Does (Network) Size Matter?

Everywhere I go, whether in the real world or online, there are folks out there collecting as many contacts as possible, at any cost. In the real world, I've rarely seen this be a successful tactic, and I don't see it working so far online either. I know of a lot of 'LIONS' on LinkedIn, and folks with many thousands of followers on Twitter, but in most cases, it doesn't seem to make them happy or more successful. I'm not saying that there aren't people with large followings and networks that haven't achieved success, I'm just saying it isn't their social media networks that were the cause of that success, they have other skills that have done that for them.

I know you've seen these folks in real life networking events. They show up at the event, grab a drink at the bar and quickly move to the closest conversation in progress, with 5 of their business cards in hand before they ever say word one. They insert a few words into a conversation, just enough to get attention, others in the conversation are polite, and introduce themselves, and vois la, they have an opening to push cards into the unwary hands of everyone, who now feel obliged to find a card and provide it to the intruder, out of polite response. The members of this conversaton are soon left by the 'networker', and barely notice as they continue their conversation. These folks will all be a bit suprised the next day when they get at least one, if not several online networking invitations to become 'friends', as well as an email, and most likely a voicemail left before business hours.

There was no 'connection' between the networker and the conversations that he repeatedly joined throughout the evening. He didn't really join in their topics of discussion, or contribute to their quest for knowledge or humor (whatever they were looking to discuss). Why does this person now feel that he can reach out and innundate everyone he's met with requests that, if accepted, show a close personal or business relationship with others? This same person will also forward more requests for connections to your network than any of your closest network combined, and you'll get tired of using the 'ignore' button much sooner than you think (should you actually accept their 'friend' and network invitations.

Please people, take a breath, enjoy the work you do, and when you network, join 2, maybe 3 conversations during the evening, that really intrugue you, and really participate. This is true online as well - find groups and discussions that you are passionate about (either pleasure or work related). The people you meet, will see your knowlege/passion on the subject, and over time, will come to rely on you and when they need something you have to offer - they'll think of you first, because you are the right choice. You don't need a network of 10,o000 friends and followers - you just need enough quality relationships to help those who need it, which will provide you with all the sales you'll ever need - really - I promise.

You can get results from Social Network Campaigns

There is a great firm out of Boston by the name of Molecular. I’ve been following their work since I started my first agency in 2001, and probably even before that. They’ve changed their focus a lot over the years, taking advantage of the tools of the web and becoming so much more than a ‘builder of websites’. One of their User Experience analysts, Evan Gerber wrote a great article for iMediaConnection about the steps that need to be taken if we are going to run successful campaigns on Social Media Networks, and if they are going to measure up to the ROI demands of our clients.

He said that there are 3 primary steps , which really follow the same pattern of any media campaign:

1. Determine what to measure
2. Take advantage of existing tools
3. Track how social networking impacts other channels

He summarized my feelings really well in a way I’d felt like I was having trouble getting thru to business owners or marketing executives who wanted a ‘MySpace’ page that was going to fix all their sales problems. Evan said:

“Social networking is more than just a profile page on Facebook. The power of the consumer's voice can be harnessed in multiple ways, to serve many goals. The information can be incredibly valuable to judge the value of content, track user opinion, and propagate a brand message.

But in order to demonstrate success, the savvy brand marketer will create a thorough metrics campaign to measure the effort. The first key step is to identify what success means, and then understand how it can be tracked successfully.

Take advantage of the tools provided by the networks that are out there, see how the brand is fairing, and what can be done to get involved with the conversation. Try to track how the social networking campaign impacts other channels. Even if the numbers are not rock solid, there can be definite trends.”

Take the time to read the full article. iMedia is always a great resource, and I depend on it a lot to help keep me up to date on new thoughts and strategies.

What else can we do as digital professionals to make sure that the newest tactics are palatable to our clients, or more importantly, to their bosses?

social media slowdowns and crowd approval

I've noticed that as LinkedIn has jumped on the application bandwagon (I like some of the new applications I've played with, and will definitely be checking out more and more of them over time), I have noticed a definite slowdown on their website. Sometimes it's been just a slight slowdown to overall page load times, but it's also been as bad as error messages that pages couldn't' be loaded. I think LinkedIn is really getting some traction and making their mark in the Social Networking world, and there is noting that will kill that faster than poor performance, or even more, crashing. I definitely saw this in the early days of MySpace with the 30 somethings who tried to really get active on it. This is completely anecdotal, but it seems that the Gen Y and younger on MySpace don't really feel they have anywhere else to go, so they just put up with the poor performance of MySpace page load times and timeouts, where the older 20 somethings and 30 somethings became quickly fed up with it and moved on to Facebook and other sites that were also competing for their Social Networking time. I'd say that Facebook has been the biggest benefactor of that.

On the other side of that coin is Twitter. It appears to be an accepted fact that Twitter goes down, and everyone is very aware of their 'borrowing' server space wherever they can get it, to the point where we are all discussing their downtime mascot with the recent change to the Twitterpillar. Why is it okay for Twitter to be down, but no MySpace or for that matter an ecommerce site, or CNN.com for that matter? Are we rooting for this up and comer with out any monetization plan because they seem to be breaking new ground, and that gives them some underdog status that we instinctively pardon? I like the idea that we give the new guy/underdog a break, it might show that our society is somewhat understanding that the guy that is out there trying something new deserves a break now and then. I wouldn't count on this lasting forever, we are a fickle group, and soon, Twitter will become ingrained and no longer the excitinng new kid, and we'll demand our Twitter 24/7 without fail, much like our dialtone. There are already competitors to Twitter, and much like Friendster, early adoption and success can still be lost by a mistep at the wrong moment.

Twitter - The New Banners and Ears

It concerns me a little bit, as I get more involved with Twitter, that I'm noticing a trend. The broadcast Twitterer (my own word). Twitter is supposed to be (like the Internet in it's most basic premise) an interactive experience. I've noticed more and more that many folks broadcast out their information on Twitter, some of it very useful and informative, but still mostly one way. I've even noticed that some folks do get the concept that the micro-blogging idea is an interactive activity and they'll ask questions, but never actually acknowledge if you take the time to answer their quesitons. Now maybe they are so innundated with responses that they can't get back to everyone personally (thru an @keithpape or by DM'ing). If this is the case, then kudos to them, but a generic response to all saying 'hey - thanks for all the incredible responses I got - they are so numerous I can't get back to each one of you individually'. Has Twitter just replaced the banner ad as a new way to get your brand in front of a maximum number of people?

That brings me on to the 'ears' issue. I call it 'ears' because it reminds me of those old vietnam war movies where they always have some nutty soldier lopping off the ears of his enemy as a collection of his conquests. I'm wondering about the thousands of people that some folks follow (and the correlation to the thousands that follow them). Are people just following others so they'll get followed? Is that the etiquite that is being established? Is that okay - or is it false pretense and doesn't really follow the pretense of relevancey that we all talk about so much in search. It seems like search is the reason we do the #xxxx and the overall purpose of blogging and micro-blogging.. right? Relevant information. Are these the shadow server and white font games of early SEO. I'd hope we learned something from those early endeavors.

I don't necesarrily have all the answers, and just because it's a good ideology that we only follow people we are really going to/ or are interested in reading (can you really read the tweets of 1487 people that you follow?) or is it just a branding tool, and the game is played by following everyone, hoping that they will follow you, and you will then have the biggest numbers, and therefore 'win'?