bocalogic: 10 Online Marketing Trends for 2010

10 Online Marketing Trends for 2010

Where to invest, what to test and which deserve a rest

By John Arnold   |   December 24, 2009

Print domingo, septiembre 6 What value do users derive from social networking applications? Home > Volume 14, Number 9 - 7 September 2009 > Neale First Monday What value do users derive from social networking applications? by Larry Neale and Rebekah Russell-Bennett Abstract Why do users of social networking sites recommend some applications to their friends while rejecting others? What value do they obtain from applications? This exploratory study investigates the value users derive from ‘cool’ Facebook applications, and explores the features that either encourage or discourage users to recommend applications to their friends. Our qualitative data reveal consumers derive a combination of functional value along with either social or emotional value from the applications. Female Facebook users indicate self–expression as important motivators, while males tend to use Facebook applications to socially compete. Three broad categories emerged for application features; symmetrical features can both encourage or discourage recommendation, polar features where different levels of the same feature encourage or discourage, and uni–directional features only encourage or discourage but not both. Recommending or not recommending an application tends to be the result of a combination of features and context, rather than one feature in isolation. Contents Introduction Customer value Cool Method Sample Results Features that encourage or discourage recommendations Managerial implications Conclusion Introduction Social networking sites (SNS), and the number of people using them, have grown considerably in the new millennium (Huberman, et al., 2009). This desire to stay connected is what social scientists call “ambient awareness” (Goldsborough, 2008), and research investigating the behaviour of users on SNS like Facebook and MySpace is now emerging. However to date, there is no empirical evidence to indicate why some social networking features, such as applications, are passed on and why others are rejected. Applications are small programs allowing users to interact with SNS features and other users. Examples of these applications in Facebook are ‘Scrabble’, ‘Mousehunt’ and ‘Superpoke’. Large companies, such as Nike, Coca–Cola and Microsoft, spend considerable sums of money to develop applications, with only modest results (Morrissey, 2008). Sufficient time has passed since social networking reached critical mass to now analyse the success and failure of applications (Richmond, 2008). The challenge for researchers and practitioners alike is that SNS like Facebook and MySpace are unique in terms of their combination of communication features, and therefore research requires exploratory techniques. SNS share some of the characteristics from myriad forms and tools of communication such as e–mail, television, Web sites, mobile phones, radio, newspapers, mail, blogs, billboards, magazines, search engines, SMS, phone books and viral marketing campaigns. Another issue for researchers is while SNS are by definition social instruments, used to connect people with other people (Subrahmanyam, et al., 2008), this connection can be at varying levels of interaction. For example, some people may use social networks in an individual, non–social manner. Users do not have to invite others, they may choose to disable specific social features, and they may download only individual applications requiring no human interaction. Faced with cluttered traditional media, and increasing difficulty reaching Generation Y consumers, advertisers are looking towards social networks to solve their problems. Aligning with them, SNS are looking at ways to generate revenue, and corporations are searching for the best ways to commercialise these networks. However in 2007, U.S. advertisers spent barely three percent of interactive advertising dollars on social media — US$600 million out of US$18 billion, but this is expected to grow quickly. One reason for this low figure may be that advertising on social networking sites is expensive, as much as US$50,000 per day which excludes most sponsors (Vascellaro and Steel, 2008). Applications can be used as an alternative to advertising on social networks. Applications are relatively cheap to develop, and are distributed virtually cost–free, making them attractive substitutes. Furthermore, popular applications can attract tens of millions of views and uses per month. The goal for application developers is to get SNS members to pass them on to their friends, operating on similar principles to viral marketing campaigns. For an application to be downloaded and spread it needs to offer value to the user. What form does this value take? Industry commentators indicate social value is a key success criterion with applications that assist social communication being popular (Richmond, 2008). In particular applications that are ‘cool’ are likely to be passed on due to the social cache attached to being privy to these applications or the entertainment factor. This exploratory study addresses two research questions: RQ1: what value do users derive from cool Facebook applications? RQ2: what features of an application encourage or discourage users to recommend applications to their friends? ++++++++++ Customer value The traditional view of value as a cost–benefit analysis stems from the economic origins of marketing and emphasises the point of exchange. Typically the sale is the place where customers receive value. However, this view has been challenged in recent years with marketers adopting an experiential view of value which goes beyond the economic usefulness of a transaction (Holbrook, 2006; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Value is relevant to social networking where the exchange between customer and organisation is not currency, but time and information — where the value is natural in the customer–to–customer interaction and not the customer–organisation interaction. This is consistent with Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), who identify value is not created by the organisation and ‘delivered’ to the customer, rather value occurs both inside and outside the organisation with customers’ participation in the creation of value. As Facebook is an experiential product, we adapt the experiential value concepts of Holbrook (2004; 1994) and Sheth, et al. (1991) to categorize four types of value generated by Facebook applications; emotional, functional, social and altruistic (humane). Emotional value is the pleasure, fantasy or fun gained by using an application, or by avoiding negative emotions. Functional value is measured by performance and technical features. Social value is generated by the connections with other people enabled by using the application. Finally, altruistic (humane) value is the value obtained by helping others or society. ++++++++++ Cool While value has been widely studied, there is little academic research investigating ‘cool’. Elusive yet identifiable, cool means different things to different people. Emerging as a means for African–American slaves to “cope with the indignity of slavery”, they hid their true emotions with a ‘cool’ pose (Meacham, 2002). Cool has evolved to be adopted by Caucasians in the U.S. and throughout the Western world as a characteristic of youth. Being cool is important to youth, and it drives billions of dollars of consumer purchases globally every year. Product adoption and diffusion among youth often relies on the cool factor for teens to recommend the product to their friends. Given the reliance of SNS applications on recommendation, it is likely that cool applications will diffuse more rapidly than uncool applications. Thus identifying the factors that make an application cool, or not, are an important part of understanding why some applications are more popular than others. Dutch researcher Carl Rohde describes cool in product terms as “inspiring and attractive … providing empowerment” to the user. Cool products help people “to bring out the best of their capacities and abilities.” (Parvaz, 2003) This empowerment links the concept of cool with the value created by social networking applications. Facebook users want to possess and share cool applications that enhance their standing within their network of friends. From a commercial view, organisations are struggling to understand how to develop a cool application and identify the features that will encourage people to recommend cool applications to friends. ++++++++++ Method To address the two research questions of this study ‘what value do users derive from cool applications?’ and ‘what features of an application encourage or discourage users to recommend applications to their friends?’ this study employed exploratory research using open–ended questions in an anonymous online survey. A convenience snowball sampling method was used where university students, who are high users of Facebook, were initially approached to participate and asked to forward the URL link to the survey to their friends. The responses to three open–ended questions were analysed and coded by two coders. Wherever the coders disagreed, the items were revisited and discussed until the coders reached consensus. Reponses to the first question — “what makes [the coolest application you have seen] cool?” — were coded using Holbrook’s (1994) and Sheth, et al.’s (1991) value types — functional, emotional, social and altruistic. Some responses were allocated to two or more value types. For example, the response “It’s funny, and you can challenge others” was coded as generating both emotional and social value to the user. The second and third questions, “What would [encourage/discourage] you from recommending an application to a friend?” were coded using an emergent scheme as no prior scale for social networking exists. Again, two coders analysed the responses and designated them into one of three emergent categories: 1. A feature which can encourage and discourage users from recommending; 2. A feature where different levels of the feature can encourage or discourage users from recommending; and, 3. A feature that is uni–directional and only encourages or discourages but not both. ++++++++++ Sample Altogether there were 305 usable responses. Cases with missing data were not deleted because exploratory research does not demand complete data. Sample characteristics revealed the average age of respondents as 22.5 years, two–thirds of the sample was female and four out of five are current university students. Respondents in the sample have been using Facebook for a mean of just over a year, and had 186 ‘friends’ on average listed on their page. Three–fifths of the sample accessed their Facebook page daily, and 30 percent accessed it multiple times a day. Almost 90 percent accessed Facebook at least once per week. On average the sample spent 4.5 hours per week on Facebook with a range from zero to 70 hours. Only 28 percent of users allowed open access to their Facebook pages. Four out of five women set their page to allow invitation–only access while three out of five men used the same setting. The vast majority (94.4 percent) access Facebook from home, and 28.5 percent also use Facebook while at work. Regarding Facebook applications, respondents listed many applications with no single application being mentioned more than six times. The most mentioned application was ‘Scrabble’ followed by ‘Sex and the City’ and ‘Superpoke.’ Ninety–five percent of the sample had rejected an invitation from a friend to add an application to their page and 57 percent had sent invitations to others, with females (62 percent) inviting more than males (47 percent). ++++++++++ Results To address the first research question: ‘what value is created by a ‘cool’ application?’ researchers extracted the features or benefits of applications from the open–ended responses. There were a variety of features mentioned, however the following themes emerged; the ability of the application to facilitate self–expression of interests, values or personality, the ability to facilitate competition/comparison with others and novelty/rarity. Gender appeared to be relevant with women tending to indicate self–expression as important and men selecting competition. The responses were then classified using the four value types. Analysis revealed multiple forms of value were present for each person and each application, with no evidence of any explanation being a single type of value. Altruistic was least evident and functional value appears to occur with either social or emotional value i.e., “it allows me to add pictures (functional) to share with others (social) or to make me laugh (emotional)”. Examples of responses indicating each value type are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Examples of value in applications. Emotional Social Altruistic Functional “it is fun and interesting” “love the show” “Has sentimental value and cute pictures” “It’s hilarious, you get to send ‘insults’ to your friends using very Australian slang and they in turn send insults to you”“it’s very cute, make me feel like a child again” “it’s just fun to compare people and see what other people think about you. even if its not really that accurate” “Great to see photos other people have taken at social events etc.” “Makes you feel a part of the whole movie phenomenon and creates a talking point” “It’s Scrabble!” “I can play scrabble with my friends who are travelling all over the world” “using it helps WWF” “it saves land from civilisation destroying it” “I like plants and the environmental message” “Because it allows you to list your social club/bar scenes, receive updates on your favourite bar/club scene” “Easy to post things to it” “The amount of work that has gone into the back end of the application” “it allows music to be played on my page” Example applications Superpoke, The Bloody Offensive Aussie Insult Generator Compare people, Which sex and the city character are you? Scrabulous Green Patch, Fluff Friends The Bar Book, Funwall, mobwars The following list summarises the features that makes an application cool: * Applications that allow self–categorisation, i.e., ‘which movie star are you?’ This application helped develop social or personal online identity. * Applications that change daily or regularly. * Applications with high levels of interactivity rather than being passive, i.e., bowling. * Cool seems to relate to high numbers of people recommending the application, contradicting the ‘unique’ aspect of cool — if too many people have it, then it’s not cool. * For some people the level of creativity makes it cool (i.e., designing badges). * Pets are popular and the virtual ones are well liked (i.e., no mess to clean up). * Applications that are linked to popular TV shows to help users identify with the characters. * Exclusivity and rarity — accessing uncommon items or information. * Ability to waste time when time is available — users are overt in acknowledging they use applications as a time–waster. But this is different to ‘a waste of time’ however, which is interpreted as the application being unworthy of allocating any time. ++++++++++ Features that encourage or discourage recommendations To answer the second question ‘what features of an application would encourage or discourage users recommending an application to a friend?’ the features were coded using an emergent scheme as no previous scheme exists. Some features can both encourage or discourage recommendation, depending on the user. For example, some users like to recommend applications because it reveals a great deal of their personality to their friends. The same feature prevents other people from recommending — they believe it exposes them too much. This addresses the voyeurism and exhibitionism motivations for using Facebook as discussed by Bumgarner (2007). Table 2 lists these symmetrical features. Table 2: Symmetrical — the same feature both encourages and discourages. Encourages Discourages Time — time–wasting can be a legitimate use of applications Time — waste of time indicates a pointless activity Notification — like to know what friends are using and doing Notification — too many messages Competition — knowing where you stand relative to friends Competition — don’t want to know or think it’s too judgmental Sharing — application forces sharing to enable it to work “if the application requires me to refer a number of people to use it” Sharing — applications that require it to be sent to friends can be viewed as spamming Personality — some like to use applications to express their personality Personality — others believes it reveals too much Some features were categorised as polar, meaning that different levels of the same feature either encouraged or discouraged. Interactivity with the application is a good example. Some applications allow or require the user to interact with the application regularly. Highly interactive applications encouraged recommendation, whereas lowly interactive applications discouraged. Table 3 provides the polar features of applications along with respondent quotes. Table 3: Polar — different levels of features that encourage or discourage. Encourages Discourages Social influence — positive WOM if others are saying good things about the application Social influence negative WOM if others are saying bad things Social — “highly interactive that you could enjoy with your friends” Individual — wouldn’t send it to a friend if it was an “application that I do on my own” Novelty — application is new or has “quirkyness” Novelty saturation — might once have been quirky but either everyone has it or too much imitation Positive emotions — stem from using the application such as fun, enjoyment, excitement Negative emotions — from using the application such as annoyance, anger, boredom Other–focused — “I send on if I know my friends would like it” Self–focused — “I don’t like getting applications so don’t send them on” Knowledge — application expands knowledge of a given topic Knowledge — applications that are not brain stimulating are not referred to friends High interactivity — specifically with a given application, not necessarily with other individuals Low interactivity — with the application Usability — application that are easy to use are shared Usability — Complex, hard to navigate applications that take too long, require maintenance, large, unreliable, or “if it jams up e–mail accounts and Facebook pages” are not referred Some features had a uni–directional effect — they either encouraged or discouraged but not both. Cause–related applications, such as supporting cancer research, encouraged recommendation but did not appear as a reason not to recommend. Applications that required users to spend real money discouraged recommendation, but free applications did not appear as a reason to encourage. Table 4 lists the uni–directional features of Facebook applications. Table 4: Uni–directional effects. Encouraged Discouraged Cause–related — f the application “needs to be supported — such as the cancer foundation” Commerciality applications seen as blatant advertising are not referred Gift — if the application is a ‘gift’ substitute such as a virtual birthday cake Intrusive — if users believe their “privacy is being breached” Utilitarian — if it allows functionality outside Facebook such as “synchronization with my mobile phone” Source credibility — “anything that looks dodgy” is not recommended to friends Rewards — some applications give rewards/points for usage Mental effort — applications that “ask too many questions before hand” Reminders — applications that remind us of important events (such as friends’ birthdays) or provides information such as weather, traffic, fuel prices Immorality — some applications encourage immoral or offensive outcomes Costs — if there are real monetary costs involved One–timers — applications that are only useful once and don’t need to be repeated No relevance — for Facebook users Immature — if the application is seen as too childish or outside the users’ age group Rating — some applications receive a low rating from users Other dimensions revealed in the analysis included context, risk, and combinations. For context, users describe situations where their recommendation might change. For example, if a user has a lot of free time on their hands, they might actively search for an application to recommend. If they are time–poor, the same application is not recommended. Risk was also raised by some respondents. For example, poker–playing applications were fun, partly because there was no financial risk involved in playing. Some applications can lower social risk by allowing users to ask others out on a date, without fear of a face–to–face rejection. Finally, recommending or not recommending tends to be the result of a combination of features, rather than one feature in isolation. ++++++++++ Managerial implications There are number of considerations for marketing and business managers seeking to identify opportunities in SNS applications. When developing applications developers need to: * Encourage users to participate in the creation or development of the applications so that value occurs in pre–use phase and commitment and interest is gained; * Ensure that source credibility is achieved. Applications that are not from a credible source are likely to be overlooked or deleted. Overtly commercial applications annoy users; and, * Develop functionality that makes a given application easy to use, non–intrusive and technically efficient. ++++++++++ Conclusion Facebook is a social site — its purpose is to facilitate contact with other individuals. Therefore it is not surprising that social value is of primary importance to users. Users in turn need functionality to operate applications, so we also expect functional value. Hence, the combination of different types of value that is an interesting result emerging from this research. A ‘cool’ application appears to create functional and social value, or functional and emotional value. Functionality is a critical aspect of value. However functionality is not enough. It must be combined with either social or emotional value to create sufficient ‘coolness’ for a given user to recommend a certain application to a friend and achieve adoption desired by a given application’s developer. However, there is no global solution to developing an application that will be widely encouraged and used. Finding symmetrical features, where the same feature that encourages some to recommend may also discourage others, indicates the need for a careful understanding of an application’s target audience. End of article About the authors Larry Neale is is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, and serves as academic lead for the Asia Pacific in the Google Online Marketing Challenge (www.google.com/onlinechallenge). Larry is a keen sports fan and life observer, and has parlayed his passions into research streams including consumer ethics, sports marketing, electronic marketing, service recovery and social networking. Larry’s research activities frequently take him to Asia and the United States as an instructor, presenter and facilitator. Readers can view Larry’s published articles at http://tinyurl.com/neale-eprints. E–mail: l [dot] neale [at] qut [dot] edu [dot] au Rebekah Russell–Bennett is Associate Professor of Marketing at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. She holds a PhD in brand loyalty for the services sector and has published in international journals such as Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Product and Brand Management and Journal of Services Marketing. E–mail: rebekah [dot] bennett [at] qut [dot] edu [dot] au References Brett A. Bumgarner, 2007. “You have been poked: Exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults,” First Monday, volume 12, number 11, at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2026/1897, accessed 21 August 2009. Reid Goldsborough, 2008. “Rise of social networking underscores generational digital divide,” Community College Week, volume 21, number 3 (22 September), p. 15, and at http://www.ccweek.com/news/articlefiles/615–CCW092208–Pgs–15–24.pdf, accessed 21 August 2009. Morris B. Holbrook, 2006. “Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: An illustrative photographic essay,” Journal of Business Research, volume 59, number 6, pp. 714–725. Morris B. Holbrook, 1994. “The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience,” In: Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver (editors). Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. London: Sage, pp. 21–71. Bernardo A. Huberman, Daniel M. Romero, and Fang Wu, 2009. “Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope,” First Monday, volume 14, number 1, at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2317/2063, accessed 21 August 2009. Steve Meacham, 2002. “The secret of cool” (5 December), at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/04/1038950092024.html, accessed 22 January 2009. Brian Morrissey, 2008. “Apps: The newest brand graveyard,” Adweek, volume 49, number 36 (8 December), p. 6. D. Parvaz, 2003. “They’re on a quest for what’s cool — Here and everywhere,” Seattle Post–Intelligencer (20 November), at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/149002_coolhunt.html, accessed 22 January 2009. C.K. Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy, 2004. “Co–creation experiences: The next practice in value creation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, volume 18, number 3, pp. 5–14. Riva Richmond, 2008. “Some Facebook applications thrive, others flop; Popular programs are useful, entertain and let friends mingle,” Wall Street Journal (10 June), at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305687614859325.html, accessed 21 August 2009. Jagdish N. Sheth, Bruce I. Newman, and Barbara L. Gross, 1991. “Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values,” Journal of Business Research, volume 22, number 2, pp. 159–170. Kaveri Subrahmanyam, Stephanie M. Reich, Natalia Waechter, and Guadalupe Espinoza, 2008. “Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, volume 29, number 6, pp. 420–433. Jillian C. Sweeney and Geoffrey N. Soutar, 2001. “Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale,” Journal of Retailing, volume 77, number 2, pp. 203–220. Jessica E. Vascellaro and Emily Steel, 2008. “Application companies join the ad chase: Firms to compete with social sites that host them,” Wall Street Journal (5 June), p. B6. sábado, agosto 29 Auto ReTweeting: Removing “Social” from Social Media Auto ReTweeting: Removing “Social” from Social Media | ploked.com Those of you using Twitter are no doubt familiar with the numerous applications that can added to your Twitter account. In fact, the applications are too numerous to mention without adding an explanation as to their purpose. One of the nicest features that Twitter incorporates is retweeting (RT), or forwarding tweets that you find valuable to your followers. For instance, when the Iran riots took place, a Twitter user in Iran would send out a tweet to his or her followers, updating them on what was happening within the country. These followers then retweeted the information to their followers, and so on. Look at it like it’s a giant game of tag. Twitter is used to share links, or websites, with other users. Link sharing lies at the heart of Twitter and is one of the most-used Twitter functions; it enables users, to transmit relevant content quickly. However, according to Mashable, some people just don’t retweet, or simply do no have the time (that’s hard to fathom). But, to those experiencing problems of this nature can thank their lucky stars for YoTwits! YoTwits is a service that enables users to add feeds to their Twitter stream. The automatic retweeting function, based on a user name or keyword, would resend all tweets received with the user name or keyword in the text. Automatically. Perhaps you follow Perez Hilton. You could set up YoTwits to automatically retweet every message recevied with his name on it. Likewise, setting up “bit.ly” as a keyword would retweet every message that you received with “bit.ly” in the text. Although it looks good on paper, there’s a huge problem with the service: it removes “social” from social media. Why even join Twitter if you have a service retweet everything that’s sent to you. There is only one reason that YoTwits exists and that is to provide spammers and scammers with a tool to send more messages more often. My advice? “Just Say NO to YoTwits.” El video del fin de semana: Laura de Charlie Parker No hay videos de Charlie Parker interpretando Laura pero prefiero la música a la imagen En Sopotify martes, agosto 25 5 Social Media Tips and Tricks That Work 5 Social Media Tips and Tricks That Work : Performancing 5 Social Media Tips and Tricks That Work Dee Barizo   8.24.09   Social Media   Since social media is such a powerful tool for increasing the traffic to your blog, I’ve tried many different social media tips.  Here are five of the best tips that have worked for my sites and our clients’ sites. 1. Befriend power users. Power users are the users that exert the most influence on social media sites.  These users regularly submit content that gets popular and they have many people that follow them. Check out the popular content in your niche and see who is submitting them.  You’ll often find a select group of people who submit the bulk of the popular content. Vote for their stuff, send them interesting links, link to their site if they have one, guest post on their blog, interview them.  Basically, do whatever you can to help them and get on their radar without being overbearing or obnoxious. Once you’re developed a relationship with them, you can send them your best stuff and ask them to submit it if they like it. 2. Create more comprehensive content. One of the things I started realizing is that much of the content that does well in social media is pretty comprehensive.  The content was longer than your average post and it covered a subject with depth. Therefore, I started creating longer posts filled with a lot of value and I’ve done better on social media sites as a result.  Now each of your blog posts doesn’t have to be 1,500 words, but it’s a good idea to regularly publish longer, in-depth posts that stand out from the crowd of your typical 2oo-5oo word posts. 3. Add images and video to your best content. Another thing that has worked out well has been adding multimedia to content.  This is another thing  I noticed about viral content. Much of this content is highlighted by images and video. It only takes a little bit of  time to go to sxc.hu or flickr.com and find relevant images that will improve your content. And I think video is the next big thing in blogging.  I know many people have made the same prediction that it seems cliche but it’s definitely true.  More and more people are making web video a part of their routine.   Many of us are already chronic TV watchers so it will only take time before we get used to watching videos on the web. Therefore, if you have any video skills, use them!  Also, the cost and learning barrier for producing videos has come down with discount equipment, software, and training courses.  I’m actually trying an experiment of shifting one of my blogs to mostly video instead of text and seeing how that works. 4. Try niche social media sites. Most bloggers just focus on the big general subject sites like Digg and StumbleUpon but there is a lot of opportunity in niche social media sites.  Here’s a great list of these type of sites.  These sites won’t send as much as traffic as the big general subject sites, but the quality of their traffic is often much higher.  You’ll get a higher percentage of repeat visitors, a lower bounce rate, and more time spent on your site because of the more targeted traffic. Also, it’s easier to network with the power users because of the smaller user base. 5. Use social media widgets at the end of each post. Widgets are a great way to encourage your visitors to submit your content to social media sites.  Visitors may like a post but without the prompting of a submission button, they won’t think to submit your content. We added a StumbleUpon button on one blog and we’ve seen a big increase in submissions and traffic from StumbleUpon. lunes, agosto 24 Did you know you’re naked? Your Online Reputation is showing Did you know you’re naked? Your Online Reputation is showing Your Online Reputation must be a multi-faceted positive picture of YOU People can check out your Online Reputation (your O.R.) by reviewing your Social Media profiles in Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and other places on the Web. They’ll also check your Web site, your blog and they’ll “Google” your name to see what information shows up. I call this process “downloading” Social Media. Doing the “down lo” on you means that I quickly “know” or have a perception of your character by the digital footprint you’re tracking around the Web. <br><br>I do one one more thing: I check my “gut” (my inner sense or intuition) about you before I make that final decision to connect with you and possibly do business. THAT’S what’s going when you “Social Network”. Did you know you’re naked? People can check out your Online Reputation (your O.R.) by reviewing your Social Media profiles in Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and other places on the Web. They’ll also check your Web site, your blog and they’ll “Google” your name to see what information shows up. I call this process “downloading” your net worth (a la “InterNET”). Doing the “down lo” on you means that I quickly “know” or have a perception of your character by the digital footprints you’re tracking around the Web. Based on these digital footprints, I’m going to decide whether or not I can trust you. You do it yourself, don’t you? You at least Google the name of the person before you decide to commit in some way, whether it be to collaborate or recommend or hire the person you “Googled.” Your Online Reputation must be a multi-faceted POSITIVE picture of YOU Like a diamond, your online reputation is multi-faceted. Each facet contributes to your overall sparkle.  Be sure every connection to you on the Web is something you could show your mother and make sure she’d be proud of what she saw. Here’s what happens when I do the “Down Lo” on you I check my “gut” (my inner sense or intuition) about you before I make that final decision to connect with you and possibly do business with you or refer business to you. If I discovered you in Twitter, I soak in your brand that you’ve, hopefully, extended onto your Twitter profile: I look at your avatar to see if it’s a professional or amatuer photo; I read your bio to see if it has keywords that speak to me and what I want and like; I read your tweets to see if you talk about things that have value and to see if you balance the “fluff” with the demonstrations of expertise and supportiveness. (But I do like “fluff” because I can connect with you when you tell me things like “Having breakfast with my mom on her birthday. Today she’s 70 years old. I hope I’m as wise as she is when I’m her age.” Then I click on your one link that’s allowed in your Twitter profile and if I land on an out-of-date website or a blog that has no posts or very little information, that tells me you don’t really know that people are judging you by this or worse, you might not care about what people see.  That’s a big mistake. People are judging you by your Twitter link so be sure it’s something worthy of a visit, whether it be your blog (filled with helpful posts) or LinkedIn profile or up-to-date and updated website. If I’m trying to decide whether or not to employ you, I’ll check your LinkedIn profile. If you don’t have one, then that’s a red flag for me because you’re missing out on big opportunity to show off your “living” resume. When properly maintained, your LinkedIn profile is alive with your work, your endorsements, your productivity, your education, your expert answers to posted questions and many other things that show what a team player you are and how knowledgeable you are.  Your LI profile should be continually updated. In LinkedIn you are two degrees of seperation away from a top industry guru, CEO, founder, celebrity, or other BIG mover and shaker. That’s who shows up in LinkedIn. Make your LI sparkle! If I’m really curious, I’ll Google you, too. Hopefully, I’ll see press releases, good reviews, good testimonials, articles you’ve written, Twitter tweets, Facebook mentions, your LinkedIn link and so on.  I’m not the only one doing the down lo on you so be sure you get a Google Alert set up so you always know what someone has clicked on when they’ve found a link to you in Google. By the way, I’m probably not checking past page 2 of your Google listings and many people only check what’s above the “fold” on their computer screen. It’s important to keep that first page of listings totally positive and impressive. What can you do to control your Online Reputation? Simple: hire a professional SEO expert to help you manage your online reputation.  You should have enough positive links about you so that if anything negative gets linked to you, people can clearly see the good outweighs the bad or perhaps that one negative thing was simply a fluke or a nutcase. With enough positive listings, anything bad gets pushed down below the fold or onto the next page–unless it’s someone out to get you and in that case, I can recommend a good attorney  who’s in my Twitter community. Suscribirse a: Entradas (Atom) suscríbete a 42 y 195 ↑ Grab this Headline Animator Self-Enlaces (c)opy left Corto de 42 y 195 en Yutuv Reportaje de 42 y 195 en EL MUNDO Descargar (c)left pdf de 42 y 195 Reportaje sobre Bonatti en El MUNDO Banderas Orantes del Himalaya Berlin 1987 en Youtube Video (c) left 42 y 195 el cortometraje Es muy dificil comprender (de verdad) ideas simples Archivo del Blog ▼  2009 (173) ▼  diciembre 2009 (10) 10 Online Marketing Trends for 2010 Making Money with Social Media Facebook Memology: Top Status Trends of 2009 | Fac... Talking Back – Top Five Advertising Trends Powerpoint, poverpuá, poverpuajcs! Edward de Bono User Experience Design Un blog es un buen negocio (o puede serlo) Internet, Comunicación, Poder, Manuel_Castells The Ten Brands That Will Disappear In 2010 ►  noviembre 2009 (8) User Experience Practices of YouTube, Nokia, Micro... El video del fin de semana Internet, nativos digitales y culturas participati... 10 Tips to Integrating Social Media with Marketing... "Obama no se entiende sin la Red" Twitter Study Shows When We Tweet Twitter Study Shows When We Tweet ‘What’s Happening’ With Twitter? ►  septiembre 2009 (5) MediaPost Publications Google Attempt To Flip Para... 10 citas de Groucho Marx ideales para una agencia ... Twitter User Survey: Demographics and Statistics a:active {outline: none;} img {border: 0px;} ... What value do users derive from social networking ... ►  agosto 2009 (6) Auto ReTweeting: Removing “Social” from Social Med... El video del fin de semana: Laura de Charlie Parke... 5 Social Media Tips and Tricks That Work Did you know you’re naked? Your Online Reputation ... Social Media Best Practices SOCIAL MEDIA TRABAJOS ►  junio 2009 (24) De paseo por las redes sociales AP se preocupa por su reputación online Tweet success: It's easy to lose interest in Twitt... Estrategia Digital » ¿Por qué entrar en Web 2.0/So... The 6 Types Of Annoying Social Media Promoters Nine Twitter Tips for Business Social Media Marketing: Who's Full of Hot Air? Who... five quick and easy tips to gain online buzz (and ... Leveraging Social Media Buzz for SEO Success Advice for brand owners before running a social me... Teens Don’t Twitter 20 Social Media Tips Under 140 Characters Twitter tricks and tips for SEO Nuevo concepto de redes sociales basado en Twitter... 6 Reasons Why Your Blog Is Your Most Important Soc... Me On Twitter On TIME On Twitter Twitter Nine simple suggestions for using social media how to be happy in business - venn diagram Design research as the fourth estate CEOs Should Drink the Social Media Kool-Aid ►  mayo 2009 (15) ►  abril 2009 (2) ►  marzo 2009 (67) ►  febrero 2009 (16) ►  enero 2009 (20) ►  2008 (147) ►  noviembre 2008 (3) ►  octubre 2008 (7) ►  septiembre 2008 (14) ►  agosto 2008 (3) ►  julio 2008 (2) ►  junio 2008 (15) ►  mayo 2008 (19) ►  abril 2008 (22) ►  marzo 2008 (23) ►  febrero 2008 (15) ►  enero 2008 (24) ►  2007 (275) ►  diciembre 2007 (23) ►  noviembre 2007 (26) ►  octubre 2007 (28) ►  septiembre 2007 (26) ►  agosto 2007 (18) ►  julio 2007 (17) ►  junio 2007 (27) ►  mayo 2007 (19) ►  abril 2007 (23) ►  marzo 2007 (23) ►  febrero 2007 (21) ►  enero 2007 (24) ►  2006 (108) ►  diciembre 2006 (11) ►  noviembre 2006 (17) ►  octubre 2006 (7) ►  septiembre 2006 (10) ►  agosto 2006 (7) ►  julio 2006 (13) ►  junio 2006 (32) ►  mayo 2006 (1) ►  marzo 2006 (7) ►  febrero 2006 (2) ►  enero 2006 (1) ►  2005 (21) ►  diciembre 2005 (5) ►  noviembre 2005 (1) ►  octubre 2005 (2) ►  septiembre 2005 (5) ►  agosto 2005 (1) ►  julio 2005 (1) ►  junio 2005 (2) ►  mayo 2005 (1) ►  abril 2005 (1) ►  enero 2005 (2) ►  2004 (279) ►  diciembre 2004 (1) ►  octubre 2004 (4) ►  septiembre 2004 (30) ►  agosto 2004 (9) ►  julio 2004 (20) ►  junio 2004 (35) ►  mayo 2004 (38) ►  abril 2004 (35) ►  marzo 2004 (37) ►  febrero 2004 (33) ►  enero 2004 (37) ►  2003 (29) ►  diciembre 2003 (29) Otros links An Inconvenient Truth Mountain Wilderness Amnistia Internacional Medicos sin Fronteras Todos contra el canon