Daniel Eizans: Content Strategist, Geek

Marketers have always had to worry about overall brand health via word of mouth but are are now becoming more reasonably concerned (if not panicking) about consumer sentiment in the social media space and on properties they otherwise don’t moderate or own. This is considered a necessary evil, but all fine and good; because at least we have control over what content is published on our own Web sites and can limit what consumers are adding to the conversation. Right?

Now, with Google Sidewiki and other web annotation services like Blerp, publishers are realizing they have no control over what users are saying about their content, and that those opinions can now convieniently live right next to our carefully worded, incredibly insightful site via Google Toolbar or widget. Gasp! Shudder! The Horror!

Should you worry?

If your content or your brand isn’t useful, then yes you absolutely should be worried about it. However, if you’re publishing content that is optimized, honest and useful to visitors, you should see sidewikis as one more oppotunity to connect with your readers on a deeper level. The fast evolution of the Web is forcing companies to become more and more transparent out of necessity, which in turn calls for better content. People aren’t as concerned with connecting with brands on an emotional level online. They want you to be useful, which calls for web content to be functional, relevant and most of all valuable to the consumer.

Have A Plan

No matter how good your content and content strategy are, you should still be prepared in the event negative entries do start to pop up. Be honest, open a dialogue and address issues. Orvis does a phenominal job of addressing every negative comment or review that appears on its Web site by openly admitting how the feedback was addressed by consumer relations teams, how it affected the future development of the product and if any immediate changes to the product in question will occur as a result. Because the company handles business in this fashion, the users of their Web site wear their love for Orvis on their sleeve, improving word of mouth offline. These consumers also act as an army of brand evangelists for the company in numerous spaces online.

But Will Sidewiki Take Off?

I think that’s a great question. I’ve waited almost three months to write about it and form an opinion. I think early adopters have done some really interesting things with Sidewiki – adding insight, history to articles and opposing perspective to extreme points of view. Personally, I think tools like sidewiki were 100% inevitable, and that ultimately, a moderate portion of web users will adopt, while a smaller number will participate. That being said, Google has historically pulled the plug on projects that didn’t turn out the way the company was hoping for. Lively comes immediately to mind as one of the failed lab experiments, so the jury could very well be out on Sidewiki for the next year or two.

Don’t Panic. Everything Will Be Ok

I understand the worry site publishers have about having unmoderated commentary attached in a convenient sidebar right next to the site they worked so hard to produce and the jury also still seems to be out on whether sidewiki content will hurt the SEO value of the actual site. I also worry that sidewikis have the potential to become giant graffiti walls that serve no real value to enhancing conversation or elaborating on existing site structures, but still contend that the content on your acutal site is what you as a publisher really need to worry about.

We can spend a lot less time worrying about what could be said in a sidewiki, provided we focus on useful, relevant messaging. As content strategists, we say it all the time – it all comes down to what content you put out there. You either have the confidence to put product and your voice out there to stand up for themselves or you don’t. You can always choose not to participate, though I strongly discourage that course. Stay the course content creators. Stay the course!

What do you think of Google Sidewiki? Should we be as worried as some people seem to be?

I’ve grown incredibly tired of hearing about the next big thing in marketing. Almost everyone seems to have their own version of snake oil that will magically increase ROI, increase customer engagement, grow consideration levels overnight, or improve the overall image of a brand in just three short weeks. Bad news friends — there is no magic bullet, no tonic or single tool that will fix a brand.

Social media won’t do it, digital won’t do it. Neither will print, mobile, TV, emerging media, gaming or whatever comes next. All those things are tactics. And while brands will toss millions on one or a combination of several of the above, most of them fall short on the most important part of their execution … the strategy.

Instead of simply patching the holes with tactics, wouldn’t it be better to eschew the promises of salvation made by individual practitioners and start thinking more skeptically in regards to your marketing/advertising campaigns? As a content strategist, my favorite question to ask any person in a meeting that brings up a creative concept or suggests the use of some sort of tactic is, “What does that mean to the consumer?”

It seems so simple, but 9 times out of every 10, no one thinks of how creative will ultimately be interpreted by the consumer. Perhaps our biggest challenge as strategists is attempting to persuade a client that we need to talk about our audiences and messages – and ultimately whether we have product or service that satisfies those audiences – before we get anywhere near a tactical discussion.

My recommendation to brands and the content strategists and content planners working for those companies, is to place the greatest amount of initial emphasis on finding out who the customer is.

What do they do? Why do they need your service or product? How do they consume media? What do their activities in social media look like? Develop personas for consumers you’re likely to encounter given the economic and product landscape and then figure out what kinds of messages need to be created to satisfy those minds.

Once we know who they are and we know what we need to say to them, we hopefully have something in our wheelhouse that they give a damn about. Then we can take those learnings to decide what we can do to creatively satisfy them, but whatever we come up with better execute against the strategic thinking we spent all that initial time on.

Social media and emerging media may be all shiny and new, and I’m sure brands have every ‘media expert’ that’s blogging in his or her basement telling them that they need a “Twitter-Strategy” or a “Facebook-Strategy.” That’s a farse.

All the “strategy” in the world won’t mean a thing if your customers aren’t looking for you to be there. Be skeptical, be like Socrates or like your 4-year-old. Ask these so-called experts “Why?” Ultimately, both strategists and brands should be asking the same question, “What are you trying to accomplish?”

“Why do I need to build a Facebook app that lets you change the color of my product and then gives me a badge to annoy their friends? What does this tactic accomplish and how does it support my strategy?”

“Why do I need to ‘tweet’ about my guys who drain septic fields? What does tweeting about that accomplish?”

“Why should I make a mobile game for my family sedan? What does that tactic accomplish?”

Brands get to where they are for a reason. They either have a service or product that satisfies a need or they don’t. All the tactics in the world won’t help boost profitability if they don’t have skeptics to make sure that the tactic is being executed to a strategic umbrella that ultimately influences brand consideration.

It’s time to stop being creative for creativity’s sake and time to start communicating with consumers in the ways they choose.

In short, brands shouldn’t steer away from delivering messaging in print because it’s percieved as a dying art, or put all of their eggs into digital and social baskets because many people access their information in that fashion. It’s about being accessible to all, being strategic with your messaging platforms and spending less and less time focusing on your campaign creative or tactics that may not even be appropriate. What are your thoughts?

Photo: Billie Hara

Even if you’re the most casual of Facebook users, you’ve no doubt seen one of your friends, a journalist or a “social media expert” (I hate that phrase) sounding off on the social networking giant’s rolling changes to its Terms of Service.

Last night, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg finally yielded to a growing user revolt, just a day after he attempted to clarify changes to the Terms of Service in a blog post. Despite his explanations, users still were unhappy and concerned about their privacy.

With more than 50,000 users complaining. Users win.

Zuckerburg wrote last night that Facebook would revert the terms of service back to its previous version, adding however that the site is determined to update its terms of service, but this time would seek input from the community of Facebook users first.

“If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms… you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created–Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. I’m looking forward to reading your input.”

In all honesty, I’m glad Zuckerburg was quick to act and not just because I personally saw some holes in their new terms of service. I’m glad he did it because it’s the right thing to do from a best practice standpoint.

It seems that Facebook and Zuckerberg have learned something from the Beacon problem two years ago.

What Facebook did wrong with it’s roll out of these new terms of use is what some other popular free Web sites have done in recent months – it neglected to adequately warn users of a reasonably major change to the site. The initial blog post that came on February 4 that simply told users that the change happened was not enough to give users ample time to remove content they wouldn’t want to fall under the new terms of use. And all explanations aside, the change was significant.

Hulu faced a similar negative response when it failed to notify its users that it had to remove older seasons of “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia” in January. Granted, “Sunny’s” parent network, FX made the request that the episodes be pulled and Hulu simply complied. The problem was that they failed to communicate the change to any community members. Seeing as “Sunny” is one of the most popular shows on the site, the community was rightfully upset and in quite an uproar at Hulu’s mismanagement of the situation.

Hulu made it’s Mea Culpa blog post just four days after pulling the episodes. They ended up working out a deal with the network to add the episodes back for an abbreviated period to allow users the chance to get their fix before the episodes made their exit.

What all this comes back to is the need for sites and services to communicate to their users, even if there is nothing terribly important to say. I don’t care if your service is free or paid. iTunes forces me to agree to new terms on a seemingly weekly basis and to be completely honest, I adore them for it. I always know where my privacy stands with them. Facebook should have done the same thing.

Muhammad Saleem pretty much sums up everything I think that Facebook should have done before rolling out changes to their terms of service in a blog post he did following the Hulu incident: “HOW TO: Survive a Social Media Revolt. He nails it on every point. Now, lets see where we go from here.

Photo by Zirak

More and more I see brand strategists and other thought leaders talking about the importance of having great content on their sites to improve traffic and drive consideration. I’m of the belief that simply isn’t enough. Yes, great content, keyword strings, sound coding and SEO are all really important for getting people to your site. But once they’ve made it to your property, read your pitch and have begun the consideration process, what are you doing to engage them?

And thus, we have to address the dreaded customer relationship marketing thingy. I’m not going to lie to you. I believe most companies flat out suck at this. You might have something that totally interests me. I love what I find on your Web site and you might give me a channel to talk about how much I love both those things, but if you don’t talk back to me and acknowledge the fact that I’ve actually taken the time to give you my feedback, I won’t interact with your site again or bother to respond to your survey etc. And it’s in that assurance that you’ll converse with me that perhaps the most important key to blogging comes out: Establishing Trust.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a top 10, top 5 or even a top 2 list of ways to guarantee that people visiting your site will trust you. It’s a subjective thing, and damn is it ever frustrating when you can’t establish it. Building Trust with readership takes time. You have to be absolutely congruent with what you’re writing about and when you do converse with readers/consumers, you have to be and portray yourself as a person of authenticity and character. Even more difficult is getting those readers to perceive you as such and then connect with it.

Yes, you’ll fail. You’ll piss some people off and yes, a lot of people simply may not enjoy the person who happens to be the voice for your product, service or brand. But if you’re not interacting with consumers to make the attempt to build trust, you’re falling into the old way of marketing… shouting from the rooftops until someone hears you, blind to the fact that you have absolutely no real control about what people perceive your brand to be without talking honestly with them about it. If you go that route, let me know how that works out for you.

Photo: Dora Pete

When I talk to co-workers and clients, I’m often asked how I can bear to follow so many people and still feel like I’m part of discussions on Twitter. My answer is a simple one. I take part in the discussions I believe I can add relevance to or ask questions when I have a genuine interest in a topic or particular Tweet. I treat Twitter as if I’m at a huge dinner party filled with really intelligent guests. I add something to the conversation when I believe I can say something relevant, helpful or offer my opinion when it’s asked of me.

Ironically, while doing research for this post, I found out Chris Brogan used a Cocktail Party as his analogy when he discussed how he uses Twitter. It’s a great post!

As of this post (Jan. 15, 2009) I’m following 900 people and being followed by more than 650 people. It’s not easy to keep up with all 900 people I follow. For most users I’d imagine Twitter, is the chance to engage with people who have their similar interests in mind or with people in their vicinity. For me, Twitter has become an integral part of my day, a research tool and a method of communication.

The long and short of it is that I DON’T participate in every conversation. I DO go back and use Twitter Search to find topics I’m concerned about and follow up on them with vigor. As an advertising and marketing professional, I spend a lot of time following the competition of my clients, discussing my client’s service or product and using my feed as a PR vehicle for those products or services. That being said, I also use my Twitter feed as an opportunity to be myself and to discuss issues I’m interested in. I don’t believe in maintaining a separate feed for my “work” activity. I’m always working and usually let my personality seep into my work and my work relationships (perhaps to a fault?).

Sure, as someone who’s main client is Chevrolet, I spend a lot of time reading Tweets from Auto Blogs, newspapers, industry buffs and gearheads, but I’m also a passionate Geek who loves film, technology, iPhone applications, philosophy, politics and sports. I believe that as social media practitioners we have a responsibility to be ourselves. We can’t tell a brand to be authentic and transparent without being authentic and transparent when we’re doing the telling. We really need to drink our own Kool-Aid more often than not.

I personally don’t use any desktop apps to manage my feed. I check updates occasionally when I’m away from my computer at work through Twitteriffic on my iPhone, but if I miss some things I don’t panic. I take it in stride that I can’t be involved in every discussion that I’d like to be in and that I can’t be part of all the action. I react and respond to what I can. With the number of followers I have at the moment, I can still make time to respond to ever Direct Message (I get about 10 a day), and still respond to every “@.” However, I can’t respond to every request for a poll, can’t read every blog post tweeted by a user I follow whose opinion I genuinely value, and can’t stay up 24-hours a day to keep up on the feed. I do what I can, stay as transparent as possible and make sure I’m a part of the conversations I believe I NEED to be a part of – which usually equals 20-30 tweets a day on the average (more in cases I’m at events like #NAIAS – 34 tweets in 4 hours).

I imagine if I pop well over the 1,000 following mark, I’ll need to start using something like TweetDeck to keep up and keep things organized, but for now, I’m happy with the way I’m using Twitter.

Sidenote: @Eyecube has an amazing post today on the politics of corporate social media transparency with lots of great discussions in the comments.