn't say much when promoted Tweets came out; I wasn't sure how I felt about them. I guess I'm still not, but they're worth commenting on. Specifically, today @CocaCola sponsored the Twitter hashtag, #WC2010. All I have to say to that is - nice moves Coke, nice moves. I don't drink soda so I have no reason to give them props, other than I think they deserve it. Twitter's fail whale has been seen far too often since the World Cup began because it's being overloaded with fans who want to dicuss, share and debate their favorite/least favorite teams and of course the ever-pressing topic of quality officiating. With Coke sponsoring the hashtag, anyone that follows that feed will see @CocaCola's Tweet at the top of the discussion. Earlier today it read, "CocaCola Congrats to ENG & USA on moving forward. Lots of celebrations across the globe. How's your celebration? http://CokeURL.com/63fx #WC2010." They're showing support for a current, wildly popular world event, and linking back to their website in the process.

I don't have the statistics for who's viewing this, but I know it's a lot, and I'm impressed by the idea. Sometimes we see global companies ignore Twitter, but Coke used Twitter to tie its brand to a global event. Honestly though, I would have loved to see a start-up or small business do that today and see the results. It could have been dramatic for driving a new audience to their site. I know I would have clicked, especially if it was something I wasn't familiar with already because I would have been curious. Anyways, props to you Coke.

Image by Poolie on Flickr.

Should We Really Be Updating Multiple Networks Simultaneously?

So I just read that Seesmic acquired Ping.fm and now we can update 50 of our networks simultaneously with the touch of a button. But hey, wait a minute, don't people in the PR business tell us that we should choose the right networks that can be geared towards the right audience? Then isn't it safe to say that each network may have a different audience? I think so.

The people who follow you on Twitter may very well not care what you're doing on vacation, but may be very much looking forward to hearing about your take on the newest industry trend. Maybe that's just how I see it. My three main social networks are Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. I use Facebook mainly for staying connected with friends and family, while Twitter is a much more professional network for me, used to follow industry leaders and trends so I can stay informed about PR, social media, and technology. Finally, LinkedIn is my most professional network, catered completely to making connections for future employment and other professional opportunities. Clearly, these three networks all have different audiences for me. In fact, I can't think of 10 connections I have in common on any of those networks.

Today, I updated my status on Facebook to say I was playing Bingo with my grandmother during my vacation in Florida. I tweeted about interesting articles I found, such as a NYTimes article discussing the rumors of the Apple tablet. I don't update LinkedIn quite as often, but when I do, it's relevant to work or research projects that I am doing, or opportunities I am looking for. None of my followers on my Twitter account really care that I played bingo, and none of my friends or family care about social media and PR (in fact they say I talk about it too much already). The same principle can easily apply to organizations with different audiences for different networks.

All I'm saying is that if you're a business person, you should respect your clients enough to cater your messages to them individually on each network. Ant professional person should to the same. Different audiences deserve different messages. That's the best way to get the greatest value out of social media. That's my PR thought for the day.

Image taken from Google images.

The Value of Video: Connect with Your Audience

Recently, I've read a lot about the value of using videos online, whether it's on a blog, a social networking site, or posted to Youtube. Here are my thoughts:

Videos add a greater sense of being connected to your audience, and even more specifically, your audience being connected to you. In a video, you express more about how you really feel about a topic, and you present more emotion. There's more "you" in a video than in written word. For example, during finals week this past December, I was really into leaving video posts on people's Facebook walls. Now, these weren't professional posts, but more comical and a better way to connect with other students going through similar difficulties as me, and also with people from home who I hadn't seen me in a long time. After I left a few, people started writing to me, "hey, where's my video post? I want to see what you're up to!" I never got responses like that with regular written posts. The feedback on my video posts was almost tripled than with written posts. I thought about why this was, and so I asked a few people. The responses I got were that they got to see my facial expressions and hear my tone of voice. It made it more funny in some cases, and people from home said they felt much more connected with me.

Of course, this was not for professional use, and this video format would not work in every situation. One area where videos can be immensely useful is in promoting nonprofit organizations, and asking for donations. You may be able to write on your Website why this cause is great and should be supported, but isn't it better to show them? These videos are different than commercials; they allow for greater flexibility, and therefore creativity. You can add a song; have a child speak; use still frames with sounds; and many other things that stir up emotions. Furthermore, with online video, you are usually seeing real people, and that also creates connectivity. Check out this video for a great example of a nonprofit cause using video for promotion of the cause. It's called the Pink Glove Dance, and it's fun to watch, as well as powerful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEdVfyt-mLw

Like I said, videos may not work for every platform, but many organizations in many different industries have experienced great success using videos. The key is that it really connects you with your audience. If your audience doesn't feel connected, you're doing something wrong. That's my PR thought for the day.

Traditional Media is Still the Front Runner for News in America

Where do most Americans get their news? Not the Web like you might have though. I found this bit of information on the Schwartz Communicaions blog, Schwartz Crossroads. The post is "Will IT Spending Impact Tech PR Budgets in 2010" (http://www.schwartz-pr.com/crossroads/2009/10/will_it_spending_impact_tech_p.php). Towards the end, they mention that 72% of Americans still get their news primarily through traditional media, according to the First Amendment Center.

At first, I thought this was outrageous, but the more I thought about it, the more I think I understand why it's true. Let's think about who is actually reading the news. Generally, it's not the generations that use the Internet the most. So if they're not reading the news, then they are out of the picture in the first place on this matter. Though they may never pick up a newspaper, they are also not spending their time reading it online. Among those who do pay attention to newsworthy stories, many still prefer to get it from newspapers and television. Still, the news is all over the Web; and it's important to remember that it's not just the original story that's on there.

More than the just the actual story, there are reactions, criticisms, gossip, and all kinds of other talk ABOUT the news. If you want your story to reach as many audiences as possible, it's okay to still use traditional media, in fact, you absolutely should to ensure you are reaching those audiences that will never go to news sites. Just make sure you also use the Web to promote your story and monitor the conversations and feedback about it. That way, you know how your supporters, critics, and everyone else is reacting to the news. That's my PR thought for the day.


Image is taken from Google images

My Whole Family is on Facebook

Remember when us college students joined Facebook a few years back as a way to get to know our other classmates? Was anyone else a little upset when they first started letting other users on there? I know I was one of those people. I joined Facebook the summer before I started college. People from orientation sent me friend requests and I thought it was a great networking site for college students. Then the first time I got a request from someone who was in high school, I was pretty upset. I liked that Facebook set itself apart from Myspace with their requirement of having a .edu e-mail address. I'll admit though, the idea has since grown on me - a lot.

Now, just about anyone can join Facebook, and so many people are jumping on the bandwagon. I really started to like this idea when I started to get updates about old classmates, cousins, or old teammates about things going on in their lives. Honestly, I would have been months behind in finding out my cousin was going to be a father if Facebook Newsfeed hadn't told me! Now, I get to follow along on his fiance's Facebook page and find out just about every step of the pregnancy, as she updates it frequently. I get to see ultra sounds, I know they are having a boy who will be named Tyler, and I know he is due on Halloween. My cousin has a lot going on, especially being a young soon-to-be father, so I know he doesn't have time to call all of his almost 30 cousins and tell each of us the updates of his fiance's pregnancy. This way, he doesn't have to.

About two months ago, my mother finally caved and joined Facebook also. Now this came as a complete shock to me, since she claimed she never would. After chatting with her friends, she finally decided that the benefits were too great to ignore it anymore. All of her friends and sisters-in-law were more well connected and she felt left out of the loop sometimes. She is still having trouble keeping up sometimes, since she is new (and late) to this game. She is definitely trying though. And I've been trying to help her out by sending friend suggestions of family members I know she would like to connect with through Facebook. She may finally be getting the hang of it. She called me the other day to say she was sorry I lost my soccer game, after I updated my status that we had lost.

And yes, even my grandparents have joined the game. My grandfather is quite the avid user of Facebook. In fact, he felt the need to rub in the nice Florida weather he is experiencing, after my status complained of how bitterly cold I was at the bus stop here in Syracuse, NY.

Personally, I'm excited that my family is opening up to the idea of staying connected through Facebook. It makes my life a lot easier to not have to call everyone when something happens, and I get to stay connected with important people in my life. That's my PR thought for the day.


Image is taken from Facebook.com