Social media rule number one : Know thy network

Social media rule number one: Know thy network

Many businesses are scared to be online. They fear the adverse power of social media and online communications. An open two-way channel is indeed more difficult to control than the one-way TV, radio and newspapers where customers will eventually comment but the editorial team will decide which comment to accept and which one is better to delete. But what can happen online and why the fear? Well the truth is that everything can happen online and damage a brand. Businesses that took years to work their image and message can see all their efforts destroyed in some days, with a simple comment on Facebook. Conflicts and crises happen every single day on social networks. 

At the same time companies know that they don't have a choice to eventually get online and hope for the best if they want to survive in a competitive market. So what can they do about it? 

Well first of all it is important for businesses to know that A LOT can be done to prevent, limit and control online problems, especially conflicts and crises. 

Rule number one that I always tell my clients is KNOW YOUR NETWORK. Know your Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, etc. network. This is easier said than done, but it is the most important thing your business must know online. Knowing your network doesn't mean how many ''LIKES'' your business has on Facebook or ''TWEETS'' on Twitter. Knowing your network means to ask yourself the right questions about your network. Here are some examples: 

1) Who are my online customers?

2) Do I have a community, a sub-community?

3) How is information shared in my network?

4) Who are the leaders of my network?

5) etc. 

When I did a quick survey, not even 1 out of 20 online businesses could answer one of those questions about their online community. We all know that knowledge is power so if you don't know your network how can you prevent conflicts and crises in that same network?

If you have questions or comments you can also contact us or visit the official eRelations website at erelations.info. 

Gamification : Engaging is fun

Lately, marketers don't know what to do anymore to reach customers. There are thousands of them selling SEO, PageRanking, affiliations and cheap publicity. The same message over and over again about metrics, numbers, money and products. Well at some point e-marketing seems to be losing its appeal. It seems boring, no-fun and old. Gamification is a new way of engaging. It makes engagement fun, it makes engagement easy and most of all it gives a fresh start to an old-fashioned brand. More and more evangelists are talking about engaging. Which means give more power to the customer and bring him/her to participate actively online. 

Then the next question some strategists began to ask was : How do we engage people online? Seems to us we have been doing that for years through social media campaigns and our other services. Obviously most of those online campaigns didn't reach their target and bring in new customer or make more loyal the ones we already have. 

Engaging is not about doing things the same way but saying we do something different. To really engage customers online you have to change and transform the way your company is doing business. For example you cannot say you are an engaging company just because you sell your products on Facebook, Twitter or Pinterest. You are becoming an engaging company because customers feel that they really want to participate, give their opinions and you as a business LISTEN to what they have to say. They feel a sense of belonging. 

Gamification is a way of using game elements in new and creative ways to interest people to what your business has to offer. Gamification uses elements like points, badges and leaderboards among other means to make people excited about a brand and especially see that it can be fun to participate, to collaborate with others and to talk about a product in an engaging and creative manner. 

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 3

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 3: Diffusion-based limitations override

(source: http://erelations.info/orcm-architecture-model-part-3/)

Relations created online have some advantages over «offline» relations, at least in a business context. Such an advantage is the massive scale of a message dissemination.

Whereas in the early stages of the history of humanity a message could be distributed to more than one person it was difficult to do and involved someone to write the message (most people could not write since they did not have the required education), someone to deliver the message (sometimes you also needed a horse, donkey or a damn camel), as well as someone to read it (most people could not read). It also involved material resources and in most cases it stopped right there (there were no Costco or Staples to sell you 10,000 pages + printer bundles back then, remember?). All those factors combined contributed to a fairly limited level of message distribution, which progressed quickly when large numbers of people gained access to education, printing methods were developed, etc.

But there were still many limitations to large-scale message distribution. Those limitations are to a large degree abolished now on a worldwide scale. This is mainly because with the advent of online communications you still need someone to write the message (most people can write since they possess the required education), someone to deliver the message (all you need is a pc, smartphone, etc.), as well as someone to read it (most people can read, although they may not be «at the same level»). It does not involve much material resources, since all those great businesses have put in place cloud-based IT infrastructures so all you guys may write and propagate all sorts of content through their servers and application interfaces, email servers and social networks, this mostly with no charge, which is of course wonderful!

The downfall of the democratization of the writing process is that your piece about socio-politically derived gender-influenced perception of Dali's works may be lost in a massive influx of information from which it will appear as no more than a drop lost in a sea of not particularly significant data (marketers will at this point roll their eyes will muttering «SEO», but that's another story altogether on which countless posts were already devoted). Think of it this way: if there were millions of papyrus scattered around the earth and you could pick some from the trash around the corner (or buy a thousand papyrus for 11.99$ from you-know-where), most likely nobody would care about this one piece of papyrus, right? So the staggering numbers of posts, blogs, tweets and various electronic pieces of literature do cause a loss of uniqueness; no one really cares about a particular, individual electronic writing unless it combines several factors such as significance, being directed towards a particular niche, excellent writing skills, etc. The overall quality of a post may then increase its potential for persistence in the cosmic cloud of Web-based I/O (input/output) interactions.

But one particular trait of capitalistic societies (which is fine overall, of course) is to capitalize (duh!) on any activities of said society. Online communications are no exception to this rule, even more so in recent years with millions of new users having gained access to the Net (that means a huge market share is potentially available). In order to profit from this increase in online population content will be created for the specific purpose of generating interest for brands and products. For the content to be seen by a significant number of folks, techniques & methods will be developed to trick search engines to consider as significant something that would otherwise be discarded as spam or insignificant. There you have it: content quality will be lost to the power of money. And with more and more bots pushing product/brand-based generic content on blogs/social networks through automated processes there is a risk that social media will lose some of its potential for communicating, interacting and sharing precious knowledge with others. You know, the «social» part of social media? Or we could re-label all that brand media...

Well like they say, 'nough said: that's it for your fave blog series; we will leave the ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence trilogy on this apocalyptic note.

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 2

Persistence-based limitations override

(source: http://erelations.info/orcm-architecture-model-part-2/)

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 2: Persistence-based limitations override

Relations created online have some advantages over offline relations, at least in a business context. Such an advantage is transcendence over persistence-related limitations.

Throughout its history humanity used two main forms of communications: speaking and writing (there is also sign language but it is used on a smaller scale). The former can have a powerful timely impact but its relevance fades over time, while the latter tends to retain a greater degree of importance throughout the years. For example, tribal cultures with exclusively oral-based traditional knowledge tend to fade away while cultures based around writing-based knowledge thrived. This is simply based on the fact that sounds are invoked than disappear while written forms of communication remain by default (although they do disappear when we shred/burn the piece of paper it is displayed on, etc.). But even that rule is changing now as online websites/sharing software/social networks (YouTube and all) are introducing the concept of massive distribution/dissemination of oral communications. Still, the oral form of communication is harder to control than the written form; for example SEO functions are based on written words and the software is not able to scan for spoken words (well surely some guys are drilling down this stuff as I write so it should revolutionize online marketing practices soon to the immense joy of SEO-obsessed marketing capitalists). Could a dying/dead native language be saved/brought back to life through social media propagation then? Why not.

Online relations do not really introduce the concept of an «eternal» communication, as those already existed in one way or the other. For example, the Egyptian papyrus are dated thousand years old and still exist today; those drawings on some cave wall could also be considered early forms of communication (maybe there were a bunch of keywords in that drawing, who knows). We could then assume that there can be a form of persistence regarding traditional forms of communications (writing, drawing, folkloric songs, etc.). Social media just does that in a gigantic, enormous scale. Those Egyptian papyrus were «managed» by kings (pharaohs, tsars, or their equivalent), i.e. only the elite of society could read and then write. Even when having acquired the knowledge of writing one would still have to gain access to proper tools and materials to engrave writing into stone. Whereas a handful of people controlled written communications around that time, today almost anyone can gain access to a device (pc, tablet, smartphone, gaming console, etc.) that will enable her or him to post something in the cloud, where it will exist and stay «alive» for everyone to see (well, potentially lots of people), this for an unlimited time (in theory).

But there is no magic there. Although fairly improbable, let's say there is a revolution/war/insurrection of some kind where Taliban-like figures seize power on a worldwide scale. They could then judge the online world as too hard to control, perceive it as a potential threat that enables people to collaborate, acquire and diffuse knowledge, evolve and take part in such similar, evil-inclined activities. To make it short those guys decide to «destroy the Net». They go to where cloud servers of ABC Inc. are located and blow them up, destroy those big cables under the sea, block all power sources and force us to cut wood and burn it to survive the cold months, etc. So there you go, all this social media stuff is gone. Yes, it will not happen but the mere fact that this kind of scenario is technically possible to some degree just serves as a reminder that underneath all this unfathomable online 2.0 magic you still need an IT infrastructure.

Part 3 (final part) of this thematic dissertation will discuss diffusion-based limitations related to online VS offline communications.

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 1

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 1

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 1: Time zone & localization-based limitations override

(source: http://erelations.info/orcm-architecture-model-part-1/)

Relations created online have some advantages over «offline» relations, at least in a business context. Such an advantage is transcendence over timezone-related limitations.

First off, this type of relations can be maintained/managed 365, 24/7: for example, your ABC social network app will notify you of posts related to you, even if those were invoked in the middle of the night while you were sleeping. You may also post while you are sleeping, as automation tools such as Buffer and numerous others enable one to schedule posting activities in the future; this can facilitate over-the-clock social network feeds and reaching out to potential followers/customers in different countries/time zones, etc. Those type of 2.0 tools (interface-based, user-friendly IT tools that do not require any particular IT expertise) can transcend material/physical constraints as they open a new world of networking possibilities, of which we do not know yet the 100% full reach.

«Physical/material» type of communications, such as regular mail, do not run 365, 24/7 as there are many constraints associated with traditional communications. Those online, «non-material» communications can then also be managed through software-generated interfaces, enhancing productivity and usability. There are physical constraints in some ways though: if your internet connection is down; if your electronic mail service is down; if your website hosting provider is down; if there is a power outage where you are located; etc. Also, people forget that the cloud is not magic: instead of being physically located on your own computer your files are stored physically on someone else's computer/server. Which means if this guy goes down, your files go down too...

Most likely Google/Apple/IBM/Microsoft/Facebook/Dropbox/etc. servers will not go down for a long period of time but there is no absolute certainty whatsoever over those matters. Nonetheless, even though online+cloud is not a synonym for godly perfection it still is much, much superior in its overall efficiency and availability than trad communications. And think of it: a Web server won't go on strike, while trad comm workers may eventually do so (automation WIN).

Another positive aspect of online comms is the relative lack of relevance of one's localization. You could be in India and follow the Twitter account of a US-based user. Traditional comms would involve complications, additional fees, etc. in order to establish and maintain a relation/communication between someone based in India with a US-based individual (although possible). Again, since online comms are less material-dependent than offline comms there are a fair share of limitations which can be ignored in the context of such relations & communications. Still, it is important to note that online comms do necessitate a proper telecom infrastructure, of course (you still need the Net). Also, by relative we want to point out that some applications, apps and devices are localization-based (such as Foursquare and similar apps/social networks). So, simply by being localization-based those type of apps introduce physical-based limitations to relations & communications established in the online realm. But that is what they intend to do, i.e. duplicate the physical, localization-based limitations of the offline world into the online world (concept of proximity-based relationships). Kind of ironic if you think about it.

So, apart from introducing the possibility of transcending physical limitations related to traditional communications, online relations do not cease to exist once completed as they might stay alive somewhere in the cloud, where they can be seen by flyers looking out the window of a magnificent blue Web sky... We will further elaborate into this aspect of online comms in part 2 of this thematic dissertation. 

Natural-Born Online Gurus

Natural-Born Online Gurus

They are household names like Brian, Mary, Seth, Chris, etc. They are a new kind of thought leaders. They are called social media gurus, online marketing prophets or engagement evangelists. Some of their followers have all their work (eBook, tweets, blogs,etc.) and believe everything they say. One of my friends called Brian Solis a G-O-D.

More than money or notoriety they have something that people want : it's called
P-O-W-E-R. They may seem cool, sociable, next door guys but still they do think before writing their next blog or tweet that 140 line that may damage their online reputation. Like any thought leaders people have to be careful, not to get carried away by meaningful sentences or powerful words.

Like other thought leaders Freud, Marx, Gandhi, etc. they have a responsibility to protect their followers and we have a responsibility to keep our critical sense in regard to all that is said and done online.

It's not easy to be a thought leader, an online guru. Some people are born with incredible qualities to communicate, to connect and to interact with other human beings. But that is not enough.

To become an online prophet you have to:
--- adapt your natural qualities, competence, style to an online audience
--- learn from your audience, to be an online leader you have to be a listener 
--- clear thoughts, simple words and short sentences
--- a true ''socializer'' and ''connector''
--- you have to be your biggest fan!

The future belongs to people who are able to build groups, community and mobs online with a powerful and meaningful online presence that gives them the opportunity to connect and gather through ideas, opinions and values. 

Transforming reality through corporate vision

Transforming reality through corporate vision

People are born and eventually come of age and pass away. This is not necessarily the case with corporate entities. Those strange forms of life may survive through one main aspect: the vision located at the core of their heart; one could say that the corporate vision is the soul of a corporation, the principle governing its behavior pattern adopted through various roles and situations.

A strong corporate vision is not based exclusively on reality: it transforms, creates reality... It may not care – or want to care... - that you perceive it as being disconnected from "facts on the ground"; acknowledging a perception that would differ from the corporate vision may be undesirable, since it may then prevent the corporate vision from becoming a reality. Hence a too strong focus or obsession with reality may not help a vision take shape and subsequently materialize. On the contrary, being "open" to a perception that is compatible with the corporate vision could help it become a reality; thus adopting a particular attitude of desiring to conform to the corporate vision can contribute in transforming the "real world". And then, the corporate vision will become real: "facts on the ground" will be aligned with said vision and will thus be perceived as more true/natural and less as an artificial perception based on a distorted viewpoint.

This process, which could be akin in some aspects to an organized form of systemic brainwash/propaganda, is not necessarily negative in its inherent nature, though: it strives to achieve perennity of the corporation through dissemination of its vision, i.e. "business culture", in order to convert, dominate, gain strength. Ethics of behavior is not particularly relevant in the case of a corporate entity (other than for image-building purposes) since its primary will is to never cease to exist; it will then take actions required to assure its ultimate sustainability and survival; the moral aspect of activities undertaken to this effect is a human element while corporations are not human, even though they are created and managed/controlled by humans (like, for example, an animal being directed by a human does not make said animal become a human itself). It could then be assumed that corporations are governed through different sets of rules than individuals.

A corporate entity that would never fail to regenerate and propagate its core vision could, in theory, "never die" and survive eternally.