So much conversation generated, here and elsewhere, as a result of the last post. Since Chad and Abby brought their questions/comments here I will respond here and hope it generates even more conversation – which is always the goal.
Let’s start with Chad -
Is it about money? Not directly and let me clarify this right now, there is no money to be made tweeting. It does, however, offer certain benefits. Grow your tribe community to hundreds, thousands, yes. That is the value of social media. They may not pay you but they will support you and if you no longer exist, who/what will take you place? Your monetary value, if that is your goal, is indirect.
Is there a large enough audience in Oklahoma? Yes, if not today, then tomorrow. As a side, you answered your own question when you mentioned opinion leaders. Go back to you text books and review the nature of early adopters. These are the folks on Twitter right now. The remaining population will arrive soon enough and guess who they will follow? Again, same argument regarding whether you should have a web site. If they aren’t there yet, they will be and the expectation is you will be there to greet them.
Should you use social media for promotion? Never, ever, ever (I would say it again and again but I think you get the point) should you use social media for the sole purpose to market yourself. People who only talk about themselves are boorish to say the least and the general population usually have very little time for them. This is the greatest mistake media is making with Twitter and other social media tools. I don’t care what you are broadcasting tonight – if I am curious I will grab your feed, visit your site, etc. What I care about is do you care? Are you giving me everything you can? Are you reaching out to me? Are you listening to me? AAAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHHHH!!! sorry.
I want to clarify something, my advice for @tvnewsgal is based on where she is right this very moment. Usage of social media tools will evolve as does her engagement in these communities. My personal usage of Twitter, facebook, friendfeed, etc. is much different today than it was when I first started using them. Again, “social media” belongs under the strategy section of your plan. The tools fit nicely under the tactics heading. Her ultimate objective to be achieved is not the number of followers, but the value she provides them and the relationships she creates (and vice versa) with those in her community.
Do I think Tulsa is large enough that “traditional” social media tactics can be effective in business? Yes, I see it first hand at Dog Dish and we are getting ready to take that to the next level. Keep in mind, its hard work and there is more to it than meets the eye, but the value is there. By the way, ask me if I see the value of sm in a classroom of forty-two students? But I digress.
Is everyone buying into a myth clouded with a couple of buzzwords which only work for a few? This is an interesting question and one which always makes me stop dead in my tracks every time I meet a business owner and figure out whether they could benefit from social media. It happens but it is a rare instance in which I find a business owner who wouldn’t. One of the things I coach people on is the level of social media they should engage. I would argue (very well, by the way) that while every business should have some element of social media in their business plan, the level will depend on a variety of external factors.
Regarding the post scripts: thank you, it has but more because of the energy derived from those engaging me in conversations, thank you again and thank you.
Now on to Abby’s comments/questions
I am on twitter, where do I go from here? Just like a hammer, twitter is a tactic and a tool. How you use it is up to you. I know many who use it just to keep in touch with their friends and family. Others use twitter (and other sm tools) to learn or engage in conversations with “experts” or like minded people. Still some use it simply to send out information about their business with no real engagement at all (bad, bad people… you know who you are). The bottom line, figure out how how you and others might benefit from your use and then move from there. Don’t worry about number of followers, etc. It doesn’t matter. What matters is, do you benefit from it and do others benefit from your use. This analogy just came to mind – how many times a day do you use the phone and how many people do you talk with? Can you imagine not having a phone?
By the way, I think you have a very nice blog, very articulate, thought provoking, etc. posts. Unfortunately you are doing all your writing on billhandy.com.
Regarding you last comment, thank you. My head has sufficiently swelled, which brings me to the article I am currently working on.
Next post coming up – Building your personal brand and how social media will tear it right back down.
Shades of gray – if the effort of Twitter is greater than reward than this would NOT make Ms. Morrison a better journalist. Either way, I completely agree.
I would assert that there is a wealth of interesting, relevant and local Oklahoma stories already floating around Twitter. I also think that you can more easily maintain many more active relationships through the use of Twitter than you can with other means – something I would think would be of great value to a journalist.
That said I also detest the absolute tone of many discussing SM – or any emerging technology for that matter. Twitter (or any other SM tool) is no panacea. Just like dieting, results with be different for everyone.
On a side note – since reading this post, I checked out Ms. Morrison’s Twitter account (@cindywmorrison – she has taken Bill’s advice and changed her name) and she looks to be working hard and figuring things out – this puts her above 95% of other local journalist. I tweeted about her (not TO her) and she DM’d me. So she’s definitely listening. It’ll be interesting to check back with her in a few months and see how she’s doing.
-M.
Matt, I think you bring up, or at least reiterate, some good points. The only problem I have is this mantra of “if it ‘helps,’ do it.” My assertion is that only do “it” if it helps equally or more than the alternative option that takes more of an effort. Opportunity cost.
So, this Morrison’s engagement should really be hinged on effort vs. reward. It seems like some here are implying that the effort of Twitter for Morrison is greater than her reward right now, but they believe it wont always be that way. Do, I disagree? No, but I think that speaking of these buzzwords as absolutes is causing misunderstanding of social media for those less involved.
One last thought (and then I’ll stop pretending to be involved in SM).
I just uncovered this @billhandy tweet:
@billhandy: Observation, @newson6 @tulsaworld and @ktulnews don’t follow anyone @newsok does. Who has the relationship with its audience
5:02 PM Jan 26th from TweetDeck
I’m cool with these feeds – because they are feeds. These are alternative broadcast channels for these organizations. If these feeds “followed” other tweeps then one of two things happen:
1.) No one ever get replied to and as a result, the news outlet looks like clueless morons.
2.) They do reply to people and the news links are interspersed with @replies creating ambiguity in the channel – “Is @tulsaworld a person or a media outlet?”
That said, someone should own the relationship – but this should be individual reporters like Ms. Morrison and/or maybe a generic account like @tulsaworldfeedback so as not to cross the streams.
(I admit that it may be possible to have these feeds respond but I think it’s cleaner to maintain these as broadcast channels and use other @accounts for reader/viewer/listener interaction.)
Unlike with Ms. Morrison, the purpose here IS promotion. Again – it’s all about context. That said, I whole heartedly agree that these organizations could be much more effective with a more comprehensive SM strategy.
I’ll go away now.
-M.
-M.
Bill – I completely agree with your original set of recommendations. Well said.
Everyone else – take a deep breath. Chad’s fundamental questions was “Why?” From the context, I think the answer is “To make Ms. Morrison a better journalist.”
When the context is understood, and the purpose is defined then the strategy follows.
Is it about money? Yes. If Ms. Morrison is a better journalist she’ll keep her job, and hopefully advance. So yes, it is all about money.
Is there a large enough audience in Oklahoma? Yes. If Twitter provides Ms. Morrison with access to only one insightful, informed Oklahoman with a solid story, especially if her competitors don’t have the same access, then Twitter make Ms. Morrison a better journalist. There may only be a few hundred Oklahomans on Twitter – but the stream of information is more timely, and has a broader scope than any other single source of information. There were two young men at last night’s Tulsa Tweetup who potentially will become internet millionaires. There was an Oklahoma Department of Commerce official. A successful downtown business owner. A consumer market research expert who has recently (voluntarily) traded a position with a global company servicing client like Microsoft, Sony, Epson, and HP for a job with a local Tulsa advertising and branding firm. Not to mention a very forwarding thinking University professor. These people are hooked up and tuned in. Gladwell might call these kids connectors or mavens. How many do you really need? (BTW – I didn’t meet any reporters last night.
Should you use social media for promotion? Who cares. Seriously. If we think context though, the real potential value of Twitter for Ms. Morrison is to provide better, faster access to information and stories that are relevant to Oklahomans. This is what will make her a better journalist. The reality is that she can mine Twitter without having a single follower – although this would less affective than building followers. But none of this is for promotion – it’s for data collection.
The good news here is that increased popularity, visibility and notoriety naturally follow and tuned-in SM strategy. The irony is that if “promotion” is your answer to “Why?” then social media will probably fail you.
Finally, is Twitter a silver bullet? Of course not. Did news reporters stop opening their mail when they got a telephone? Did they stop answering the phone when they got email? SM is a tool to be managed and balanced with your other tools. Duh. I hate the (over) use of buzzwords and the tired idea that SM (or whatever) will save the world. I hate contrived words like “Tweetup”, “Tweeps”, and “Twittervesre”. Who cares what any of this is called or if it’s cool – the measure should be “Does it make Ms. Morrison a better journalist?” If the answer is yes, then who cares what it’s called or if it’s cool. The philosophical debate over where we are on the hype cycle is frankly exhausting.
Another irony here is that if folks spent as much time and energy actually experimenting with FREE tools like Twitter as they do agonizing over whether it’s worth it – they’d already have an answer.
The important thing here – and in all conversations about professional applications of SM – is context.
All good stuff. Nice to meet you Bill thanks for the interesting conversation last night.
-M.
Money — I believe that the old saying of “time is money” could accurately be transformed to a more relevant online phrase, “traffic is money.” Why, you ask. Because it takes time (a la money) to grow traffic and the end result of beaucoups traffic is, well, money — could be from this pretty little adsense ad I now see in your sidebar or it could be from this news lady growing her viewership and monetizing it via tv spots. Or maybe it’s just about promoting oneself to be an expert so they can then sell their services. So, I disagree. It has to always about money (or power) in no indirect way. Unless, of course, you’re a professor and, well, you people are just good people. For businesses though, I think they end result that they always want is a more money.
The Okla. Audience — First of all, everyday I wish I wouldn’t have sold back my books for the the proverbial fiscal kick in the balls. Tell your students to skip a night at Joes and save the literature. I do agree with you here though. However, I think an argument could be made that as site like Twitter grows, so does it’s relevance. If I were to talk into a room filled with 50 people, I could easily distribute my message. However, if that room is transformed crowd of thousand of chattery imbecile, it quickly becomes harder to communicate.
SM For Promo — I think I mostly agree with you here (certainly with providing relevant info to her community) and that are differences are, more than likely, semantics. However, I still believe that the value of social media is self promotion — that doesn’t mean twittering “hey guys I’m awesome look at my website,” but it means proving information that either personifies what your desired voice is or links back to the arena you’d like to direct traffic (or connects you to person who can then be an advocate of yours and promote you elsewhere).
“traditional” SM in Tulsa — I obviously agree. However, I believe that caveat comes with quantifying it to businesses — particularly larger ones who have money to experiment with it.
Myth of Buzzwords — I couldn’t agree more, particularly with the varying levels of engagement. To me the biggest problem comes from these so called buzz words (even though they are buzz words for a reason). They hear facebook or blog (and now, I guess, Twitter) in the same sentence as social media. There’s a lot hype around it. So, they decide they’d like to take a swing at it. So, they just make a blog, move on and are upset that it didn’t drive the flock of traffic they’d hoped for.
Abby — for the love of god, star your damn blog. You’re one of the most intelligent people I know. Why waste it all on commenting on our ol’ professors blog. — shit, what am I doing right now…
Twitter Comment
Continuing the conversation regarding social media, a journalist’s use and my recommendations – Pro Bono Part Deux [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher