How Social Media Experts Keep Users Ignorant

For a while I’ve been troubled by the fact that there seems to be a never-ending stream of how-to articles concerning social media, yet people apparently still don’t know how to use these services.  Then along comes a fluff piece like Kelly Clay’s 5 Places You Shouldn’t Check Into on Foursquare and I understand why.  It’s not because social media services are particularly arcane or their users particularly dense, but rather due to the poor quality of the commentary surrounding these services.

Perhaps it’s the relentless demand for content, but social media commentary seems prone to a number of problems: prescribing complex solutions for user scenarios that weren’t problematic in the first place, failing to provide readers with a basic understanding of the services in question, and then pitching this as expertise.  Clay’s article manages to highlight all of these in spectacular fashion.

Problem #1 – You’re doing it wrong.

Clay’s premise is that there are places Foursquare users go that they don’t want anyone else to know they frequent.  Her solution is that you shouldn’t check-in to Foursquare when at these locations.  Might I suggest that the issue there is your friend list, not your check-in?

Foursquare is a game. It’s a game that encourages social exploration and activity based on the recommendations and gameplay of people you know and trust – your friends.  Don’t believe me?  Take a look at the in-game achievements which include badges titled “Bender”, “Crunked”, and “Douchebag”.  This is a game for friends, not a professional network, so why would you choose to add people to your friend list who might be offended by your check-ins?

And let’s say you’ve chosen to befriend your co-workers but still want to check-in to one of Clay’s taboo locales, what then?  Simply slide the “Share with friends?” slider to “No” and check-in off the grid – it’s that easy!

Problem #2 – You’re making it worse.

Articles like this are a disservice to social media. They foster the idea that users have no control over social media services and are therefore not accountable for the dissemination of personal information.  Users need to understand that social media services are just another publishing platform, and it’s our responsibility as the “social-media-savvy” to alert them to this fact.  Perpetuating the idea that social media participation requires being friends with all and sundry is no good for anyone.  What’s the first thing I did when my boss installed Foursquare on his phone?  Teach him how not to post to Twitter, Facebook or his friend list.  Second thing I did? Refuse his friend request.

Problem #3 – You’re killing me.

The worst thing about this is that the unknowing reader may think it’s valuable insight - after all, people actually tweeted links to this thing.  Now, it’s possible that no one else actually read it and just blindly retweeted it when they saw it was from Pirillo, which is problematic in itself but less distressing than the possibility that people actually think this is worth reading and are thereby contributing to Problem #2.

If we want our field to be taken seriously we need to stop with the Mighty Oz act, get out from behind the curtain and actually provide readers with some value.

Clay’s piece also raises the issue of public and private online personas, and the hypocrisy of a social media echo chamber that advocates for authenticity and honesty but then demands that users apply a professional filter to non-professional activities – but that’s another post.

Does supporting a non-profit entitle one to offer unsolicited advice?

This is a question that I struggle with on almost a daily basis.  I support a number of local non-profit organizations and consequently am the recipient of many of their marketing efforts.  Trouble is, a lot of the time they’re not very – how to put this delicately – good.  The question is, what ( if anything) should I do about it?

I’ve worked for small non-profits in the past.  I know the kinds of constraints under which they operate.  I know they’re stretching limited resources to achieve the miraculous.  And obviously, as a supporter, I don’t want to do anything that would be detrimental to these organizations.  Which is what puts me in a bind.  When I see a for-profit company play fast and loose with customer privacy or fail to use their chosen channels effectively, I use the accepted public forums - Twitter, Facebook, Yelp – to call them on it.  But that doesn’t seem an appropriate course of action for small non-profits who probably don’t have the internal expertise to “know better” and, in any case, about which I care too much to draw any kind of negative attention.  What then?  Should I contact the organization directly? Would that be helpful? Or annoying?  I honestly don’t know.  If anyone else does, I would love to hear!

True diversity is colour blind

Why do discussions about diversity invariably come back to appearance? In his post Blinded by the White: Social Media and Diversity Jay Baer starts out with the excellent (albeit obvious) point that communication is always more successful when you understand your audience.  Strange then that he concludes his post by saying “let’s make sure social media practitioners look like the people with whom they are supposed to interact: our customers.”  After all, isn’t assuming that someone will think a certain way because of the way they look exactly what diversity efforts are trying to counteract?

Danny Brown takes him to task on this in Social Media – It’s Not Just for White Folks, pointing out that appearance isn’t a definitive indicator of race or culture and that there’s plenty of hard research to suggest that the crisis of cultural homogeneity that Jay fears simply doesn’t exist.  But then Brown also falls into the appearance trap asking “Who’s doing great things online and isn’t white?”

Am I the only person who was unaware that there’s some sort of universal white culture?  My ‘white’ friends include Australians, Canadians (and Canadiens), Danes, Germans, Americans – and they all have vastly different cultural backgrounds and experiences.  And then there’s me, someone who – apparently – looks like she could represent all manner of ethnicities, when really my cultural experience has nothing to do with that and everything to do with being a happy little Vegemite transplanted to Seattle.

I was heartened to read Veronica Wei Sopher’s (@Shih_Wei) beautifully succinct contribution to this discussion: “The focus should be on culture, not color”.  Amen.  The sooner we realize that true diversity is achieved by making room for different experiences and not by looking like a Benetton commercial, the better off we’ll all be.

Addendum: I should also mention that Jay Dolan from The Anti-Social Media had a great post on thinking about diversity in terms other than race - Sex, Facebook, and Social Media Diversity.  Looking forward to more social media practitioners following suit!

<Appended to include Jay’s response as Tumblr doesn’t support comment import>

Subject Lines: Learn to love them

Pop quiz.  Which of these emails am I most likely to open?



 
If you picked the one from Central Cinema Newsletter then you’re a winner!  Unlike the ECA, whose daily emails I invariably delete.  You’d think that an organization representing the consumers of interactive entertainment would know a thing or two about creating compelling content.

How not to use Twitter for customer support

I had an experience so here I am writing about it.

The dreaded red rings appeared on my Xbox 360.  After logging on to Xbox Support and working my way through the troubleshooting wizard I received the diagnosis that I’d need to send the console in for repair.  I also learned that the console was out of warranty, so said repair would cost $99.

Hoping to find a cheaper solution I tweeted asking if there was anywhere I could get it repaired for less than $99.  A contact referred me to @XboxSupport who contacted me via Twitter asking how they could help.

So far so good.  Excellent response time from @ XboxSupport and great use of the medium.  I replied restating my question – “Is there an alternative to the $99 repair for an out of warranty red-ringed Xbox?”

Unfortunately the response I received was “That is a pretty good option actually, considering you get the additional 1 year warranty. =)”.

I appreciate that every social media interaction is a marketing opportunity.  Unfortunately it didn’t answer my question.  Simply including the word “no” – or a more sugar-coated “I’m afraid not” - would have left me far more receptive to the marketing message.  As it was, I felt ignored and far less inclined to take @XboxSupport on the “pretty good option”.

The lesson here seems simple.  By all means leverage the social media interactions with customers to drive business objectives, just make sure that satisfying your customer needs remains paramount.

In Defense of Foursquare

Yesterday SmartBrief on Social Media asked the unnecessarily hysterical question “Will Foursquare ever grow up?”. Foursquare was founded less than a year ago; I’m pretty sure they’ve got time.

The hand wringing was in response to a TechCrunch piece reporting that some users are taking umbrage to the ‘risqué’ badges awarded for using the service at particular venues, particularly the Douchebag badge. Suffice to say, there are many elements to this story that make me wish I could award some risqué badges of my own.

First the original complaint:

    • Has it occurred to the too-cool-for-school hipsters at foursquare that unlocking a “douchebag” badge for your fans because they check in at places like Barneys might:
      1. Be insulting to your users, especially if have chosen to share their badges with friends and
      2. Might also be insulting to your future customers and business partners like Barneys?

      Total FAIL, guys. Who are you to judge what your customers like and don’t like? 



It seems to have escaped the complainer that Foursquare is a social networking service - and that the “too-cool-for-school hipsters” are actually a community willingly participating in a game which includes the unlocking of badges – Douchebag included. Considering Foursquare user growth is 45- 50% each month, I’d say they’ve judged very accurately what customers like, and this particular user probably should’ve done a little research before jumping on the bandwagon.

“Lack of research” quickly becomes a recurring theme as the article references another thread in which a user posted that they were “surprised” to have unlocked the badge. Given the considerable amount of documentation on the acquisition of badges I can only assume that this is another user who blithely started using the service without reading the manual.

TechCrunch’s writer then joins the party by breathlessly sharing with the reader how he has his Foursquare account set up to auto-tweet when new badges are unlocked and the previous night he unlocked the badge and it - gasp! - automatically tweeted out to all his followers.

That’s right. He knowingly linked his Foursquare and Twitter accounts then elected to auto-tweet any new badges but considers it some kind of cautionary tale that this is exactly what happened.

I do not believe that this “brings up an interesting dilemma for Foursquare.” I do believe that it highlights an increasingly concerning issue for society in general which is that people apparently take no responsibility for their own online activity. For those people I provide the following summary: 

    1. You don’t have to use Foursquare.
    1. You don’t have to add people to your Foursquare network who would find this offensive.
    1. You don’t have to link your Foursquare account to Twitter.
    1. If you do link to Twitter, can turn those auto-tweets off.



There. Maybe now we grown-ups can enjoy Foursquare in peace.

Close, But No Cigar

Reading Seattle news blog PubliCola I was struck by an excellent example of how not to engage in social media. Last Thursday they reported on a rumored re-org at City Hall (upon which the Mayor’s office declined to comment) inspiring Concerned Citizens™ to form a Facebook group opposing the rumored changes.  The next day Mayor McGinn addressed the issue directly on the group’s Wall, but didn’t respond to PubliCola.

McGinn started off strong by communicating directly with the Facebook group but then lost momentum by neglecting to respond to PubliCola, losing the opportunity to engage with its readers and prevent the story devolving into a flame war with the editorial staff.

The Mayor further missed the mark with his condescending comment that “this is not the first time the bloggers have gotten it wrong”. Pro-tip: If you’re going to engage with your constituents via social media it would behoove you to show some respect for the other facets of social media in which they participate.

On the other hand, ‘Save the Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment’ is making the most of the impromptu spotlight and has seized the opportunity execute a very successful grassroots campaign.  In 5 days they’ve acquired 486 members and achieved their goal to raise awareness for the Office and its work.  Nice!

Domino’s new campaign still a little cheesy

The negative feedback featured prominently in Domino’s latest commercial is so striking I actually stopped skipping through the ad break – and during Dollhouse no less! It’s not often you see a food commercial lead with a customer quote “tastes like cardboard”, but with ‘Pizza Turnaround’ Domino’s is making the bold move to address widespread criticism of their company and product with complete transparency.

By using footage of scathing focus groups and screen grabs of uncomplimentary tweets Domino’s proves they understand what customers want far more effectively than any food glamour shot ever could.  While I wasn’t left believing that Domino’s pizza is now heaven in a slice, they did succeed in convincing me that they are genuinely interested in engaging with their customers and acting on that feedback.

Unfortunately, instead of posting the new commercial to their campaign site or YouTube Channel, Domino’s is instead featuring a four and a half minute versionwhich belabors the point and lacks the sincerity of the shorter spot.  Feedback and responses which seemed genuine now appear staged, particularly when coupled with the contrived tactic of a ‘surprise’ delivery to a focus group participant. I’m looking forward to seeing how this campaign progresses - hopefully Domino’s will recapture the commercial’s authenticity for future spots and not follow in the phony footsteps of Pizza Hut’s often spoofed “hidden camera” ads.