Confederate: United in a league, alliance, or conspiracy (image by Geoff Livingston).

Creating social media strategies for large organizations can be unwieldy. Disparate divisions, brands, product launches, autonomous departments, budgets and line items can give corporate communicators a tough time as they bridge their companies into the social era.

Some organizations can manage their organizations well enough to federate their social media efforts under one roof. Now some very basic best practices are arising. According to the Fortune 500 Business Blogging Wiki, 62 of the country’s largest companies are already engaged. But others cannot, and they must look to create a different model, one we have started calling the confederate model.

There are many organizations that simply cannot get all of their parts to agree on a unified strategy. For example, consider national non-profits that have local autonomous chapters. Other corporate structures where this problem can arise include partnerships like large law firms, franchise models that feature local owners and undefined marketing structures, and automobile dealerships (Star Alliance image by Nergiz).

For all intents and purposes, these loosely organized bodies can do what they like. This creates enormous challenges online, in large part because of the disparate efforts can confuse customers, as well as fracture brand conversations. Indeed, a communicator needs to acknowledge that there will always be a healthy majority of internal stakeholders who will never engage in the larger social media stratey.

Building a Confederated Model

Instead of trying to control the social media effort under one roof, confederated models try to empower individual stakeholders in the larger organization. A confederated model for a company or non-profit assumes and includes the following:

In addition to building the actual framework, a great deal of the effort involves internal alliance building and communications. Local stakeholders need to be made aware of and convinced about the effectiveness of the social media tool sets.

Of course, what would a proposed stategic model be without a case study? One needs to go no further than the Obama campaign’s social media efforts. This is an ongoing effort.

Partisan politics aside, Obama’s campaign communications involves intense grassroots activities using social media tools. Tens of thousands of Obama campaigners, advocates and even casual voters are enabled to spread the message.

At the heart of the effort is activism on more than a dozen social networks, as well as the Obama campaign’s web site. Bloggers using the Obama platform have even posted negatively against policies or Obama actions.

Not your average political campaign, but one that does fit into the confederated model. The Obama campaign is less concerned about individual flare outs and control, and much more oriented towards word of mouth and viral grass roots activism. The results have been self-evident.

The controversial Sarah Lacy spoke at Gnomedex. Yours truly argued with Lacy and Robert Scoble about business blogging, in what became a very public discussion (see extensive CNET coverage, image from said article). The usual, beaten to death PR Sucks meme arose (snore), but our specific argument arose over the feasibility of Lacy’s claims that bloggers can really monetize their business.

I believe most content generators a) don’t create for business/marketing purposes and b) won’t ever be in a position to successfully become superstars to the extent that the content itself will create enough opportunities to be self supporting. The era of turning on a blog and it being “special” ended last year (per last week’s Content Creation post).

CNET got my point right on the nose:

Lacy, Charlene Li [who is absolutely brilliant], Scoble and others, were “people who already have influential positions… Why should the average Joe Metroblogger care,” Livingston asked.

Both Lacy and Li came out of positions where their professional day jobs — BusinessWeek and Forrester — afforded them a much quicker ride to success. In the case of Scoble, he had to scrap his way to the top, but still had some special sauce as one of the first major corporate bloggers vis a vis Microsoft.

To really make it without these advantages, you need an unusual combination of skills to rise to prominence. You must be a natural. Scrapping your way to success through content creation today requires these four elements:

Not as simple as the wave of a hand from a former BusinessWeek reporter who had a easier path to prominence. By the way, Lacy’s journalistic past was something she needed to remind Gnomedexers of more than a dozen times. Most Gnomedexers seemed to feel Lacy’s laurels had worn thin, as demonstrated by the worst speaker rating of the event.

Breaking It Down

(Robert Redford starred as the Natural in 1984)

This discussion, while interesting to Lacy et al, is not a new discussion, but relevant in that so many individuals and businesses are trying to create blogs for business purposes. Technically “blogging” is not the right term; it should be content creation. A blog is a publishing mechanism for a variety of content from the printed word and podcasts to photos and video. Anyway…

Can an individual — and to some extent a new business effort — successfully leverage content for leading edge value? Yes, in our own business consider Valeria Maltoni’s rise to prominence last year, and this year’s Jason Falls success story. A rise to the top for business purposes can be done. Business value usually comes in the form of intangibles like more web site transactions through integrated marketing calls to action, personal or corporate branding, speaking opps, networking contacts, etc.

But let’s examine content creators by type:

1) The Naturals - Folks who would blog if they were stuck in Alaska, alone with no hopes for any commerce.
2) Business people and entrepreneurs - From consultant to corporation, these folks are seeking to achieve financial reward.

The two are not exclusive. But most bloggers fall under the category of one, naturally creative. Doubt me? Check out DC Blogs, a list of thousands upon thousands of local bloggers who create for the sake fulfilling their inner Picasso. Most have no aspiration for monetization.

Also, consider how many people create content versus those that simply listen or comment. The actual blogger is a rare person, one in 20 to 25, depending on your source.

In the case, of business types who do blog, unless they are also naturally creative, they rarely post with the necessary frequency, long-term tenacity and substance to succeed. If an entrepreneur’s natural creativity cannot be brought to bear in this sense, it’s going to be very hard for them. A corporation can better weather this deficiency by deploying several voices guided by an editorial mission and calendar.

In addition to creative fire to achieve success, you must have something to say. You have to have subject matter expertise. Creativity and subject matter expertise do not mutually co-exist. Further, is there enough of both, to deliver targeted content excellence over a sustained Stakeholders must find the content relevant consistently or they will stop following a creator.

Last, but not least comes, community networking skills. This represents more than half of the battle. Content is not king of much>Unless you already have notoriety, generating a community network becomes an organic process. Developing enough Groundswell to successfully compel communities to generate word of mouth and propel content, requires strong networking skills - a skill set completely different from content creation.

Networking requires a sustained participatory commitment from the individual on top of content creation. Much of Now Is Gone focuses on participation within communities, and that’s because it is the community that drives adoption, not publishing or even subject matter expertise. Those are pre-requisites. Instead, the community adapts, and they only do so when they believe you are credible, and there is clear value for them.

Applied to the Gnomedex Conversation

The Lacys, Lis, and Scobles of the world have an unfair advantage compared to the average blogger. Their credibility with the community — in the form of BusinessWeek, Forrester and Microsoft — was already established. Their communities were much more willing to embrace them than the average unknown.

To their credit, Li and Scoble are clearly positioned for long term success. In addition to their notoriety, they network, create content, and deliver substance over time. I am far from ready to don Lacy a champion due to perceived weaknesses in her thought leadership and community skills. That being said, she is undoubtably a Natural. Journalists and authors have to be content creators in their heart. But how much longer will the BusinessWeek cache carry her?

Those of us who have had to earn or are trying to develop business success through content creation know the road is not easy. If it was, everyone would be doing it. Much like publishing a book (according to Li there are only 50,000 published authors in the United States), for “the unfamous” the dream requires an incredible amount of perseverance and dedication. Trust me, I know. Because I’ve walked this talk from ground zero.

You may become Internet famous in social media. What does that mean, and why should a corporate marketer care? So you can become one of the cool kids, of course!

And who doesn’t want to be a rock star? Simply act like a wild, crazy, heroin-addicted drunken pirate, respond to everyone, and get lots of love online! Then you can have tons of social network friends, get asked to speak at lots of echo chamber conferences, and maybe even make a little scratch!

Not bad! Especially when the parasocial benefits start rolling in!

Of course, as an organizational communicator may want to hire someone to leverage their social media fame. And why not bring in someone else with online experiences for the company or non-profit? It saves time!

But communicators beware. While great at creating their own personal brands, a vast majority of these Internet rock stars — a.k.a. social media experts — have not been trained in core communications theory, nor do they have significant communications experience.

“Dude, you don’t know the rules! There is no market for messages.”

And while that profound Cluetrain statement is true, knowing the path’s dangers does not usually translate into branding or marketing expertise. These so called experts can tell you how to blog, execute a tactic or two, but can’t deliver the strategic goods. They don’t understand stakeholder groups, the need to execute in the media forms with concentrated pools of stakeholders, or building a tangential conversation (a.k.a. value proposition) on an organization’s and stakeholder group’s common interests. Popularity contests do not equal ROI.

But hey, the good news is you’ll likely receive a great conversation map or social graph or chart or thingie! That’ll keep the boss busy for a while (image by trumpetflickr)!

Maybe it’s better to check to see if these famous consultants have done any prior work first.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Social Media is an ongoing series. The first entry was “Shiny Object Syndrome.“

There is no other way to say it. New search engine Cuil (prounounced “cool”) has made a splash launching across mainstream media and blogs this week.

A test run on search results for my name, returned 864,605 results (Sorry Chris, ha), compared to Google’s 2,400. More results, but less relevant and quite a headache to review.

Aside from questions of user interface, relevance and organization - Cuil is missing a very key factor for an Internet browser. Search results.

Comparison to Google may be unfair, but still warranted. According to ABC News,

After a day of searching on Cuil and comparing those results to Google, Google wins out every time, returning more results and more relevant results.

Need more proof? Consider this additional test run. It’s been very hot in the DC area lately, so I conducted a search for ice cream shops in the area, using a simple search of “ice cream”, “DC”.

Cuil: No results found if you use quotation marks. Without them, 46,290,886 results.

Results offered a plethora of ice cream websites. Only one of which was relevant to DC, Gifford’s. There are tabs on the side that let you choose to explore by ice cream brand name and parlors, but even breaking that down yields no usable results. It’s hard to determine ranking of results or any rhyme or reason to what you’re shown.

Usability factor: 2

(Click to enlarge image)

Google: 6,520,000 results

Results were arranged by store locations for Gifford’s, Ben & Jerry’s, Maggie Moo’s, and more. First search results were restaurant reviews, blogs, and other publications that rated the best ice cream parlors in the DC area. It may take some time to find what you’re looking for, but at least you get a good start to your search.

Usability factor: 9

(Click to enlarge image)

Conclusion: If you are hot and craving ice cream, Cuil is not the way to go.

It must be hard to even attempt to compete with Google. It’s a household name - noun and verb. Cuil may look pretty and have a more social media/Web 2.0 friendly interface, but it’s got a long way to go to become mainstream. Aside from the search problems, the dizzying three column interface will likely confuse less web-savvy users. There is a two column option, but it still appears messy.

Other issues include the fact that search results don’t often match up to the links (the text content and the URL link), and the Preferences tab really don’t offer any customization.

First impressions count a lot, and Cuil has banged the drum loudly, it’s just a matter of time to see whether or not the drumbeat will keep on going.

As if direct mail and email campaigns aren’t complex enough, the temptation of social networks sends cause marketers hurtling into No Fundraisers Land. As you might have read in Geoff’s Friday post, we returned from the 2008 Bridge Conference with minds reeling.

Geoff’s recap and the subsequent comment thread touched on flawed Facebook attributes and a call for nonprofit marketers to return to precision-oriented initiatives. True: Facebook isn’t focused . . . yet. A closer look at two examples show that nonprofits are helping to pave the way for fruitful ‘FaceSpace’ endeavors, even if only by brand awareness.

Our first witness: Geoff Handy, VP of Media & Online Communications for the Humane Society of the United States. HSUS is known for pioneering the electronic email era among nonprofits. They have a fierce e-marketing team and an army of support from all stripes.

But even with more than 52,000 MySpace friends and nearly 13,000 Facebook fans, Handy states that social networks don’t generate high traffic for HSUS. When it comes to list growth, marketing efforts in general aren’t big referrers, either. Top sources for names:

• 21% - Website visitors taking actions
• 18% - Tell-a-friend referrals
• 14% - Donations
• 10% - Purchased from 3rd party sites (e.g., Care2)
• And ranking 5th, 8% from Marketing (search, ads, social networks, etc.)

Then there’s Jonathan Colman at the Nature Conservancy. His efforts as an environmental thought leader on Digg! are widely and deservedly praised. It’s no wonder why.

Through a partnership with Lil Green Patch, the fifth most popular Facebook application, the Nature Conservancy has raised $44,650 in donations (and acquired more than 22,000 cause members) on Facebook.

Even with those numbers, Jonathan admits that their inbound site traffic from Facebook is filed under unqualified leads. As mi amiga Sara Strope would say, “Why chase after the $500 donor in a $50 market?”

Colman encourages others to, “Solicit support and CRM agreements from popular applications.” Partnering is smart, but doesn’t work in every case. Beth Kanter is calling for integration and ingenuity across cause-focused applications and platforms. In her own words:

app developers on FB or elsewhere who don’t know crap about fundraising or activism should collaborate more closely with nonprofits.”

Touche. But in the meantime, can we effectively learn from un-ending social media experimentation? The Nature Conservancy isn’t just growing silly dolls in a green patch - they’re seeding activists for future “harvest.” And Jonathan chalks it up to the same point: “Grow community, get data, then fundraise.”

HSUS is also sporting research-colored glasses. They’re using ChipIn, a free donation widget builder that provides the names of people who grab, share and donate through HSUS’ customized widget.

ChipIn gives a nonprofit the ability to reach out and say “Thank you” to a donor, which is a major step in cultivation and action. (The Nonprofit Times reported that - after donating $25 to each of 10 Facebook charities, none of the nonprofits responded.)

Sheeraz Haji, the list junkie who started GetActive (acquired by Convio), says, “Big lists equals more money and more action.” Put your brand out there - wherever you can get your list and integrate targeted, tested messages across offline and online channels. Say thank you. Ask for more.

Thinking is never as good as doing.

Earlier this week Techcrunch posted about the re-launch of Startuply, a free job listing service. The Startuply site is really cool, featuring simple job search functions, company profiles, and even maps of where the company is located. You can post a job listing or search for positions, mostly for web development and design related opportunities, but also for marketing, sales, etc. Companies featured include well-known startups like Twitter, Seesmic, Mint.com, Digg, Evernote, meebo, Slideshare and more

(Photo Credit: Sven Jones)

Social Media Connects Startups with Influencers

The development of Startuply and similar sites proves that there is a huge market for startups, and all of these companies are searching for ways to connect with one another, find talented employees, and share in their successes. What better way to do that than through social media?

It appears that social media can serve to project or repel startups. Consider the successes of Twitter this year. Even among the “Fail Whale” times of downtime, thousands of tweets led to thousands of blog posts which have led to thousands of news articles on Twitter. Now that’s the kind of buzz a startup can only dream of.

Factor in the success of Startup Weekends (and other events like PodCamp and BarCamp) across the country that are filled with attendees who Twitter, post Flickr photos, and blog the events - creating a bustling community of Web 2.0 evangelists and influencers just itching to get their startup out there.

Influentials are the 10% of the population who shape the attitudes and behaviors of the other 90%. And, these influencers are online. According to a recent Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive and RoperASW study, two-thirds of online influentials (67%) are asked for or forward advice and information about products and services, whether it’s about career choices, computers, restaurants, or web sites. They spend an average of 2 hours a day online and nearly all (95%) access the web at least once a day.

(Picture Credit: Social Media.biz)

So What If I’m Not a Web 2.0 Startup?

Companies who cater to Web 2.0 savvy people benefit from interacting with that community. But, what about the companies who are financial (Mint.com), IT and heavily technology oriented, or have a more traditional business focus? They can still benefit from utilizing Web 2.0 strategies.

For example, a client of ours, StackSafe, chose to integrate traditional PR and marketing efforts with social media outreach to help build their online brand. Before the company officially launched at DEMO ‘08, they researched their market and online communities, started a blog, got onto Twitter and Facebook, and hit the ground running. They also developed online solution center portals that integrated RSS feeds, video, Flickr photos and real-time Twitter updates.

The results have been tremendous. A Forrester report touted the advantages StackSafe had by using Web 2.0 tactics to launch their product. InfoWorld named StackSafe a Top 10 Tech Startup in 2008, Gartner named StackSafe a Cool Vendor in IT Operations, and the company was a finalist for the 2008 American Business “Stevie” Award for “Best Marketing Campaign”.

What Can You Do?

Startups should seriously consider social media as a way to get word-of-mouth buzz going about their company. A recent study from Beeline Labs and the Society for New Communications Research found that 35% of enterprises supporting online communities have increased word-of-mouth for their brands and 28% have seen an increase in brand awareness.

By thinking proactively about your brand online and how you want to connect with your community and users, startups can benefit by gathering favor from influentials and developing great relationships that will carry them through the startup phase and beyond.

Fame, (fame) makes a man take things over
Fame, (fame) lets him loose, hard to swallow
Fame, (fame) puts you there where things are hollow
Fame (fame)

- David Bowie, opening lyrics to Fame

You’re Internet famous! So what?

Seriously, so fricking what?

Does it really matter? Apparently so, or at least that’s what WIRED wants you to think based on the cover of this month’s issue.

But perhaps the catch comes early in this How-to celebration of Julia Allison’s rise to fame. It doesn’t raise money, it’s not part of her day job, and there is no financial reward. But, hey she gets invited to lots of parties with folks that most people  read about in US or People.

I guess if that’s what you want, great, but I see no value in it. Too many of the daily business activities that occur in creating social media brands are really thinly veiled disguises to pursue personal Internet Fame (a.k.a. Personal Brand). And that’s a management error, as well as a youthful mistake on the part of the individual.  Because quite frankly, if it doesn’t have a business objective, that junk belongs on the p.m. dial for the ambitious seeking to reclaim their high school popularity contests.

Nothing screams bubble to me more than social media activity for the sake of people getting to know you. That’s a waste. Have an objective, find the people that matter, build value for them and your organization, and make a real difference that will keep you in your seat for a long time. 

Or you can have a lot of "friends." That can work if you want to be a parasocial type headed to the parties, and if I was younger that may still appeal to me. But it doesn’t. For me, branding and relationship building online in social media is the 21st century equivalent of networking and relationship building. And popularity doesn’t necessarily pay the bills.

Doug Haslam is a great example of a personal brand that matters. He is not Internet famous for sheer popularity. His brand means something in the social media marketing world because he brings value to the table. I respect what he brings to SHIFT (see his take on personal brands here).

Think about it. Is it business or personal? Does it make you valuable?

At many of the conferences I attend, I often hear the more fundamental social mediaites make proclamations that marketers have to be active in many social networks. That if you are not in FriendFeed, Plurk, BrightKite, Viddler, Utterz, Seesmic, Spock, yadda, yadda, yadda as well as all of the usual suspects then you are getting passed by (image: social networks hype cycle by fredcavazza).

Most of this energy seems to revolve around personal branding and being a social media “rock star.” So now donned thought leaders by the following of several hundred or more, these individuals try to pass their secrets of success to companies, often under the guise of social media experts. But what about the actual advice?

Bullshit.

Yes, from a corporate standpoint, you need to have strong monitoring program so you are aware of what is being said about the company. Yes, you need to need to participate when issues arise. Yes, as a marketer you have to be familiar with a variety of general social networks.

But, personal branding is not corporate branding. Corporate branding is about a commitment, a very specific promise to a core group of stakeholders. Unless you are a mass consumer brand, it’s not likely that you need to become part of every social network. Instead, basic strategy dictates targeting towards communities of strategic importance: The few where most of your stakeholders are congregating. The rest are just a waste of time. It’s about building a community, not broadcasting messages.

In most cases pursuing every single possible Long Tail hit is really just a waste of time (Harvard Business Review just questioned the validity of Chris Anderson’s vaunted theory as a silver bullet solution). Why? Because if you are an IT services company, it’s probably not an effective use of time to play on MySpace to reach 50. Instead, serious activity on IT Toolbox with its 2 million members makes much more sense.

Even from a personal branding perspective, what are you trying to achieve? Popularity or community? Notoriety or relationships?

Personally, I get much more from being a relatively obscure Plurker with 100 friends than Twitter with the 2000+ following me (see what Plurkers said about this topic). Why? Because the community is small enough that I can have an actual conversation. Twitter is so out of hand after 500 or so that I can’t keep track of it anymore. It stopped being truly social after 1000.

Social media is about people. Customers are people. Social media marketing is about networking and community participation with the right few, from which relationships are developed, in turn creating results. Otherwise you are looking for the instant WOMM bullet. Attainable, but difficult in a media form that lends itself to organic development. Instead, own the right few social networks, and participate in the rest as monitoring necessitates.

NBC recently announced that they will be using this year’s Olympics as a “billion-dollar research lab” to learn how people are using different media platforms. From video on demand to tracking mobile and online users, the research will be used to persuade advertisers to buy ad time on newer media such as VOD and cell phone video.

According to Daily Wireless:

During the Games, NBC will issue a daily “Total Audience Measurement Index (TAMI).” It will include measurements of viewership on all the media venues airing NBC’s Olympic programming — the NBC broadcast network, cable channels such as Oxygen and CNBC, NBC’s Web sites, video-on-demand services and mobile programming.

The mission and excitement is understandable since this will be the first year that online media, video, blogs, etc. will really have a prominent and mainstream role in the Olympics festivities (much like the Presidential election this year), so the opportunity to gather information on social media usage is certainly well received. Online games from McDonald’s are already being released, which will just add to the advertising frenzy.

What Can Go Wrong?

This is a great effort by NBC, and will provide advertisers and the social media and marketing communities with outstanding statistics and information. However, there are three issues with the plan.

1. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has effectively banned athletes from audio and video podcasting, photoblogging and vlogging their personal takes on the event, which largely misses the new media viewpoint audiences are sure to crave. (Source: Podcasting News)
2. The network won’t allow you watch anything it thinks it has mass appeal — that is, anything it intends to air on its own broadcast — until it has shown it on TV, the AP reports. Contrary to the AP report, NBC says “some” events will be simulcast live on TV and NBCOlympics.com. In addition, NBC U is banning the use of any Olympic video online by other news organizations covering the event. (Source: Silicon Alley Insider)
3. NBC does not have any official blogs dedicated to the Olympics, although there are a few athletes who will be posting their thoughts (contrary to the IOC?). This just proves that NBC is not willing to open up the games for comment (although there are sure to be plenty). (Source: Engage in PR)

So, this means that while NBC is obviously open to tracking and embracing web video and mobile traction of the Olympic games, they still want to, in essence, control the message. And, we know that doesn’t work.

It will be really interesting to see the effect of mobile and web usage and how it impacts TV viewing of the Olympic Games. However, what I think may be more interesting is how the back channels (blogs, social networks) react to the inability to access “legitimate” information from any source other than NBC.

Widgets are certainly not a new topic, but are appearing to gain new traction in mainstream media and blogs over the past six months.

Widgets are brand gateways that are rapidly becoming a popular way to market online. A widget is a self-contained piece of code that you can move anywhere on your blog or website, usually found in the sidebar. Widgets include push buttons, selection lists, radio buttons, sliders, scroll bars, text boxes, etc.

There are two sides to every story though, and widgets aren’t immune to that. BusinessWeek featured a CEO Guide to Widgets that included a point-counterpoint series that brought up some great ideas about the benefits and criticisms of widgets. According to "Why Widgets Don’t Work":

Widgets can be a useful extension of your brand, but only if included in a broader portfolio of Internet outreach. Widgets, blogs, online video, public relations, and microsites are all ways to extend your reach online. But you can’t rely on a single application, especially since there are now more than 14,000 competing widgets on Facebook alone.

However, consider the positive future in store for online advertisers who utilize widgets. Web users are tired of online banner ads. Click-through rates are decreasing, and widgets offer a new way to establish a brand relationship while also providing a service. According to "Widgets: The Future of Online Ads":

Right in that little box, without switching sites, users should be able to browse products, customize orders, and eventually make a purchase. Instead of simply trying to build brand awareness, marketers now have the ability to reach out to customers with useful features to enhance their personalized pages on social networks.

So what is a smart marketer to do?

• Think about your audience. A recent survey on ReadWriteWeb shared the startling revelation that almost 50% of Facebook users would use online widgets to manage their financial services if their bank offered it. Forget mobile banking, just tweak the online features!
• Be smart about your widget development. IBM announced its new mashup feature, IBM Mashup Center. This is designed to easily remix information for business intelligence, but the cool thing is that it not only offers innovative mashup technology, but provides another way to utilize the information by offering widget creation. Users can take advantage of built-in Web 2.0 community features like ratings, tagging and commenting to guide users the to the most valuable and useful widgets.

Widgets can offer a cool and more widely accepted alternative to online banner and click-through advertisements. Some people think they are a great and welcome addition to their web experience, others find them annoying and unnecessary.

What do you think?