The Anti-Shotgun Approach to Social Media

By Mark Evans in Social Media 2 Comments Tags: , ,

Social Media Today had a post recently with the provocative title, “When Not to Have a Twitter Account”, which is a sacrilegious thought to all of us social media junkies.

The post reminded me of an important social media tenet: that it’s alright not to have a Twitter account or, for that matter, a blog or a Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Flickr or MySpace account. In other words, you could take a “popgun” approach to social media as opposed to a “shotgun” in which you try to be everything and anywhere (aka a recipe for failure).

And while it is, heaven forbid, possible not to embrace social media, a more reasonable approach is that it’s perfectly fine to have a small social media presence.

Yup, your digital existence can be happy and fulfilling by only embracing a single social media service. It could be Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or a blog as long as it meets your goals and objectives and, as important, the needs of the target audience.

The key – and I stress this point to clients – is that whatever social media service(s) is deployed, it has to be used consistently and done well. In other words, if you do only one thing, do that one thing great.

It’s like deciding to open a bakery to only make cupcakes. As long as those cupcakes are delicious, you’re not going to be penalized for not baking pies, cakes and muffins.

Too often, social media is seen in terms of quantity rather than quality. There’s too much focus on the number of tweets, likes, comments, page views, comments, etc. rather than the quality of the conversation. The same approach goes for social media services. It’s far better to do one thing really well, rather than many things average.

This is not to suggest some people and companies can’t have a social media arsenal with several tools but less can sometimes be more.

(Note: This post originally appeared on the Sysomos blog.)

What’s Your Poison?: Facebook or Twitter

By Mark Evans in Social Media 6 Comments Tags: , , ,

I saw a tweet by a well-known blogger and technology executive that he was spending far less time on Facebook. When I asked what was doing online instead, he quickly replied “Twitter! More engagement, realtime discussions, feedbacks. Facebook is becoming (for me) a stream of useless stuff”.

It struck me as an interesting comment because it reflects my approach to Facebook as well. As I wrote in yesterday’s post, Facebook serves as a professional utility and personal branding tool. It is not a place where I spend much time looking at my News Feed and getting updates on what my “friends” are doing.

Twitter, however, is a resource tool (It has mostly replaced Google Reader as the way to discover new content), a research tool to ask answers to just about anything, a place to stay up-to-date with the biggest stories of day, and a way to engage with other people.

As a result, I probably spend 80% to 90% of my time on Twitter, and only 10% to 20% on Facebook. This is one of the reasons why I find Facebook’s continued growth to be so fascinating because I’m personally not fascinated with it as a service, although it is a truly amazing story.

The question is why Twitter or Facebook?

Is this something that is common among people who are heavy users of the Web and/or involved in digital marketing, development, social media and editorial content? Are we simply not the sweet spot for Facebook?

It may be Facebook isn’t the place for people like myself who want different kinds of information or engagement. In comparison, Facebook thrives as a place for people to stay in touch with friends and family, which isn’t done much on Twitter.

Maybe it has to do with how quickly things can be done on Twitter as opposed to Facebook. Twitter is an efficient tool for multi-taskers by letting them come and go quickly, whereas Facebook tends to be a place where people spend a lot of time.

Or maybe it has to do with privacy. On Twitter, you do have to provide a profile but the amount of personal information that is disclosed and shared with other people pales in comparison to Facebook, which is increasingly about making your entire life (at least the digital part) transparent as part of its social graph philosophy.

So, what do you think? If you use Twitter more than Facebook, why? If you use Facebook more than Twitter, why is that?


Facebook: A Necessary Evil?

By Mark Evans in Social Media 1 Comment Tags: , ,

In the wake of Facebook announcing it now has 500 million "active" users, there has been another wave of dissertations and discussions about Facebook's growing presence and how/why people are using it.

In the New York Times, Joshua Brustein had an excellent column talking about how Facebook has become a utility for many people, which explains why it has become one of the least popular private-sector companies (along with cable companies and wireless telephone companies).

Facebook’s role as a utility (something Mark Zuckerberg has been talking about for several years) goes a long way in explaining the service’s appeal. While Facebook has some sizzle in terms of features, it thrives by offering basic communication tools so people can easily stay in touch with friends and family, and companies can engage with consumers.

Like a utility, Facebook meets meat-and-potato needs. It is why people use it on a regular/daily basis, much like they use the telephone or electricity. It may be that many people don’t like using Facebook but they have no choice given it has become one of the ways people are communicating online.

In other words, Facebook has become a necessary evil. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, especially if you’re Facebook and its investors.

Personally, I’m ambivalent about Facebook. I have a personal account and Facebook Page but Facebook is a professional tool for me. It is not a service in which I share a lot of personal details but, then again, I don’t use social media that way. As well, I’m not part of the younger demographic happy to publicly share anything and everything.

Despite my reservations about Facebook, it serves a definite role, which is why I’m a regular user. For me, it’s a business and professional utility. This is the key part of Facebook’s appeal – it fills a different role for different people, depending on your interests and needs.

In that sense, Facebook is the ultimate digital utility that everybody uses even though they may not particularly like the company providing the service. Facebook may not really care whether you like them or not; all it cares about is if you use the service on a regular basis as opposed to rivals such as MySpace, Friendster, Orkut, etc.

Links:
- Facebook is to the Power Company as…. (The New York Times)
- Facebook: Can’t Love it, can’t live with out it (Globe & Mail)

What’s Your Talent?

By Mark Evans in Main Page No Comments Tags: , , ,

If, like me, you’ve read any of the many Rainbow Magic books, you’ll know that every fairy has a particular “talent”. Some fairies, for example, are really good at playing an instrument, while others excel at flying or dancing.

So, what’s your talent? What’s the one thing that you’re really good at? Are you a super-salesperson? An amazing programmer? A connecter/networker? A superb communicator? An organizer extraordinaire? A motivational expert?

I think everyone is really good at something. It may even be something that they’re not totally cognizant about because it’s a talent that happens so naturally.

The key is discovering your “talent” because if you can do that, then it’s easier to figure out how to do things you enjoy and succeed at. At the same time, it also makes it easier to identify your weaknesses.

At the end of the day, embracing your “talent” makes life a whole lot easier and a lot more fun.

Canada: Get Ready for Broadband Bandwidth Tiers

By Mark Evans in Web-based Services 2 Comments Tags: , , ,

Last week, Rogers ruffled a few feathers when it unveiled bandwidth changes to its broadband services. New customers who sign up for the Lite service will get 15 gigabytes of data rather than 25GB; while Extreme users will now get 80GB rather than 90GB.

The negative reaction from “enthusiastic” Web users was not surprising given they’re the ones using a lot of bandwidth to download or stream music, movies and games, as well as surf the Web and use social media services. For most of the population, the bandwidth changes will likely have little or no impact.

There are two angles to Rogers’ bandwidth tinkering. By reducing the amount of bandwidth, Rogers has an opportunity make more money by selling additional bandwidth to customers. Along with higher-speeds, this is how Rogers grabs more of our dollars.

More important is the fact that tiered broadband pricing is going to become a hard and fast reality. While bandwidth caps have been in place, they haven’t captured much attention because they’ve been fairly generous and few consumers bump up against the limits. But in reducing bandwidth caps, it seems likely Rogers could be moving to a pricing structure in which bandwidth plays a more important role.

For consumers, it means the speed of their Internet connection will no longer be the only consideration. When selecting and paying for broadband service, consumers will have to cough up for speed and bandwidth. These tiered plans have been embraced by cablecos and telcos around the world such as BT. In North America, however, speed has been the name of the broadband game but with penetration rates getting pretty high, broadband players need new ways to generate more revenue.

In other words, we’re probably moving from an all-you-can-eat market to a pay-to-play market. Given there’s little competition in the broadband market and that consumers are using more online services, the size of your Internet bill is poised to increase.

Still Not Lovin’ the iPad

By Mark Evans in Apple/iPod 8 Comments Tags: , , ,

When it comes to the iPad, I’ve flipped more times than a hamburger on a BBQ grill. But after spending some time over the past few days playing with an iPad, I’m firmly in the not-getting-one camp.

The iPad is cool, it’s sleek, beautifully designed, and has some great features, particularly the ability to multi-task and check e-mail and surf the Web. The problem with the iPad, however, is it’s not enough. You really can’t work on it, you can’t make phone calls, take photos or videos, or plug in a USB. In other words, it feels like a mini-Mac.

As a result, it is difficult to justify splashing out $750 to buy one because there doesn’t seem to be a fit with my computing landscape, which includes a MacBook Pro and an iPhone 3. If I commuted or travelled, an iPad could make sense. But working from home means I don’t commute – unless riding my bicycle to a clients counts.

Yes, I understand that the iPad is leading-edge, and that as someone who counsels clients on what’s over the horizon, I can justify buying an iPad as “research” but that seems excessive.

So rather than buy an iPad, I’m more interested in an iPhone 4 when the antenna problems are fixed and my contract with Rogers lets me upgrade without suffering a major financial hit.

Why the iPhone 4?

Well, the iPhone offers me tremendous utility as a mobile device that complements my MacBook Pro (I’m a huge fan of tethering). The iPhone 4′s features, smaller size and design are personally far more appealing and relevant than an iPad. But that’s just me as opposed to all the new iPad aficionados.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
1 2 3