May 01

Building Online Communities with Social Applications

Yesterday I caught a tweet by Rohit Bhargava that caught my eye. It referenced a post by Jay Baer that mentions the lack of personnel often assigned to social media accounts. According to Baer,
“This is why one of the most common questions I hear at speaking engagements and in corporate conference rooms is ‘How can we do this well with limited resources?’ I’ve even heard on more than a handful of occasions the conversational shoulder shrug of ‘We can get software approved, but we can’t add headcount.’”

Scaling doesn’t have to be something you do with bigger headcount. In the same respect that advertisements scale the reach of sales, social web applications scale the reach of Community Managers. A web application built on the Facebook Platform can increase Fan counts significantly, simplify customer service or HR, or anything we program them to, really.

So at the risk of sounding preachy, I’ll just present three case studies of social apps I’ve seen built on Heroku that get what I’m talking about here:

1. ASICS “Support Your Marathoner” Campaign
ASICS sought to scatter supportive messages of hope across big screens throughout the NYC and LA Marathons. Instead of hiring a Community Manager to handle individual outreach, they plugged the application “Support your Marathoner” on their site and let runners solicit messages for them via their Facebook and Twitter friends. Thousands participated and the campaign was covered in magazines, blogs and TV shows. Give people a cool app, and they’ll do the marketing for you.

2. TF3 Battlezone: a Promotion for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” DVD/Blu-Ray™”
There are 5.9 billion mobile subscribers in the world, and almost 1 billion users on Facebook. Instead of merely putting out ads that may or may not be seen by TV viewers, Paramount Home Pictures commissioned Project Zebra to create a mobile/Facebook app where Fans could choose to compete as a Battlebot or Decepticon and claim actual places around them for their team. The app was an instant hit with Transformers Fans, prompting Paramount Home Pictures to take it global.

3. Warner Bros. “Social Cinema”
We all like watching movies with our friends. However, the concept of a “friend” is changing as social networks expand our ability to connect with people around the world. So Warner Bros. commissioned Milyoni to build a “social cinema”, allowing Facebook Fans to watch Warner Bros. movies with their friends.

Customers will always want to engage via social media. They might not always want to connect with us specifically. Social applications allow our customers to engage with each other around our brand. Isn’t that what we all intend to accomplish in the first place?

Aug 28

Why Geolocation Isn’t Quite “There Yet”

Hurricane Irene Captured August 26, 2011This weekend, we cowered to think that major cities on the American east coast would be pummeled by Hurricane Irene. We watched CNN and Twitter to see how things were going.

Geolocation tools like Foursquare could have been amazing during a natural disaster like Irene. Imagine if any check-in tagged with #Irene were pulled onto a map, and then you could see what sort of damage was done to millions of places in real time? How useful would something like that be?

Geolocation picked up as a meme in early 2010 and then slowed down significantly for the following reasons:

1.) Let’s face it: geolocation is a bit creepy. OK, so let me get this straight. You are going to give me rewards for letting the entire world know where I hang out on a regular basis? I see the benefits, but I’m not sure they outweigh the risks. This is especially true for public accounts.

2.) Many geolocation networks got numbers, but failed to capture critical mass…anywhere. I won’t get into naming names, but I’ve seen social networks with gobs of features fail. Why? Features do help you sell a social network. However, unless our friends are using it, we don’t care. Facebook had a lot of features from the beginning. What really helped it take off was the fact that they targeted schools hard and heavy before expanding. They didn’t rush to get 10 million users all over the world. They got 30,000 of heavily concentrated users, and then got 30,000 more concentrated users. It became so popular at the “it” places (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.), everyone wanted an account.

It’s not just important that people sign up for your site. It’s important that they use it. To Foursquare’s credit, it helped them tremendously to lock down New York City and San Francisco.

3.) Geolocation desperately needs context that can be defined through APIs. The Hurricane Irene example above is a fantastic example of a useful app that could be built quickly on geolocation APIs. What if someone wanted to build organicfoodfinder.com, which would allow users to check into and find spots that served organic meals? What if we wanted to call out restaurants who had bad service by checking in and leaving comments, or crowd source bike routes by checking in to spots along the way? It’s hard to add functionality to geolocation applications that will make everyone happy, but it’s relatively easy through services like Apigee or Mashery to build robust APIs that support any kind of functionality through third party applications.

If an application like Foursquare can provide the current data and basic functionality a geolocation service would want to use, they could theoretically be the Facebook of the real world. Instead of sharing links, we would share places. We could play games in the real world the same way people play Facebook games like FarmVille and Mafia Wars. Foursquare has some action around their API, but not even near the potential it could have.

I’ve said this before and will say it again: the money in a social network is often in the lurkers. Make something valuable for them and things will get interesting in geolocation again very quickly.

Aug 24

How Can We Clone Steve Jobs?

Tim O’Reilly’s Google+ stream tipped me off to a very interesting post on Forbes about how outsourcing both helps and hurts us. You really should read it yourself, but the long and the short of it is this:
1.) We have to outsource where it makes sense, to keep pricing competitive, but
2.) As soon as we do it, whomever we outsource to will most certainly approach our competitor with the same proposition, so
3.) We end up back where we started.

The key to solving the equation? Outsource where it makes sense, but always add innovation.

Say what you will about Steve Jobs as a person. As a figurehead of Apple, his vision, passion and perfectionism as CEO of Apple are unmatched. Apple products are copied mercilessly and are the source of tech lust all over the world. It is why despite Michael Dell stating Apple should close shop and give money back to its shareholders, Apple is now worth more than Dell. Oh and Microsoft and Intel combined.

Whether we tax high and offer decent public services, or tax low and allow the business sector to cover the weight, it doesn’t matter. If we don’t innovate, we will cease to be relevant.

So I’m asking you, America: quit arguing. Just figure out how we can make more Steve Jobs(es?).

Let’s look at what helped make Steve Jobs successful:
1.) Republicans like Rich Perry seem to be strangling education for the sake of keeping taxes low. Steve Jobs went to a public high school in Cupertino, California. So did Larry Page and Marissa Mayer from Google. Yet today, we are cutting teachers and school funding is as low in some areas as it was in the Depression era. That doesn’t seem conducive to being competitive in a global market.

That being said, we really need to address teachers’ unions ability to protect bad teachers from being fired. Mr. Jobs is not a fan of this policy, and he doesn’t like teaching kids to take tests either.

2.) Apple is in Cupertino, which is in a hotbed of technology. Apple talent could come from Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and a host of other technical schools. So while Jobs himself got his education at Hewlett Packard with Woz, he was empowered by an educated base.

Right now, college tuition is increasing, but college kids are not learning about technology at the rate the private sector is producing it. Ask any tech company how difficult it is to hire developers and you’ll see.

3.) Reform patent law. I’m not a lawyer or an inventor, so I can’t confess I have a solution here. I just can’t imagine inventing anything with as many patent trolls as we see now.

4.) Reward innovation and people who think out of the box. Foster change makers. And for God’s sake, quit watching those ridiculous mindless television shows.

The G.I. Bill produced more engineers among the “Greatest Generation” than any other generation before or since. It helped foster engineers that put a man on the moon. Can our nation create an entire generation of Steve Jobs(es?) that innovate us out of this recession, or are we destined to care more about “Dancing with the Stars” than the X Prize?

Jul 27

Joi Ito Explains Creative Commons

My good friend and multi-talented designer of this blog Shyama Golden and I were discussing how confusing the internet landscape can be to an artist or musician. Seesmic founder Loic Le Meur asks Founder of Creative Commons Joi Ito what you are actually buying each time you purchase a CD, and how Creative Commons works.

Jul 26

How to Be More Pleasant on Google+

Apparently I’ve been dubbed some sort of queen of social media, and yet, it really can bore me quite a bit. From people ranting about some client they’ve had to people underhandedly pitching their brands left and right, it can get annoying. People aren’t trying to be noisy, mind you. They just aren’t given easy filtering mechanism to determine what they say to whom. This filtering is something we do naturally in the real world to keep ourselves from saying the wrong thing and the wrong time.

Enter Google+. I haven’t been the most active on Google+ yet simply because I’ve been playing with it and getting a sense of how committed Google really is to this project. I do like it though. I hope it succeeds for the sake of online communication everywhere.

It’s like Google put all the user groups I attend into one easy to use interface. I have a circle for “marketing”, one for “tech news”, one for “web developers and designers”, one for just my close friends, and another for acquaintances. I can see myself getting dozens of circles and I hope Google makes it easy to categorize these as I follow more people. I do this because I recognize that some of my followers really don’t care about marketing news, or what I did this weekend. Google+ also makes it easier to learn about different subjects because I can just click on a stream to see what is said by people who are experts in that topic.

I believe Google+ would benefit by allowing users to be transparent with at least some of their Circles. This would allow people to choose if they wanted to follow my posts pertaining to marketing, tech news, or just funny comments. I’m no UX expert so I’ll leave the details of something like this to them.

My biggest fear with Google+ is that people will get obsessed with the follower count game. As I’ve said like a broken record, it really doesn’t matter how many followers you have. If you can figure out how to deliver messages to people in a way that converts, you can be more effective with 50 people than with 50000. If people on Google+ get caught up in the follower count game, we risk just as much noise as we get on Twitter and Facebook.

I’m not sure how to stop people from using Google+ as a broadcast channel with little regard of what gets said to whom. I just hope people are mindful of their signal to noise ratio when they use it.

Jul 18

Caveats for Quantifying Online Influence

So Omar Gallaga wrote an Austin American Statesman piece about how our lives are increasingly becoming measured by our online presences. It was a well written piece and probably opened a lot of people’s eyes about how they are being judged in a way they had not previously recognized. You should read it if you have not already.

The piece talks about Klout, a startup that created a scoring system to measure one’s online influence. Klout uses algorithms that evaluate who you are talking to and how often in social media circles the same way Google PageRank does. Some PR and social media firms are using it to reach out to influencers, and Klout now has perks for people who have Klout scores above a certain number. To reach people with high Klout scores, you can contact the company to “get in”.

This approach is too simplistic, like an easy button PR firms can hit so they can say to their clients, “Hey, we got you covered on this launch”. While I myself value what Klout offers, it is a factor within many factors when considering how to expand your brand’s presence.

Let’s use this graphic/scenario on the right to show why brands really should take more care in managing their online reputation.***

1.) Influence is never static. The influence this would wield today would be much more damaging to my brand than it would a month ago. Although Klout scores do change over time, they don’t change overnight.

That being said, an awesome potential subject matter expert and influencer could have a low Klout score today, but could increase it over time. Is it wise to make that person feel less important than Rupert Murdoch?

2.) A person’s influence on a subject matter depends on his or her expertise in that field. Rupert Murdoch and crew don’t seem to get new media and the blogosphere. If people judged me by News Corp’s record in new media, I could actually lose influence by association.

3.) Influence must always be considered qualitative as well as quantitative. I don’t respect Rupert Murdoch. Say I went to a PR firm and said, “I want media influencers with Klout scores above 60 to tweet about my blog”, they could very easily return to me with someone like Rupert Murdoch. Do I want his endorsement, or the types of clients he would bring? What if he becomes my #1 nightmare customer and his followers are almost as bad? I marketed to him because he’s big instead of paying attention to whether or not his followers would benefit by my product.

4.) PR is just as much about building community as it is “spreading the word”. When you judge people purely on their influence number or Googlibility, you get a bunch of people who are “kind of a big deal”. People who are “big deals” can be demanding as customers, and often demand completely different things. That can make a product that appeases the majority of them very difficult.

I’m not saying you should ignore Klout completely. I just question practices like judging customers based on some sort of score instead of taking the time to evaluate how much value you can offer their friends and followers. Klout works best through a software API and paired with other metrics.

**Relax. I don’t actually know Rupert Murdoch and I’m not tapping your phone. I do sometimes sneak in your house and rearrange your furniture though. Anywho…

Jul 16

How @Expedia Demonstrated What Community Managers Should Do

People have told me that I shouldn’t expect companies to be perfect. Good advice. I don’t expect companies to be perfect–I do expect them to accept responsibility when it is appropriate and learn from the experience so it isn’t duplicated again. Basically, if you mess up, just do what you can to fix it.

So about a month back, I had some big headaches caused by an issue with Expedia. I’m happy to report that @Expedia referred me to their team at Corporate, who promptly issued me a credit for my inconvenience and recorded what my issues were so they could hopefully prevent issues in the future.

At a bigger company like Expedia, it makes sense for their social media team to act like a point guard for the company. In this situation, @expedia followed up and got me directly to the people I needed to speak to. So good job picking the ball up where you dropped it, Expedia. I will continue to book trips on your website.

Jul 12

The (Not So) Secret Truth Behind Successful Community Managers

What’s worth more–having your brands’ tweet retweeted a bunch, or having a tweet ABOUT your brand get retweeted a bunch?

It depends. If the tweet is about basketball shoes and it’s by me, it’s probably not worth anything. If it’s by LeBron James, it could be worth millions.

Numbers like retweets and reach can be addicting to a marketer, and it can be easy/fun to get caught up in them all day. Don’t get me wrong–I measure just about everything, primarily as a means to listen. I love tools like HootSuite, Radian6, and obviously Google Analytics because they help me determine what resonates in a community and what doesn’t. But there’s no use to bringing in a lot of people if they are just going to be unhappy with the product I am selling. Marketing is only one aspect of communicating with users.

I hate to define this role so broadly, but the only defining characteristic of a Community Manager is that he or she uses social media tools. Social Media tools are just communication tools, like telephones. You can use telephones for a lot of different purposes within a company. The question shouldn’t be “How can we get more followers?” The question ultimately is, “How can this Community Manager leverage online communication channels to help us serve our customers better?” You can have zero followers or one million followers and actually accomplish this result depending on the channels you use, and different Community Managers have different approaches.

Successful Community Managers aren’t just given follower metrics they must hit. They contribute to business goals that come from the top. This could mean reducing churn, or helping establish thought leadership which brings in more talent to build a better product, or reducing negative PR. The metrics depend on an individual company’s business objectives and you can’t blame a Community Manager if you don’t tell them what you are looking for. If my blog brings one superstar into my company or influencer on board to my product, who cares that my RSS subscriptions are low? I can get hype in arenas that are much more public than a measly company blog when I have the right people on my side.

Build rockstars. Everyday.

*insert LeBron joke by Mavs fan here.*

Jun 24

Re: Women in Tech, Don’t Apologize, Just Recognize

Almost a year ago, a flurry of TechCrunch commenters repeatedly called me the “C word”, insisted that my brain somehow was incapable of quantitative tasks, and one even told me if I didn’t like my female body, I could euthanize myself legally in the state of Oregon. Awesome.

Today Katrina Tolentino put out a brave post about what it is like to network in the heavily male dominated industry that is tech. Basically, some men can be really crass and think they are clever, when actually they are just gross. I know Katrina. She is a good person and really shouldn’t have to put up with that crap.

The typical response to these situations is apologies. Men lament that other men could be so lame and hope that future generations will not have to face such absurdity. As someone who gets this stuff as much as anyone, I’m asking you, stop apologizing. Women are not the only victims here. We all are.

According to studies conducted by Columbia University, McKinsey & Co., Goldman Sachs, and Pepperdine University, research documents a clear relationship between women in senior management and corporate financial success. Ernst & Young rounded up studies that show that women can make the difference between economic success and failure in the developing world, between good and bad decision-making in the industrialized world, and between profit and loss in the corporate world. Their conclusion: American companies would do well with more senior women. Economists at Davos even speculated that the presence of more women on Wall Street might have averted the downturn.

Why? Some speculate that women tend to be more risk averse and instead think of steady, attainable longterm goals. Women also think more along the lines of collaboration rather than competition. This balances out some of the “one-upsmanship” and competitive nature seen in their male counterparts.

I’m outspoken, intelligent, and have worked hard my entire life. When I express myself at work, I’m not challenging you to make you look bad and I’m not just scheming to get ahead. I’m challenging you because I have a perspective you might not have considered that can actually help you. When men see women as victims, they fail to see what invaluable assets different perspectives can bring to any group. THIS is the attitude that needs to stop.

Don’t believe me? Ask Michael Arrington what Heather Harde has brought to TechCrunch, or Larry Page what Marissa Mayer means to Google. Ask Mark Zuckerberg what Sheryl Sandberg brings to Facebook. It’s great to think you can be Super Man, but you aren’t. We just do our best to make sure you don’t fall of a ledge thinking you can suddenly fly.

And the next time you say something crude to a woman at a happy hour, remember that one day, someone could wise up and hire that woman in a senior management position. She won’t be a piece of meat then–she’ll be your boss.

Jun 21

How Can Tech Get Rid of Its Unsightly “Blubble”?

Color got some big print recently. Not for technological advancements, mind you. Color is highly regarded as the quintessential poster child for the tech bubble, and their excesses were covered in the New York Times. Color raised $41 million, doesn’t seem to have a lot of active users, and has already gone through one founder. You know what makes VCs and angels happier than an active user base? Seeing a half pipe skate park at a portfolio company that makes no money. Color has one, apparently.

I could be biased. My experience working in startups began in 2006. If the vibrant startup scene today resembles the parties from the movie “Old School”, the startup scene then resembled “The Hangover”. Unlike now and the scene in 1998, a startup existed to make money. Not theoretical YouTube money that eventually turned into a pot of gold in five years. Few banked on being bought by behemoth publicly traded companies who couldn’t innovate their ways out of a paper sack, and those who did had experience doing so. You didn’t have to be making money at that moment in time, but if you didn’t have a viable business model, you didn’t exist. Period.

One of the best speeches I have ever seen was actually an impromptu speech by Wil Shipley at GitHub’s CodeConf. In it, Shipley expressed his frustrations with the all too common question VCs ask: “What is your exit strategy?” Shipley’s answer was simple. “Code until I die.” He cited Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Jeff Bezos as examples of entrepreneurs who made more money sticking with their respected companies than selling them.

That’s the big difference between what I see now and what I experienced in 2006. Back then, there was no “startup lifestyle”–you just worked at a software company. We had to work hard because there were very few handouts. Every hire mattered, every dollar counted, and every new and retained user was a win. It wasn’t about the “exit strategy”. It was simply about delivering value to people. The reality of successful startups hasn’t changed according to data from the National Venture Capital Association, but our perception of how to obtain this success certainly has.

Seeing these types of startups is like watching those guys who think they are going to eat a bunch, get really fat, and then magically turn it into muscle somehow. Now I suppose it works for some people but for the most part, they just turn out like beefcake Cartman. Yuck.