SEO & Social Media: What is the Relationship? Finally, we have the Answer!

By Rich Devine | Aug 30, 2010 2:59:13 AM

There are so many ways to answer this question. I've been trying to answer this question for at least a year, in terms of how we position our agency services and capabilities -- and I think I have the answer.

But first, lets discuss why it's so difficult to consistently and concisely define SEO/Social kinship and fit it neatly into a box. There are many reasons -- a few of of them include:

1. Subjective Definitions of Social Media:

While we most folks generally agree on what SEO is, why it's important, how it's generally done, and what the benefit can be -- no two people have the same definition for Social Media. For some, it's about blogs. For others it's about social networks like Facebook, and perfoming community management. Yet for others, it's about having conversations using Twitter. Some look at Social as a means for outreach, public relations, and awareness. And others view it plainly and simply as another visitor acquisition channel. Then there are those that view Social as a means to understand sentiment and tonality related to a brand or product. Is it limited to just digital? Or does it include any kind of social effort and behavior that exists online or offline?

Because there is no generally accepted definition of Social Media, how we understand the relationship between Social and Search is just as fragmented. Likewise the way we execute strategy based on Social/SEO synergy is inconsistent.

2. Lack of Standard Process

Because there is no widely accepted definition for Social Media -- how the medium is applied by marketers varies widely. This is where we can get in trouble. From an agency perspective, this is maddening because I want to hone our method, and define our capabilties and offerings. But the more we try to add structure and process to the execution of social media -- the more risk we face in missing new and innovative ways to harness the potential of social media.

For SEO & Social -- the same challenge exists. Any standardized process to realize synergy between the two may limit potential from that synergy.

3. Rate of Change:

Trying too hard to standardize process is risky because of the rapid onslaught of new tools, technologies, fads, and practices. The rate of change we see requires a reset in our understanding of what Social is -- monthly or even weekly. I won't even try to recite all of the variables that go towards 'change', but just think about how Twitter has impacted how we view social just during the last 6-12 months. Think about the emergence of local-social phenomenons like Foursquare and now Facebook Places. Think about the impact of Mobile and Mobile Apps. Think about all of the ancillary tools, widgets, and nic-nacs that strike social resonance and inspire sharing.

For SEO specifically, consider the impact of unviversal search. A SERP is no long just a SERP. Both real-time and seasoned social content continues to be more and more prominent -- both in its display within search results as well as its contributing impact on site authority and rank potential.

3. Organizational Boundaries:

However you define Social, there is considerable overlap between SEO & Social. But all too often, those that are responsible for SEO aren't always the ones assigned to manage Social Media efforts. Naturally, whatever potential synergies may exist between both disciplines aren't realized as well as they could be if managed by separate teams or resources.

So with so much ambiquity and fragmentation, how do we make sense of the connection between SEO and Social? Well, I'm glad you asked, because I have the answer. But before I tell you, you need to pay me. For such an invaluable answer, why would we give it away for free?

Don't worry, all you have to do is Pay with a Tweet (one of my favorite little social nic-nacs). Here's the deal: we want more traffic for ZAAZ Blogs. And there's a couple of ways we can get it: through increased SEO visibility, and through viral Social Media distribution of our blog.

So here's how this works: my ground-breaking answer and the remainder of this riveting blog post can be accessed after you tweet a nice little tweet. Your tweet tells your followers all about this clever blog post written by yours truly, and how it changed your life. Your tweet inspires further sharing of my post and blog to others, and their interest in accessing my 'answer' incents further tweeting and social sharing.

But it doesn't stop there! Many of those that take interest in my post and our blog will lead to a viral cascade of links (blogs/sites/tweets/etc.) Google then sees these links and adds authority to our blog, increasing our search engine rank potential.

Believe me people -- the answer is worth it. Seriously. But even if you don't care about the answer, do me a solid, and just tweet this damn blog post, okay? Just click the link below. (Oh, and follow me too!)

  

    

#shamelessselfpromoter

The WSJ's Datapocalypse 2010

By Jason Carmel | Aug 2, 2010 2:57:18 PM

The Wall Street Journal has an amazing interactive piece entitled "What They Know" that focuses on the data that is collected and used for tracking and reporting by 50 of the most visited sites on the Web. Play around with it for a while- you get a sense of the massive amounts of data that popular sites such as ebay and CNN.com collect about you behind the scenes and how that data might impact your privacy online.

Unfortunately, the good people at the WSJ couldn't leave it alone with a powerful display of information. Instead of representing an informed understanding of what data companies are tracking, the risks and benefits of collecting and using that data to the end consumer, and an assessment of efforts that are or should be made to improve the system, they got all "DATAPOCALYPSE 2010" on us. Let's unpack a few issues I had from this little suitcase of drama, shall we?

Issue #1: Marketers are spying on Internet users"

This is how the author starts off the article (note the bold was their emphasis, not mine), and it's an exaggeration of the grossest order. "Spying" is not a term one should thrown around lightly. In fact, unless it is literally applied to the act of assassinating someone with an umbrella tip or swallowing something on microfilm, the only people who use the verb "spying" in this context are those who are trying to create controversy. Are marketers "spying" on you as you navigate the web? Of course not. Collecting anonymous data to inform how successfully an audience is consuming certain content is a far cry from sending someone with an accent to open up your home safe and take pictures of your offshore bank account numbers with a very, very tiny camera. Using the term "spying" when you mean "sharing aggregated web data" is from page 12 of the Fox News Handbook of Journalism, and the WSJ needs to be better than that.

Issue #2:  I'm not even going to justify the graphic of the dude with the binoculars with a comment.

"Watchers?" Honestly. The WSJ makes Web Analysts and Data Miners sound as if they are video taping you in the shower.

Issue #3: Exposure Index?

The Exposure Index is the grade that the WSJ folks give to each site to inform the reader of how worried she should be about her data being traded around like prison cigarettes. The WSJ explains its methodology obliquely at best. Volume of trackers and opt-out options are interesting circumstantial factors, but they pale in comparison to an analysis of 1) what information is being shared 2) with whom 3) for what purpose, which this index appears to lack:

• More tracking isn't necessarily more sensitive tracking - The fact that a site collects 200 pieces of information doesn't make that information particularly relevant or sensitive, in aggregate. There is a false assumption permeating the data as it's presented that each data tracker leads to information of equal value. Think about how patently untrue this is. Information concerning which articles I read on espn.com and how ESPN would share that information in an aggregate way, even to 100 third party advertisers is in the grand scheme of evil out there in the world fairly low on the totem pole. Compare that to the very sensitive financial data that is collected and used by PayPal, which gets a better score on the exposure rank, in part because it has significantly fewer trackers.
• Define your terms - I think the infographics would be a lot more telling, and consequently a lot less sensationalist, if they included a key explaining what these 3rd party sites are that get your data and what they are doing with it. When a site shares information with Microsoft, for example, it likely has to do with the Bing! search terms used to get to the site. The trackers are not sniffing your machine to see if that copy of Outlook 2010 is registered. Similarly, "Coremetrics," will sound a lot less ominous if you know that it is a standard web tracking tool that monitors anonymous visitor behavior on site, rather than a collective of Nigerians trying to steal your daughter's college tuition.

I don't want to be misinterpreted here as saying that we shouldn't be concerned about what data is being collected about us on the Web and how it is being used. Privacy policies are impossible to understand, a lot of unnecessarily sensitive data is being collected and stored indefinitely for no discernible advantage to the end user, and, let's be frank here, businesses can't always be trusted to act in good faith when an opportunity to make a killing arises, and the only thing standing in its way are the sanctity of a few words on a web page that no one really reads anyway. I work in the industry and know full well that it needs to change. I applaud the WSJ for releasing its findings and recognizing Internet privacy as an important issue.

My concern here is that the language used by the WSJ inspires panic (check out the results of their poll) rather than conversation, and panic invariably results in knee-jerk reactions and ineffective legislation- both of which are on the way.

Google Encrypted Search: Curious George or War Games?

By Rich Devine | May 26, 2010 4:48:45 PM

If you are a search marketer, and you haven’t been locked in your basement playing Dungeons & Dragons while your ranking reports run, you’ve probably heard -- and either shrugged or freaked out – about Google’s announced launch of 'encrypted search'.

In a nut-shell, this secure version (https) of Google is supposed to allow users to freely search without fear of their search behavior being ‘observed’. Google’s own Search-Spam-Czar (not an official Obama administration post), Matt Cutts, issued a congratulatory blog post extolling the ‘inspiration’ of encrypted search. Cutts cites an example of working from your laptop on public Wi-Fi at the coffee shop – he celebrates the option of using Google’s encrypted search so that the coffee shop can’t oversee what you are searching.

Seriously? Unless you are Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer, do you really think the pimpled-teenager serving your venti mocha caffe latte con panna gives a decaf about your searches for the latest Chuck Norris jokes?

 

Is this a big deal?

Let’s talk about what this means for search and digital marketers. All respect to Matt Cutts (who is deservedly loved and revered -- especially by ZAAZ’s own Ryan Jones, our resident Matt Cutts serial tweet-stalker), but this is not about coffee shop Googling. Matt's blog didn't include an example of the poor search marketing manager trying to optimize her site only to find that Google’s encrypted search won’t pass the search referral data that is so central to her efforts.

And that’s the crux of the issue for us as search marketers: whether we will or won’t get that lovely referral data. For a rather fatalistic treatment on referral data implications, check out this blog by the equally revered Danny Sullivan.

Clearly, there’s a wide range of opinion and speculation over what this may or may not mean. Where do you fall? Let’s go back to business school and break out the trusty-rusty 2x2 box matrix to plot the wide range of sentiment on the topic. If you’re a search marketer, you should fall into one of the following quadrants. We’ll call this the Google Encrypted Search Freak-Out Matrix (GESFOM):

How freaked out we should or shouldn’t be is based on two big unknowns as reflected by the variables in our GESFOM (rolls off the tongue doesn't it?). First, how widely will Google scale its encrypted version of search? Will it truly remain as an opt-in only feature for the paranoid and cautious who are adept enough to add an ‘s’ to http://google.com? Or will Google scale this much more widely, either offering opt-out or no ‘opt’ at all?

Second variable is the impact to your search marketing efforts. How will you perform keyword research? How will you analyze the impact of referred keyword searches to your site? How will you attribute success to your search marketing efforts?

For now, I’m somewhere in the lower right quadrant of the Matrix. I’m Curious George. This is interesting enough for me to take notice and wonder about the monkey-mischief that could result – but as of now, this simply isn’t scaled widely enough to affect referral data to the point where I can’t take effective optimization action as a search marketer.

However, what happens if Google does widen the scale of encrypted search? What if they go bananas and just make this the default search experience? Well friends, then my GESFOM status goes to DEFCON-5 status, I go Matthew Broderick-crazy, and I start playing tic-tac-toe with a chimpanzee named Virgil.

 

Why is Google doing this?

On its face, this really is all about privacy for Google. But as we discussed above, this is not about protecting your Chuck Norris searches from the Starbucks dude. This is about Google more than it is about you. Google is proactively (or reactively) addressing potential legal and regulative vulnerability and ultimately trying to protect its own business interests and maintain shareholder value. Nothing wrong with that -- its what businesses do.

Ironically Google, for all the  not-so-veiled enmity they’ve had for Microsoft – is Microsoft in 2010. They are a dominant force in a relatively un-trodden and un-regulated industry. And dominant businesses are prime targets for stone throwing governments and lawyers.

This may be as simple as Google being mindful of the prolonged mess that Microsoft was mired in with the Department of Justice, the even more ridiculous battle Microsoft fought with the European Union, and the recent trouble Facebook has ‘Faced’ with privacy. Google has enjoyed a long run with relatively minimal trouble on the regulatory or legal side -- considering how dominant they really are. Providing encrypted search, could be nothing more than a bases-covering business decision.

 

Moving forward

As noted, there are just too many unknowns that need to become knowns before we can determine where we’ll end up with this, or how truly impactful this will be to long-term search marketing efforts, especially as related to referral data. Hopefully Google will be mindful of our small, humble community of search marketers who rely on sources of referral traffic data to do our job -- data which we use in ways that do not infringe upon individual privacy.

Google may limit the scale of encrypted search, or pass data in a more formal way to marketers and analytics vendors. Too soon to tell just yet – but let’s have some faith that Google avoids anything that would drive us into GESFOM/DEFCON/Matthew Broderick/Chimpanzee insanity.

Search Engines and Brand Lift, part 2

By Erik Koto | Mar 11, 2010 3:28:30 PM

As we discussed in our previous post, ZAAZ recently conducted research on whether and how the use of different search engines affected the perception of the actual brands searched. We discovered that the search experience on different search engines yielded different results, with some results being more relevant to the consumer than others. 

The research concentrated on loyal search users of Yahoo, Google, and Bing. We looked specifically at the correlation between brand awareness and search efficacy, and how search engines are changing consumer behavior.  Researchers and analysts from ZAAZ, Compete, and BrandAsset Consulting collaborated on the research.  Compete and BrandAsset provided behavioral and attitudinal datasets, respectively, and ZAAZ led the analysis portion of the study by combining attitudinal and behavioral data, to draw a more complete picture of consumer search behavior.
 
The findings indicate that if the results of a search query satisfy the needs of the consumer, then the search engine has greater appeal to that potential customer— and he or she will also have a deeper connection to the brand searched.  In other words, the search engine can provide different degrees of “brand lift” to a destination site.  The user’s experience on the destination site is shaped by the search engine that the user takes to get there, and that experience has an impact on the parent brand.
 
For example, while researching the wireless industry, we found that while Bing loyalists tended to have a higher visit rate to Sprint's site, Yahoo loyalists had a higher rate of conversion or purchase behavior on the Sprint site. So Sprint sees a higher rate of online purchases from people coming from Yahoo search compared with other search engines.  In the retail category, Walmart.com saw the highest rate of online visitors, shoppers, and converters from Bing loyalists. Amazon.com, on the other hand, saw its highest rates in all three categories from Google users.

We also discovered varying profiles among different search engine loyalists.  If you’re a Bing user, you’re far more likely to be an innovator or early adopter, compared with Yahoo or Google loyalists.  The research also provided rich psychographic details about each loyalist group.
 
The attached deck (pdf, 850kb) goes into greater detail on the differences between the industries analyzed: wireless, retail, travel, and automotive.
 
Some potential implications for marketers from this research include:

Resource allocation models among search engines could change depending on the brand. In other words, brands devoting funds to search advertising must take into consideration which engines are going to do the best job for them behaviorally and provide the highest brand lift.

Advertisers’ sites could be optimized and targeted based on referring search engine.  As marketers become more informed about what the referring search engine says about the visitor’s brand perceptions and likelihood to convert, dynamic targeting programs can be developed to speak to each audience and serve relevant actions that are most likely to increase value.

This study is a jumping-off point for deeper research and monetization modeling of how interactions across the digital channel affect brand perception and conversion.  Search activity does not exist in a vacuum, and is influenced by a brand’s mix of bought, earned, and owned media.  Using data from this study, in conjunction with social media listening, other bought media activity, and deeper site side analytics, will help marketers create more effective outreach and engagement strategies across the digital channel.

By Anders Rosenquist and Erik Koto

Search Engines and Brand Lift

By Anders Rosenquist | Feb 24, 2010 3:50:07 PM

Adweek recently published the results of a new study conducted by ZAAZ, Wunderman, BrandAsset® Valuator, and Compete that explores the relationship between the search engine that consumers use to find a brand’s website and the consumer’s perception of that brand. The study found that loyal users of Bing, Yahoo!, and Google have distinct characteristics that benefit some brands more than others.

“This research demonstrates that marketers have a real choice to make when formulating search strategies,” said Shane Atchison, CEO of ZAAZ. “The search engine acts as a kind of ‘train’ on the Internet. Each train provides a different set of unique results or ‘destinations.’ Consumer preference for a specific train demonstrates a unique demographic and psychographic profile.” That preference, the study found, can have enormous impact on any brand a consumer searches for.
 
ZAAZ led the analysis portion of this pioneering research study, which combined attitudinal and behavioral data to draw a more complete picture of consumer search behavior.  In this two-part post, we’ll first discuss our methodology;   in the second post, we’ll discuss the findings and how marketers could put these findings to use.  (Note: this research was independently conducted, and was not funded by any of our clients.  You can view a version of the results presentation here: Search Engine Research (pdf, 850 kb)
 
Our team combined two extensive databases from BrandAsset Valuator (BAV) and Compete. Both BAV and Compete own the largest databases in their areas of expertise.
 
BAV’s databases contain a range of attitudinal information – focusing on 72 brand metrics – and use the world's most comprehensive database of brands. Its BrandAsset Valuator model has measured brands since 1993; today, over 35,000 brands have been evaluated, and over 600,000 respondents in over 50 countries have been surveyed. To find out more about BAV data, try comparing a few of your favorite brands using the ZAAZ-built interactive tool: http://thebrandbubble.com/explore/.
 
We also used behavioral data provided by Compete. Compete combines site and search analytics and surveys on a diverse sample of more than 2 million users in the U.S. to understand what people are clicking on and why. Compete manages the largest pool of online consumer behavior data in the industry.
 
The datasets from BAV and Compete  both contained information on the same brands across verticals including retail, travel, wireless, and automotive.  Additionally, both data sets contained a field with information on a consumer’s primary search engine. Taken independently, each data set provides insights into search engine use.  However, when ZAAZ combined and mined the data sets, we found a much more powerful and complete story.
 
At ZAAZ, we live in a world of disparate data sources; we have data for Web analytics, social media, usability, optimization testing, surveys, and more.  Almost always, this data is supplied through different tools and in different formats.  Most online marketers will be familiar with this scenario: too much data, too few connections, limited insights and action.  We’re constantly looking for new and innovative ways to combine data and tell a true 360-degree story of the customer.
 
The research published by AdWeek is certainly not the first time we’ve been through this process.
 
Working with Ford we’ve joined attitudinal survey data to behavioral Web analytics data, and analyzed this data by unique user.  With this combined approach, we are able to map how different user journeys affect customer’s brand perception and likelihood to purchase a Ford vehicle.  As a result, we have quantitatively identified what areas of the Ford site and types of content are most effective at driving sales – an insight we never could have gained by analyzing the data sets in isolation.  Ford has used this data to channel media, redesign site architecture, and run a data-driven optimization program.
 
Working with Dell, we combined site optimization testing with in-person usability testing to understand why a particular creative treatment won. For a particular campaign, we found from our optimization tests which page variants generated the greatest interaction with the page. In addition, our analytics data showed that there were several key places in the purchase path where users were abandoning at an alarming rate. To gain insight into why this was happening, we conducted usability tests in our Seattle lab with Dell consumers, having them step through the purchase path and describe their process. We were able to uncover how participants’ attitudes toward the site and the brand changed through the process, why parts of the site became annoying, and why they decided to jump out of the purchase path—either to find a different product, or to go  a competitor’s site.  The insights gleaned from combining optimization and usability test data helped generate  site changes focused on improving user attitude and increasing conversion.
 
With the search engine research, the objective was to understand the relationship between a customer choice of search engine and the brand perception of products being searched.  Once we had the data sets combined we set to work looking for trends.  Using a series of aggregations, drilldowns, and data visualizations, we were able to observe trends in the data common across attitudinal and behavioral data sets. Once the trends in the data were clear, we pulled together stakeholders from BAV and Compete to build consensus on the interpretation of the data as well as actionable strategies.
 
Next week we’ll discuss some of the findings from the research and how to take action on these findings...

By Erik Koto and Anders Rosenquist

Crafting a Great Community / Social Media Policy

By Ryan Turner | Nov 21, 2009 10:31:08 AM

(Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.)

I've said before that there are three crucial elements of online community policy: Legality, appropriateness, and relevance. I'm now thinking that there's actually a "hierarchy of needs" among those three, and that taken together and put into practice, they are much more than a set of rules for what's ok to do in the community. They’re more like a social contract, a creator of quality and value.

 

Legality isn’t exactly black and white, as you’d sort of want it to be. But it is quite straightforward in that you basically need to do what your lawyers tell you. In many cases there’s some education and negotiation, but there’s also a reason lawyers get paid a lot. In the end, you do what they say.

Likewise, appropriateness is pretty easy. You generally rule out profanity and abuse. From there you can dial the politeness requirements up or down to suit your needs. In fantasy football, for example, smack talk is part of the fun; in a forum for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, behavioral standards are much higher.

But deciding what's relevant and what isn't is a very different story. I consulted, for example, with REI on their online community strategy and governance, and there are a few great examples from that exercise of how challenging relevance is to define:

 

• It’s tempting for an outdoor retailer with a merchandising focus to align community discussions with its product taxonomy. But REI doesn’t sell photography stuff, and photography is a huge part of many people’s outdoor experience. They want to talk about it. So, this one isn’t too tough, right? How about:

 

• Would it be ok to talk about snowmobiling? To post photos and videos of snowmobiling? What about heli-skiing? REI’s focus on stewardship and sustainable enjoyment of the outdoors makes this tough, because most cross-country skiers despise snowmobiles, and heli-skiing is accessible only to the well-off. And then there’s the whole snowmobiles in Yellowstone thing. Yikes. But wait:

 

• In regions like Texas, among the outdoor activities most enjoyed by REI customers are hunting and fishing. Would it be ok on an REI web site to post a photo of yourself posing with the elk you just shot? The poor barefoot hikers in Portland would pass out! But the folks in Plano, or Missoula, would get it. So maybe the elk feels like an extreme example. What about a photo of your six-year-old proudly displaying the day’s catch of bluegill?

 

The thing is, these are brand questions. And when you involve customers in content creation, you expose yourself to all the variety of your customers’ senses of what your brand is all about, from regional variation to variation in taste and preference.

It’s messy. And yes, you have to exercise control. But a degree of openness is also critical, and not only because people won’t participate in a system they perceive as restricting their self-expression. Online community and social media represent a tremendous opportunity to give customers an emotional stake in the brand, a sense of ownership that will increase value at the far end of the funnel—increasing loyalty and generating word of mouth advocacy.

Craft your policies—both outward-facing in community settings and inward-facing for managing your own company’s social media activity—not with the mindset that you need to restrict activity or restrain creative self-expression, but with the mindset that you need to enable creativity and empower participants. I think of it as analogous to sports: The rules are there to make the game safe, fair, and fun—not to keep people from playing.

Where to Start? 20 Questions for Corporate Social Media

By Ryan Turner | Nov 19, 2009 3:46:28 PM

(Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.)

Our social media engagements typically start with some kind of assessment, with varying degrees of formality and scope. We have an internal list of questions we use to plan these assessments, some of which are more relevant and important for a given engagement than others. Here they are:

 

1. Have you formalized the goals, KPIs, and reporting for your social media activities?

This gives us a sense of the degree to which social media efforts are aligned with the business, as well as the current state of listening, analysis, and reporting.

2. Do you know who’s talking about you online, what they’re saying, and the scope of their influence?

Most (though not all) companies I’ve worked with have a general sense of what’s being said about them online. Typically, the past year, this sense is mainly anecdotal. In the next year I expect to see much more systematic, sophisticated, and analytical listening. But if you’re not there yet, you’re not alone.

3. How effectively are you able to respond?

Yes, this begs the question of whether a business is responding at all. For those who are, the question of degree of effectiveness can be a stumper. The real question here is: How do you know how effective you are (see #1)?

4. What technology tools are you using to monitor social media activity around your brand / product / service?

People really are surprisingly resourceful when it comes to using free tools to listen online. Even for businesses without a sophisticated listening platform in place, a conversation about the tools they’re using tells us a lot about what they care about and are (or aren’t yet) able to measure.

5. Which groups and individuals are informally involved in social media activities?

Once you start walking around asking people, the variety here can be surprising. Typically corporate social media efforts emerge out of PR, Marketing, or Customer Service. But ad hoc efforts are very common, and there’s usually something important driving them. Building out a strong program requires accommodating, supporting, and enabling ad hoc efforts.

6. Whose job description includes it, and who has overall responsibility?

As you might guess, the answer here last year was very often “nobody.” Next year we’ll see a shift toward the guerilla social media people formalizing their roles and management recognizing the need for coordination and leadership. And yes, this question can set off turf wars. Tread lightly.

7. Have you defined a corporate policy for engaging with customers through social media?

If not, better get on it. Talking early to legal / brand / compliance, especially in regulated industries, always saves frustration later.

8. In what third-party venues do you have a presence?

This always yields surprises. “None…. Well, oh yeah, I guess we do have the Facebook thingie. And someone in marketing has been posting our ads to YouTube.” Or: “Marketing is in charge of our Twitter accounts. Except for the ones they use in customer service. And Dale down in R&D is a total Twitter fanatic.”

9. How well are those efforts coordinated?

Yes, more question-begging. Most often, efforts across social networks, blogs, and media sharing sites are not coordinated. Maybe, just maybe, they should be.

10. What is your brand’s online personality?

This one is a great conversation starter. It’s really about understanding how to show up in social media (hint: not with offers, and not with campaign messages). This topic is really about starting to think about how the people representing the brand should show up in social settings—authentically, as people, but as people not only representing but also enacting the brand and its character. I like to use the example of our client NAU. They make sustainably-developed clothing, and they blog not about their clothing products but about sustainability, outdoor recreation, and social action—the passions that are at the emotional core of their brand. A while back they posted, for example, a video of people moving an entire Portland, OR household by bicycle. Awesome. You want to subscribe, to follow, to befriend them.

11. How consistently do your social media efforts embody the character of the brand?

This is really a question about governance. How organized are you? Do you have a system in place to manage customer interaction across touch points? Is the system in use?

12. Where do your customers spend time online? What content do they create?

Market research typically tells us a lot about where customers spend time online. What it typically doesn’t tell us is very much about what they’re doing—So 40% of your customers check Facebook daily. That’s good to know, but to really drive action, you need to understand whether they’re there socially, professionally, or both. Whether they’re using it to market their services, keep in touch with Granny (oh yes, Granny is definitely on there), or what. They’re on Twitter, good—but what are they talking about? Whom are they following?

13. What are their preferred information sources, and how do they consume them?

What’s the information ecosystem your customers tap? Who are the influencers? What do they read? Blogs, newspapers, Digg? Are they looking at web pages, RSS feeds? Are they reading on mobile? Are they sharing things they find? Which things? With whom?

14. Where are their relationships?

Whom do your customers interact with online? Through what channels—IM, email, blog post commentary, Flickr photostreams? On social networks? Twitter? Do they use different channels for different kinds of relationships? Which ones, and what kinds?

15. What are you doing to enable customer participation on your own properties?

Do you have an email contact form buried in your footer? Or a p2p support forum? Corporate blogs? Can customers comment? Review? Rate? Can they interact with each other? Create content and add it? Suggest or vet ideas? Do they have a stake in your next version? What value can they create for each other, and how can you enable it?

16. How does your organization interact with customers online?

Can your customers contact you? How? Simply being reachable is a great first step. The next step is to proactively engage customers who need support, to reach out to your customers for feedback and ideas, and to create opportunities for customer collective intelligence to create business intelligence.

17. How do you capture business intelligence from those conversations?

Social media listening has a major difference from behavioral web analytics: It’s a two-way conversation, and it’s not just about what people do. It’s also about what they say, and how they feel.

18. What is the process for making your business intelligence actionable?

Intelligence is useless without action. But the challenges in actionablizing (ha!) business intelligence are often really substantial. How do you get the right bits and pieces to the people who can take action? This question is really about escalation, delegation, roles and responsibilities, and workflow. To make the most of what you know, you need definition around how you’re going to do something about it, who’s responsible, and how success gets measured and reported.

19. Have you monetized the value of your social media efforts?

I’ll be honest. The answer here is always no. Social media ROI is one thing, and monetized estimates of the impact of social media activities are another. ROI is great, and showing ROI in social media is absolutely possible to do. The problem is that a large portion of the payoff in social media happens over the long term and is measured in, for example, lifetime customer value and word of mouth—neither of which show up on your quarterly balance sheets.

20. Estimated the financial impact on lifetime customer value or word of mouth?

We do have a very advanced approach to this, but it’s a subject for another post. Essentially the idea is to be really smart about some monetized estimates of the value of certain measurable activities, then validate and refine those estimates over time.

 

Naturally, we don’t typically get these questions answered by sitting down with the marketing people for an hour and just asking. We basically never ask these questions in these words. A huge part of the assessment is getting time in conversation with the right people in the first place, and talking with them about their jobs, their goals, satisfactions, and frustrations. We use a combination of interviewing approaches including contextual inquiry and appreciative inquiry, and a fair amount of intuition and sneaking around. In other words, it’s not a mechanical process.

But I hope you (you few who’ve read all the way to the bottom of this post) find this list useful, and I’d really love to hear your thoughts about it. Anything missing? Anything off the mark?

Too Much Marketing

By Ryan Turner | Nov 6, 2009 4:37:11 PM

(Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture)

I really like David Armano’s Conversation Starter post from earlier this week with predicted trends in social media for next year. In particular, his first point hits on exactly what I think is going to be the key to success for marketers in social media:

1. Social media begins to look less social
With groups, lists and niche networks becoming more popular, networks could begin to feel more "exclusive." Not everyone can fit on someone's newly created Twitter list and as networks begin to fill with noise, it's likely that user behavior such as "hiding" the hyperactive updaters that appear in your Facebook news feed may become more common. Perhaps it's not actually less social, but it might seem that way as we all come to terms with getting value out of our networks — while filtering out the clutter.

OK, I actually think the header on Armano’s paragraph is, as he hints, actually the opposite of the truth—the way I’d say it is that “social media begins to look less anti-social!”

But the real point Armano is making is spot on. Social channels are too noisy, and as more and more marketers start to proactively reach out to consumers online next year, and as listening technologies are more widely adopted, we’ll see a dramatic increase in, well, spam.

I made a joke on Twitter recently about going to back to grad school. I was, I think, really obviously joking. But in minutes, I had four @replies from universities plugging their Master’s programs. Yikes!

We are fast approaching a time when public online social venues are saturated with listening marketers, responding to every mention of everything related to their brands, products, and services. It’s easy to anticipate Twitter’s @ channel, for example, becoming essentially useless.

Armano is right to predict an increase in user behaviors that enable them to filter the noise. But I also think we’ll see a rise in demand for and sophistication of privacy controls (and even products—like the “social router” I once pitched to Nancy White after her talk here at ZAAZ), as well as an increase in the importance of private networks and communities.

What’s a marketer to do?

Create value, that’s what. Next year will be a year for opt-in marketing—the focus will be on creating content and services people want to use. Heads up, folks, people don’t want you to “engage them” in “conversation.”

Social Media Teams: Different on the Agency Side than Internal

By Ryan Turner | Aug 10, 2009 7:27:51 PM

[Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.]

One of the things I've been saying a lot lately is that over the next couple years, we can expect to see corporations adding dedicated internal social media teams. Does this sound like a statement of the obvious? Then maybe the corollary is more interesting: I think agencies should do the opposite.

I've seen a similar pattern in a dozen or more corporations in the past year: Responsibility for social media falls to the person or people who get interested and raise their hands. They come from PR, customer service, marketing--and sometimes just out of the woodwork. Good!

In other words, responsibility for social media tends to happen in an ad hoc way--and I actually suspect ad hoc is a perfect way to staff an emerging discipline. And staff it you must.

Social media requires a new combination of skill sets, traversing all the disciplines I just mentioned, but also including strong writing skills, a thick skin, and the social savvy to interact with customers through online media in ways that are on-brand, authentic, human, and bounded by corporate guidelines, policy, and politics. It's hard, but for the right people it's super fun.

For the corporate social media team, representing the brand is a full-time job, with its own discrete challenges and rewards. They need to focus on developing the skills and experience to do it well.

But on the agency side, the whole thing is different. Agencies need to bring to bear their full range of capabilities to support clients' social media efforts, and that includes all the "traditional" digital disciplines--at the agency where I work, we have a 10-person social media team that includes people from development, analytics, search, optimization, user experience, creative, and client services. It's a witchy brew. Our goal is to implode the whole idea of "social media" in the next 2 years.

So my message to agencies is: Adapt, or specialize yourself into an oblivion-vortex!

To be sure, social media specialty agencies (I have friends at several of them) provide a tremendously valuable service with their depth of expertise in social media. But my prediction is, as web marketing evolves further, the breath of expertise brought to bear by "traditional digital" agencies will pose a grave threat to the specialists. They simply won't match digital agencies' capabilities in development, analytics, creative, usability, planning, and optimization.

Seven years ago, we were explaining the idea of online community. Three years ago, we were selling the importance of Web 2.0. Today, we're answering ubiquitous demand from clients that "social media" be included as a component in all our web work. Give it another 2 years and clients will see "web" and "social" as synonymous--data, content, service, identity, content objects, and relationships as integral to a holistic web strategy.

So on the agency side, there should ultimately be no such thing as a "Social Media Team," only a company made of web-savvy, passion-driven professionals who can support all aspects of corporate social media efforts--from concept through implementation.

The nuts and bolts, and rubber meeting the road, and the delivery of the service belong on the client side; and the vision, concept, and creative / conceptual infrastructure are where agencies can help. All in all, I have to admit, it ends up looking a lot like Mad Men, which my 90 year old Grandmother, true story, described as "the most realistic show yet about the '50's."

"It shows," she says, "exactly how we lived."

Site Optimization: Lipstick on a Pig?, Or, Bacon and the Theory of Local Maximum

By Ryan Turner | Dec 5, 2008 12:34:33 PM

Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.

 

Jason Carmel is a colleague of mine I learn a ton from. His expertise is in web site optimization--running experiments where he tests versions of web pages against each other to see which performs best. (Not to be confused with search engine optimization, improving a site's visibillity in search engines.)

Jason is a fairly unflappable guy. Nonetheless I recently started making an effort to get his goat. He gives me just enough encouragement that I keep going. The gist of my teasing is that optimization is nothing but a mechanical exercise to determine whether a red button works better than a blue button. "Glad to hear that red button worked out better by 2.84 percent Jason. The sum of your creative energy has produced yet another quarter million in revenue. You must really love your life, man. Hey, have you thought of trying one of those animated GIFs instead of a regular button?"

Fortunately, Jason is twice as nice as me, as well as twice as smart. He takes my ribbing well--and responds thoughtfully to the serious question underlying my teasing: We know optimization can move big numbers in terms of revenue, but can it do more than simply tweak pages to bump up conversion? Can it vet creative concepts? Can it maximize the creation of mutual value between businesses and customers? Can it help create more engaging experiences?

(image credit, found via Lee)

The short answer here, according to Jason, is that it depends, partly on what you're trying to achieve. If all you're focused on is moving business value measures, you're probably putting lipstick on a pig. But testing against value creation has the potential to uncover game-changing opportunities.

Here's an email exchange between Jason and me, in which he explains in a little more detail:

 

RYAN:

That whole web site optimization thing—isn’t it really just putting lipstick on a pig?

 

JASON:

I think “I hate you so much” might be a succinct way of responding, but I'll provide a little more detail:

Web Site Optimization is exactly like putting lipstick on a pig, but only if you start out with a pig. And if you are starting out with a pig, your opportunities for improving things are limited, and you’d be using the wrong tool to fix the problem. We are talking here about the concept of a “local maximum” which is a fancy, math term applied to mean “the best something can be within a limited dynamic.” Consider the aforementioned pig’s ability to fly, which, metaphorically speaking, is not particularly developed. We could take a pig and genetically modify it to be more aerodynamic. We could investigate building pig hang-gliders and attempt to train the smartest pigs to use them. But even in the best case, with the most aerodynamic pig, benefiting from the best training, and using the best pig flying technology, it will never fly as well as a bird. The best case flying scenario for a pig (the pig’s local maximum as far as flight is concerned) is nowhere near as effective as a bird’s. In that scenario, you’d be better off exchanging the pig for a bird at the start, rather than waste any time or effort teaching a pig to fly better.

Applied to the web: if a site sucks so much- if the goals and purpose are unclear, if the information architecture looks like my desk (at the moment), if the navigation is counterintuitive and the messaging has absolutely no intersect with the audience, then no amount of optimization in the world will make it right. The local maximum of that crappy site is too low for any optimization to matter. Or (even worse) you’d need the infinite number of monkeys to stop typing Shakespeare and to start applying experiments to your site to get the right combination where testing would make a real difference. Neither is very efficient. If your site is the pixilated equivalent of a pig, you need much more elemental help from a user experience expert first (know any?). Until you fix the fatal flaw(s) in a site, anything else you do will be throwing good money after bad.

Site Side Optimization works well in circumstances where the local maximum is high, but for some reason, the site is not achieving it. This can be due to single points of failure on the site, like a specific conversion path or page underperforming, or because the audience needs to be targeted more specifically, or because the existing content is stale/irrelevant. In each of these cases, experimental testing can make a huge difference. Optimization also works exceptionally well (and this is far more interesting to me) when applied as a method of trying out a new (and potentially risky) idea that could radically change and significantly improve an experience.  In both of these examples, the basic site is healthy, and the optimization program serves as a tool to reach its fullest potential.

 

RYAN:

But what I keep looking for is the way to test birds against pigs, not in the sense of which flies better, because as a user experience expert I do have the capability to predict the winner of that contest—but when I don’t have a clear sense of the best conceptual solution. For example, maybe I just can’t decide between eggs and bacon. Can optimization help design a better breakfast, or only decide between pulp and no-pulp in the OJ?

 

JASON:

Optimization can test more conceptual ideas, but it will be really hard to unpack the WHY after we determine which one wins. Most sites aren’t deciding between bacon and eggs, but rather between the bacon, eggs and hashbrowns with coffee or the granola, fruit and yogurt with yerba matte. If the former wins in a test, I don’t know whether it’s because of the bacon (which will usually win over everything) or the coffee, or because the person deciding had granola for the past three days, and would have taken ANYTHING other than more granola.

The other trick about testing high concepts in a website format is that you would have to build each solution to test them, which is usually more expensive than testing out wireframes or front-end prototypes in front of a more controlled audience.

 

RYAN:

First, you seem to be suggesting that a test win for the bacon breakfast might not imply extensibility for bacon breakfasts in general: That because, lacking control, the results might be idiosyncratic, they might not therefore apply broadly. Next week you might get a different result. My question is, why does that matter? And why does “knowing why” the bacon breakfast worked matter, as long as you know it worked.

 

JASON:

It is definitely a question I get from clients a lot. Why do I care about the individual elements of a variant- if the variant as a whole makes us more money, let’s just launch it and move on. I can’t fault the sentiment, but knowing why the bacon worked could lead to better tests, more focused messaging and (even more) cash money. I want to know that it’s the bacon by itself that is the motivating factor outside of all the other influences. Let’s say that we ran a test breakfast against a bowl of Total cereal and we tested bacon with powdered eggs as the experimental variant. Now let’s assume that bacon and powdered eggs lost to the control by 1%. You could take the position that we would do better to serve Total because we want to avoid losing that 1%, and you would be right. But what if you knew that the bacon by itself actually improved the breakfast by 15%, but the powdered eggs were so crappy that they hurt the breakfast by 16%, so you netted the 1% loss? If I controlled for all the variables in my breakfast, that knowledge would a) help me make a better breakfast overall (just serve bacon), and b) will also prevent me from throwing away a positive variable simply because it was paired with a really negative one.

I imagine you run into that a lot with prototyping and wonder how you deal with it in the UX world.  If a subject totally fails at a task, are you ever afraid of overcorrecting a prototype to account for it? Do you ever throw the baby out with the bathwater? How do you control for that?

 

RYAN:

A great question. One of the answers is that in usability testing, you're looking for usability problems. So as long as your test participants are representative of your users as a whole, major failures are, practically speaking, never anomalous. If your user population is one million, and one of the eight people participating in your test has trouble understanding some aspect of the interface, what are the odds they're the only person who's going to have that problem?

The other thing I wonder about is what happens when what you’re trying to accomplish is harder to measure than conversion (e.g. brand lift) or if you want to measure it over time (e.g. engagement). Especially in social media, it’s quality that matters, not quantity. You want to know how valuable your user-generated videos are more than you want to know how many of them you have. Can web site optimization help you get to answers?

 

JASON:

Ah, you and your social media. When are you going to come to terms with the fact that this whole thing is a fad? The future is in email, Ryan, and lots of ‘em. Mark my words.

Absent a more qualitative tie-in with optimization (surveys, satisfaction scores, etc.) you will be hard-pressed to get good data about branding or the impact of social media. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t optimize for branding or social media. I’m saying you need to get that qualitative kicker. I’ve done a few branding tests, and I think they provide some interesting feedback. But I’ve never optimized where a KPI has to be judged on quality (e.g., good comments vs. troll comments) or off the site entirely (e.g., buzz in the blogosphere). Sounds fun.