In the world of magazines, designers view readers as members of a tribe. Consider your social networking the same way.
It has to do with knowing your audience. There’s a big difference between the audiences of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and LinkedIn. You wouldn’t write a press release when you want a billboard. And you wouldn’t produce a short video if you want the local newspaper at your press conference.
Share the book that you’re reading on goodreads and the news you’re reading on Digg. It’s the basics: Pick the right medium to send your message to the target audience – so identify your target audience.
That means that your profile – or your profiles on different networks – each talk to a different tribe. You might meet people on Twitter but reconnect with old friends on Facebook while networking on LinkedIn. Build a separate audience on each profile or at least understand what your connections want when they connect with you on different networks. Don’t send direct mail when a phone call will do. And don’t treat each network as a chamber for your same words to echo around in. Find a way to make each profile useful and unique or save your time and just use one spot.
One of my friends posted advice handed out on The Today Show during the weekend: “Build something meaningful and choose friends wisely.” It’s a good thing to keep in mind – focus on your audience. Do it online and offline. That way you’ll encourage your tribe to listen to its chief – you.
So we’re in a time of iEverything where we broadcast our every thought on Facebook and Twitter. Stake out your spot and move with the tribe.
But is it really best to run from Room to Room – or network to network – in an attempt to stay current with what’s cool? Isn’t it better to take advantage of the unique capabilities of each network and make that part of your strategy? (Note: a “Facebook Strategy” is more than “we should do that” just as a “Twitter Strategy” is more than “OMG can I Twitter all day!”)
Isn’t it better to use the real-time broadcast capability of Twitter, the scale of Facebook, and the embedding capability (and brand name) of YouTube when communicating? Only by breaking down the walls of these networks, can we use their full capability to communicate as widely as possible. Think of the sites as real world infrastructure sites. You’re taking on big infrastructure upkeep costs if you don’t want to be seen as an absentee landlord.
MySpace will continue to hold avid users, but will it be worth your time and effort to dedicate the resources needed to have a vibrant presence in that network? (Would you remain in Friendster if you had joined it in 2002?) Shutting down – or significantly scaling back – in these networks can alienate dedicated users. Don’t tell me that it’s expected to lose some people, and that you’re OK with it. You joined these networks to chase these people – you’re not OK with getting them angry at you.
Whatever you build or whatever you join isn’t a magic bullet. They offer something – even if it’s a unique way to connect to your audience. Figure out what that unique strength is, and incorporate your strategy around that. Jump on the new opportunities quickly, but know that you’re leaping at the capability and not the shiny toy.
Shiny toys are tossed aside when the next cool thing comes along. And in such a rapid environment, the next cool thing will be out before you build a big following in the old thing. Watch the Did You Know video as a reminder of the speed of change. (Then, think about how much that video reminds you of Sprint’s new What’s Happening commercials.
Now, think about how both videos reflect on individuals and what you’re doing right now. That’s kind of what Twitter’s about. What are you doing to use the things happening now in your communications?
Just wanted to take minute to clarify this post from earlier this week.
I think social networking is a wonderful and entertaining tool to get in closer contact with people. I’ve personally learned about so many people who now have children, homes, and spouses that I wouldn’t have known about before – people who I had lost touch with years ago. I’m really happy for them, and it’s great to get that chance to catch up with people who had inadvertently fallen from my list of colleagues.
Just as I can get more done with a word processor than hand writing everything, I expect programs can help me know a bit more about a larger number of people. But I don’t think I’ll truly know hundreds of people – I think I’ll have trivia about most of their lives.
The larger point behind that entry is that social networking is an interest for some people in the same way that I have a passionate interest in genealogy. Some folks will be really connected and plugged in to the newest sites. They’ll move on when too many other people join the site and it loses its hipness. And if they’re not coming back, were they truly engaged with – and listening to – your message? Or were you just playing in the right medium for a few months?
It’s a question for a communications professional who believes social networking is The Solution. It might only be one tool to get one segment of people. It’s a service – not a strategy.
I stumbled across a post on doteduguru about a week ago that discussed bringing all of the departments and divisions of a college under a social media brand presence. The basic theme: marketing departments and webmasters should take the lead in creating social network profiles. They can use this lead to advise or discourage individual departments from pushing into these programs.
I work at a place that’s pushing itself into many of these networks. I’ve helped to shepherd and create our own little area with the idea of being part of the conversation, and I’ve been approached with questions about how other offices can do what we do. I – and a few other folks (who get it) in other departments – spend time checking in on unofficial pages just to monitor. But there’s no institutionally organized (or if there is, there’s no lead dog).
There’s too high a cost to not be a part of these conversations – to not standing in these rooms. We’re trying to figure out who grabbed some of the branded real estate and created some of the initial pages and profiles. In a way, this really forces us to be part of the conversation – to be respectful of the community norm of not being over the top in our promotion.
Rachel wrote about the merit of becoming the go-to office for other departments interested in creating profiles on the various networks. The larger gain is in creating the dominant profile. Some of our profiles that weren’t the first created on a site are lost beneath the initial profiles. This hasn’t been a problem, and we continue to watch for any issues. But we’re faced with creating a series of profiles that tie together under one theme – something that takes time and the focus of a handful of people in disparate offices.
One of the overstated new rules is the need to give up control. Don’t think you’ll pull everyone under your page. But do be as friendly and as helpful as possible – a good community member – to get others to look for leadership. You can run as lead dog, but you can’t rein in others unless the executives decree it. That’s the easiest way to get someone to set up a spoof page – one that you can’t control and one likely to draw lots of attention.
Stay dominant by being open to others and making it easy for everyone to contribute to your work and profile.
