Posts Tagged ‘twitter’
March 8th, 2010
I had big plans for the Oscars last night. No I didn’t go to some overpriced “Oscar Party” at a fancy restaurant, where martinis cost $15 a pop, the entree about 3 times that much, and never mind the “red carpet”-worthy outfit that would have hit my pocketbook right were it hurt. Nope, those days were officially over.
Like the millions of people from around the globe, I tuned in to watch the 82nd Annual Academy Awards. It was a wonderful soiree, an intimate, casual gathering of 200 of my closest friends and it didn’t cost a dime. Oh well, that’s not entirely true. The ice cream sundae I ate while watching the festivities came to a grand total of about $4.99 if you add in the chocolate sauce and maraschino cherry on top.
Where, you ask, could I possibly have enjoyed such a lavish Oscar fête for a mere couple bucks and some change? In the comfort of my living room of course! It was a sight to behold: wearing my favorite black sweats (black is always an elegant choice for a party), remote in one hand and my iPhone in the other.
As I sat watching the broadcast—from the Red Carpet pre-show to Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin’s entertaining banter to the John Hughes tribute delivered by Ferris Bueller himself—my friends on Facebook didn’t miss a beat. We dished on the best and worst dressed, the speeches, and the surprising triumph of indie hit “Hurt Locker” over big budget blockbuster, “Avatar.” All virtually. All via Facebook. Our very own Online Oscar Party!
I’d been noticing the trend for the last 6 months. From the collective cheers for underdog Saints during Super Bowl XLIV to the Kanye West train wreck at the ‘09 MTV Awards, most of my friends were tuning in from home and commenting about the broadcasts on their favorite social network of choice.
Whether due to the economy or merely an increased desire to stay home and nest, people were forgoing pricey outings and opting instead to fuel the buzz online, namely on Facebook to Twitter. Brian Stelter recently published a great story on this new phenomenon in The New York Times, “Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV’s Friend.” In it, he notes that “[b]logs and social Web sites like Facebook and Twitter enable an online water-cooler conversation, encouraging people to split their time between the computer screen and the big-screen TV.” He even notes that viewership of these broadcast spectacles, which for the last several years has been tanking, has seen a uptick, thanks in large part to the chatter occurring online.
Oscar himself has taken a cue from this new trend. Ad Age’s Andrew Hampp points out, the Academy is jumping on the social media bandwagon to combat sinking ratings and declining viewership, adding a plethora of new ways for people to watch, participate and take part in the show. From Facebook fanpages and online ballots to iPhone apps and a pimped out new site on http://oscar.go.com/, the entire Oscar experience was revamped to facilitate this new way of connecting online.
We’ll see if “social networks can actually save the TV star.” All I know is I’m a believer.
An ice cream sundae. My favorite pair of sweats. And 200 of my closest friends joining me for an Online Oscar Party. Now that’s worth the price of admission!
October 30th, 2009
This weekend, the world gathered around one iconic idea: 350ppm.
350 parts per million is the level of CO2 many climate scientists agree is the safe upper limit of carbon in our air (we’re at about 390, by the way). But that’s not all 350ppm is. It’s also one of the strongest examples of social media optimization the world has ever seen.
To help promote its International Day of Climate Action (last Saturday, 10/24), 350.org simply asked supporters to use a special hashtag in related tweets: #350ppm. According to search.twitter.com, it was used 1,500 times over the weekend (10/23-10/26).
The Day of Climate Action was a rousing success. 181 countries participated (meaning fewer than 15 didn’t), and there were 5,245 events across the globe.
As for SMO success, 350.org now has over 10,000 Twitter followers. They’re ranked #43 in the “Everywhere” region (via Twitterholic). 350’s most recent Influence score from Twitalyzer is a “profound” 64 of 100, after a recent increase of 31,900%. Twitalyzer bases Influence on Reach (followers), Authority (getting retweeted), Generosity (RT’ing others), and Clout (getting mentioned). 350’s Clout score is 100 of 100, unchanged in the recent past.
On Sunday, 350’s Day of Climate Action was the most talked-about news story on the planet – tops on CNN, The New York Times, Le Monde, Google News, and more. The top Google headline was “Campaign Against Emissions Picks Number,” due in no small part to thousands of participants using “350.” For Sunday and Monday, the story of 350 got more impressions than any other in the world.
Read the rest of this entry »
August 5th, 2009
I’m inspired by all of the industry chatter about the impact of social on search. Last week, I read Jasmine May’s post on OneUpWeb’s study about how consumer generated content is influencing search behaviors. While the news is definitely insightful, it’s important to understand each social media tool as a separate beast, each having its own unique impact on your brand’s “findability” online.
Let’s start with twitter. Although this tool was designed to create and build relationships, it does have an SEO value. I recently sat down with Allyson Hohman (CM’s super-smart Search Director) and got her perspective: “The real time feedback from Twitter is slowly, but surely changing how people conduct a search and, ultimately, what results they will find.” In addition, twitter is optimized as its own destination, as distributed content becomes increasingly important to branded messaging and community relationships.
Together, we came up with the following 15-point twitter SEO checklist:
-
Handle. Is it something people search for?
-
Brand Name. May or may not be the same as handle. Is this displayed as searchable content? (tip: no abbreviations or brand acronyms)
-
Bio. Is it relevant? Does it say why your brand is there? Does it include influencer buzz words?
-
URL. Is your brand linking to your twitter URL in company blogs and sites? (and vice versa?)
-
Tweet Copy: First Words. The start of each tweet (40-45 characters) is factored into each tweet’s title tag, including the account name, and however many characters are left go to the beginning of the actual tweet. (tip: pack the punch in the first 20 characters if possible Read the rest of this entry »
April 17th, 2009
It reads like an early 70’s drug induced weekend, doesn’t it? The Oprah Experience. If you buy into all of her “your spirit, your soul” stuff than you have been living the Oprah Experience for some time. And clearly, that is her goal – allow her cult, eh, fans, to engage with her anywhere. And so, on the day Oprah got on Twitter, I thought it relevant to talk about how she distributes herself.
Its official. Oprah Tweets. @Oprah Stedman and I are shopping for light bulbs.
Not too many celebrities have an HBR (Harvard Business Review) case study written about them (I’d link you to it but they don’t give those away for free). It talks about her humble beginnings, her work in Chicago television and ultimately how she ended up staring down execs from massive distribution companies over the negotiation tables in an effort to maintain control over her destiny. No mention in the case of best friend Gayle (seriously, she needs a Wikipedia page?) which I found refreshing.
Her ability to maintain control of her brand has enabled her to create a distribution strategy rivaled by few. Magazine, radio, book clubs and potentially her own network. But it is less about the properties in her network and more about the message she consistently communicates. That message is simple and authentic: be strong and resilient and you can live your best life.
Over the last couple of months, Oprah has launched a Facebook page (she brought Zuckerberg onto the show for a very awkward, appearance to demonstrate how to use it) and now is on Twitter. So how will she continue to expand her experience into digital channels, specifically social, where judgment of success is tied directly to authenticity? It shouldn’t be all that different from how she has built her brand.
Read the rest of this entry »
April 13th, 2009
Companies are much like people. They like to talk about themselves. Also like people, they sometimes forget to praise the brilliance of others. There are two observations that the Critical Mass twitter profile receives quite a bit: 1) A lot of great links are shared. 2) Most of those links are to other people’s work. Those two comments prompted a thought which resulted in a sizable response:
This concept doesn’t just apply to Twitter, it easily translates to various content-producing social networks, but for the sake of this short case study, let’s keep it to just one.
Participation: Twitter requires a certain frequency of communication to be considered an “active member.” Even if it’s 4-5 a day, you’re hitting enough people to make your presence known. A single entity (outside of media outlets) generally doesn’t produce enough content everyday in order to have 4-5 things worth mentioning to promote itself. The subsequent reality? If you want to tweet, you need to tweet something created by someone else.
Reciprocation: People who share content with others, generally want those others to also share that content with another set of people. It can come in the form of a “retweet” or a link to a blog post. Whatever the method, when we distribute information, we want that information to snowball among the rest of a given audience. In order for that to take place you need a community of people who are willing to share your content. That community of sharers grows exponentially if you are also actively sharing their content in reciprocation. If you’re not, then you need to be an absolute leader in your field to blindly receive praise and pass-along.
Modesty: Stemming from the above, even if you ARE the absolute leader in your field, by not sharing the thoughts of others you are indirectly making the implication that your thoughts/products/services are better than everyone else’s. That could very well be true, but arrogance can cost you the attention of those who genuinely would want to hear what you have to say. Share information. It sends the message that you value other’s time as much as they should value yours.
Originality: After you’ve established yourself as an entity that contributes to the community you’re having a conversation in, remember to balance goodwill with originality. Sharing other’s links too much can be detrimental to a twitter brand as well since it may lead some to think you lack originality. Make sure that your reciprocation always has a nice share of your own original thoughts.
Thanks to @jasondrohn @Stuartcfoster @jamiecalder @KWhite16131 @louiebaur @sarahkatharine@PaigeCalvert @mthinker @mattDavidson @NicoledeB @TimMoore for passing along this thought.
March 3rd, 2009
Related Links:
Wall Street Journal & WSJ part 2
USA Today
MediaPost
LA Times
Gawker
Financial Times
Fox News
Yes, it was originally advertising agency Modernista! that threw away their Website in favor of simply patching together all of their information across various social networks and services. Nearly a year later, Skittles has done the same thing. If you point your Web browser to Skittles.com, you will not be greeted by the familiar sight of a highly “experiential” or branded site complete with games and promotions—instead, you will go to a Twitter search result page that shows you what people are saying about the brand in real time.
The “siteless website” then places a “widget” above the Twitter search result and lets you navigate to other destinations, mostly distributed across the Web, from product pages on Facebook, to video channels on You Tube, to simple product information on Wikipedia and don’t forget photos on Flickr.
While I would not recommend agencies or professional services firms to go the Modernista! route (people aren’t talking about you like they are about products)—this is an interesting tactic and raises a few issues. For one, as Modernista! has taught us, you can’t fool around with your Wikipedia entry. And secondarily, the tactic is still experimental. (currently Skittles requires you to enter your date of birth every time you visit the “site”—a less than ideal experience probably caused by a tech glitch.)
Another reason this is worth watching closely is because we’re seeing a social media reality play out in real time. While you can listen in on, respond to and potentially even influence conversations—you cannot control them. Currently, pointing your browser to Skittles.com will also result in some profanity showing up (via Twitter). Note: Skittles does have age verification in place, as mentioned earlier but you can see the updates behind it.
Read the rest of this entry »
October 31st, 2008
There’s been a lot of talk lately about people saying you shouldn’t blog anymore. The arguments seem to break into two categories:
The problem with these arguments is that they’re missing the big picture, and that’s presence. Namely, your presence (either your company or yourself) on the internet.
The internet is a noisy place. It’s filled with every type of company and personality, all trying to make themselves heard all at the same time. (Marshall McLuhan would have exploded from joy if he’d lived to see today’s internet). Like standing in the middle of a loud party, it’s hard to be heard. That’s why presence is so important — people will pay attention to those they perceive as important. You need to be staking claims in a variety of places, and investing time and effort in key areas to ensure the quality and intensity of your signal can rise to the top.
Read the rest of this entry »
Whether due to the economy or merely an increased desire to stay home and nest, people were forgoing pricey outings and opting instead to fuel the buzz online, namely on Facebook to Twitter. Brian Stelter recently published a great story on this new phenomenon in The New York Times, “Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV’s Friend.” In it, he notes that “[b]logs and social Web sites like Facebook and Twitter enable an online water-cooler conversation, encouraging people to split their time between the computer screen and the big-screen TV.” He even notes that viewership of these broadcast spectacles, which for the last several years has been tanking, has seen a uptick, thanks in large part to the chatter occurring online.
