This week, along with the Whiteboard Friday video, I've also included a pair of informative and hopefully, entertaining, charts. The video discusses why some companies in more conservative sectors or with more traditional ideas about marketing and PR shy away from social media and blog engagement, despite the many benefits those arenas can bring. It's a critique we hear not only from clients, but also at conferences and over the web, as SEO firms offering SMM find themselves pitching to un-receptive ears.
In the video, I reference a study that Malcolm Gladwell covered on recognizing emotion through facial expression. It's a great read if you've got the time (he also covered it in his book, Blink). And below are the two charts - first, one that displays the relationship between tact and courage over various methods of communication:
And, next, the chart showing the scatterplots of validity/accuracy of information online and offline:
Obviously, there are exception to both of the rules presented by these charts, and I'm drawing very general conclusions.
Quick note - tomorrow I'm leaving for SMX Stockholm with Mystery Guest. Hope to see many of you there - look for more contributions to the blog and Whiteboard Friday from other mozzers in my absence.
p.s. For those who might not be familiar, the gentleman on the far extreme for Validity/Accuracy of Material is Edward R. Murrow. Awards for journalistic integrity and quality now carry his name.
UPDATE: Scott left this comment below which I believe provides incredible insight about the value of this material:
I agree in general with what Rand is saying in this video/post and always find the phenomenon quite spectacular as it's quite the opposite of what would 'make sense' in terms of communication (especially business/reputation related communication).
People seem to have the least tact and the highest degree of bravado (attitude?) and confrontation in the least ephemeral media: email and comments/posts. If you communicate something controversial or offensive in face-to-face or phone conversation (wiretaps not withstanding) any recitation of your statements can be embellished, sure, but they also can't be proven or easily distributed. Electronic communication, on the other hand, provides an easily disseminable means to prove your statements as well as a permanent (possibly public) record of what you've said and your tact/style/attitude in how you've chosen to engage a conflict, question or other interaction.
My point? This video points out something valuable not just for pitching clients. Be mindful of the persona you create through your own social media interactions. People who've never met you (but may, including clients) have no other basis on which to judge you and, in lieu of actions, your words can speak very loudly and be difficult to deny or retract.
Do note that the graphs above are meant to illustrate an opinion (see our disclaimer), not show actual data or facts.
I agree in general with what Rand is saying in this video/post and always find the phenomenon quite spectacular as it's quite the opposite of what would 'make sense' in terms of communication (especially business/reputation related communication).
People seem to have the least tact and the highest degree of bravado (attitude?) and confrontation in the least ephemeral media: email and comments/posts. If you communicate something controversial or offensive in face-to-face or phone conversation (wiretaps not withstanding) any recitation of your statements can be embellished, sure, but they also can't be proven or easily distributed. Electronic communication, on the other hand, provides an easily disseminable means to prove your statements as well as a permanent (possibly public) record of what you've said and your tact/style/attitude in how you've chosen to engage a conflict, question or other interaction.
My point? This video points out something valuable not just for pitching clients. Be mindful of the persona you create through your own social media interactions. People who've never met you (but may, including clients) have no other basis on which to judge you and, in lieu of actions, your words can speak very loudly and be difficult to deny or retract.
This comment is so excellent, I believe I need to place it in the post. Truly exemplary thinking, Scott.
Unless someone deletes your posts ;)
Sorry. Couldn't help myself guys. Keep up the great Whiteboards and have a safe trip Rand.
Touché ;)
True, I spent a few months clerking in an attorneys office and they were always bewildered at what people would put in emails. They loved them because they were dated, sequential, personalized, and thus exceptionally easy to tie together into their cases. I forget if it was there or somewhere else where I heard the axiom, "Consider an email a postcard that everyone will read."
Even for communities interested in transparency, there's a lot to be said for discretion and courtesy.
If people really knew how accessible their email is, and that the companies they work for usually own them, I think the majority of people would start using the phone a lot more for personal or sensitive communications. I once worked at a company where the head of IT would scan all the e-mails for his name and read any that contained it. Nice huh? Guess he'd always know if he were about to be fired.
Be mindful of the persona you create through your own social media interactions. People who've never met you (but may, including clients) have no other basis on which to judge you and, in lieu of actions, your words can speak very loudly and be difficult to deny or retract.
Well said for sure , fore sure,
I have always felt I have an eye for the camera but not enough money for good equipment, as many people know I started my own little swimming pool tv just to show people how to do things,
But whats funny is how I see some of the other home improvement people that make videos doing all sorts of stupid stuff in front of the camera, so with this said your above comment really hit home with me
Great Comment Great Scott,
I'd like to add to the discussion about preferring email to phone and face-to-face. There is an "immediacy" of feedback that is important.
Face-to-face being the most immediate. You can easily see how someone reacts to your comments - a nodding of the head versus red face and bulging eyes. You then have the option of revising or adding to your statement, if you care about the relationship.
With a phone it is delayed somewhat, but still pretty immediate. Not able to see expressions, so can't see the rolling of eyes while the person is verbally agreeing with you.
With email - a mis-type, a phrase that is misunderstood, a button you hit without knowing it - causes issues that are not immediatley known or that can be corrected - if you are so inclined. And the effects on both parties lasts longer. I send an email that "trips your breaker". Then I am off to a meeting and don't even know about your reaction till you jump me in the meeting on something entirely different. Or your email "tilted my windmill" and I can't get back to you and stay mad for a week and develop a haiatal(sp) hernia from stress relate bile.
And personally, not to mention (as Scott mentioned), you can show the email to people to show how big a jerk I am, when I would have had some level of deniability on a phone or personal conversation. Not that I would be interested in covering my a** or anything in the workplace.
Easy conversations - email
Tough conversations - personally first, phone second
Great topic, posts and comments
The interesting thing about the Internet is that while the perceived anonymity encourages people to say and do things they wouldn't normally do in real life, there is always a record of what they've said and done that's hard to erase. In real life, if you do something you later regret in most cases it's easy to forget. Everyone should bear that in mind. It's easy to destroy your online reputation but not so easy to keep it spotless. In business a good reputation is essential.
Nice tune!
Is uncomfortability a word?!
On a slightly unrelated note (but brought to mind by your first chart), we have a rule that uncomfortable conversations have to happen in person or over the phone - email is just such a dreadful medium for that kind of thing (though blog comments would be even worse!).
Finally, what happened to the regular whiteboard Friday studio?
It's full of yet-to-be-assembled desks and such...we need new furniture for all of our new peeps. I actually kind of liked filming in Whiteboards West, it was a refreshing change of pace.
The lighting seemed better too.
The setup in Whiteboards West did allow for a much better lighting arrangement. Good eye Nick.
The telephone rule would scare me: I loathe the phone! Especially since living in a foreign country means that half the people I speak to spend a few stunned seconds figuring out why I sound strange and don't pronounce my "r"s properly. "So, if you were offad this position, when could you staaht?" Our potential administrative assistants loved that, I'm sure.
In-person conversations are optimal but hard to come by.
I don't mind the "uncomfortable" conversations over email, as there is an element of privacy in a closed email thread that blog comments obviously don't have. I also like to have some time to figure out what I'm going to say, which is impossible over the phone.
While I understand that people can show "private" emails to others, I've often wished that some of these blogwars would have been addressed privately before they were smeared all over Sphinn, StumbleUpon and various SEO forums. It's like knocking on your loud neighbour's door before calling the cops on them. You feel uncomfortable looking them in the eye and asking them to be quiet, but it saves both of you a lot of stress and antagonism in the long run.
It scares me too, but it has saved us a lot of grief a good few times. I'm not saying it's a popular rule :)
Seriously - we obviously try not to need to have difficult conversations at all, but have found that they work well when done where you can hear the person's voice.
I have to back you up on that one, Will (sorry, Jane); as addicted to email as I am, it's a terrible vehicle for emotional conversations, especially if they have the potential to blow up in your face from a business standpoint. I want to at least be able to hear the tone of someone's voice in delicate situations and prefer a face-to-face.
Personally, I just don't operate over the phone unless I know the person very well. Nothing I want to say comes out right. I realize email isn't the best option, but I believe it's far better than taking out differences via blog comments or posts. If we all politely called or emailed each other before taking to our keyboards, we'd see far fewer flame wars than we do.
That would be very ideal, when it is possible.
But our world tends to be very fast and complecated, so we have to rely on all methodologies of communication, direct and inderect.
I just don't understand when people rush into print, create a blog frenzy and bring productivity to a stop, when a call or an email could have cleared lots of things up in private. We've all done it. But we shouldn't.
When I get mad at my husband, I talk (yell, whine, bitch) to him about it. I don't go to the balcony and shout down to the streets of Seattle about how he pissed me off. In talking about how real-life and Internet communications differ, I always try to put things into a real-life perspective.
Sounds like a healthy relationship.
As long as you do not hit him with a frying pan on the head..:)
I hate the phone too Jane. We seem to have been born for the Internet. :)
I hate the phone period, I rather it be in person...but some times it has to be an email.
Blogging - Social Network is a different catle of fish...
Jane, your accent is charming. Really.
No, it's not a word LOL
That said one of the hallmarks of a good marketer is being able to make up words and use them naturally on the fly, and have people understand them despite their not being legit... at least that's the excuse I use.
I like the soundtrack.. however... why not use 'virtual insantity' by jamiroquai?
Rand titled the Whiteaboard "Welcome to the Jungle," but then I titled the video "Virtual Insanity" because I thought it was very appropriate to the topic. In the end, it was a toss-up, but much as I love Jamiroquai, Gn'R is gonna win that battle every time. :)
Rand,
I really enjoyed this whiteboard Friday and for several reasons.
1) Love G&R ( 80's child )
2) You made some very good points, I know that the "pressure" around everyone is to have a "web 2.0 site" or your not in the times, BUT like you said that might not be good for everyones business model.
I also LOVE the term "virtual insanity", because your so right,
There are so many people that attack and bad mouth each other behind that "lcd wall" but half these people would run at the sound "boo", in real life.
So you have many great points,
I have always noticed that web 2.0 or 'social media" has become a new way of "website terrorism"
Sometimes if you selll something to cheap or even they don't like your business they can come and try to destroy it with bad comments and so on,
So with that said, there is really a lot like you said to think about it,
Thanks for the links to the reads as well :)
Great insight -- the only thing I disagree with is the assumption that mainstream media visibility is proportional to credibility. With all the scandals of news-rigging etc. from major networks (including the fact that these have often been exposed by bloggers) and just the fact that there is so much bias in mainstream media I'd say the scattergraph should be closer to that of online content. However the PERCEPTION of mainstream media is probably closer to the graph presented, and if we are talking about corporate attitudes to social media it is perception that counts.
Funny, straight to the point.
Nice work, Rand.
I'm not in a situation where I need to pitch social media. However, when I was in the corporate world, there were times I did need to try to sell various technology solutions.
If I got a sense my case wasn't heard (could've been my presentation or some other factor), I could always get one last shot by saying:
"Well your decision will make [x] very happy."
[x] would be the CEO of some rival firm.
People may not necessarily understand the benefits of what I was trying to sell, but they could relate to their perceived enemies.
Nice one but I would split the Blogosphere, Social Media and Forums etc up.
Having an own blog I guess would be closer to email communication as you are an identified person whereas a forum post or blog comment is much less personal.
If you write in your own blog people might say "Look at Rand what he is writing again" but a forum post takes you by your member name.
Another thing is the direct reaction time. In a phone conversation you get a direct answer or immediately facing a question whereas in email conversations you have much more time to react.
Anyways, good whiteboard friday. Kepp on going and don't let it become a whitebored friday.
I'm sorry to have arrived just a bit too late, since the video is not available anymore but I acknowledge the fact that the second graph reflects a common-sense assumption about media source trustworthiness. Like many other "common sense" assumptions they are just plain wrong as they ignore the advantages of specialized media. For instance, if I want to learn something about SEO, I would rather read SEOMoz blog than any mainstream media publications.
excellent post and interesting topic. and big, BIG props on putting god, i mean oprah on the "higly visible, not at all valid" point of the graph. right where she belongs.
Rand -- another great visual to accompany the thought. The barriers are certainly present with many of my clients and while I've had modest success breaking them down, I'd love to hear some thoughts on how you've led yours through the education process.
My biggest problem with one client is simple responsiveness. They seem to want to table social media decisions until the next board meeting. I've explained to them the conversation is like the news cycle ... 48 hours and they're too late. They then just say, we'll then let's just let it die down and not participate. So far it hasn't hurt them, but they are missing golden opportunities to inject themeselves in conversations they currently aren't a part of.
Have fun abroad.
Gotta love any post that has a cameo from Homer!
I second that!
IrnBru, you barking up the wrong tree Dude!
Rand does know his stuff, you need to follow him for a while and you will understand where he is coming for.
This is not a dissertation that we writing here but ponting out the trend, at times using inductive reasoning when deductive is not easily available.
If this was an imperical study, your point would be a valid one.
So the only thing you have clearefied to us is that you do not know much about SEO...stick around and learn, if the desire and the need is there.
Interesting post Rand. I've recently had the opportunity to view a client first hand who was on the negative side of the media. I've always been sceptical of the mainstream media but seeing the outright lies and lack of proper investigation was an eye opener. I can safely say that I'll never trust anything being said on the news or in newspapers. I don't know if it's always been this way but now, it is crucial that we all stop and think about what we see, hear and read. Whether it's on a blog or your local news/newspaper.
I love Whiteboard Fridays.
As to the actual data, I think in this circumstance the graph represent an idea not actual statistics. Normally you would use graphs for stats but in the case I don't think it's needed.
Excellent points Rand!
Hi,
Thanks for the video.
In a corporate/conservative blog would you recommend moderating comments with very low "validity / accuracy"?
I guess it would be better to respond with a "valid /accurate" comment, but I find that people in corporate environments want to erase everything that does not make them look good.
I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of Social Media Marketing for businesses... I am not sure about this because traffic generated from Web 2.0 sites (i.e Digg, Facebook, Delicious) many times is not converting well and I don't know exactly what is the reason. I mean, you can generate a lot of traffic with SMM but It looks like a way to attract people who are looking only for information or cool news and not looking for a product or service. Maybe in the short future, SMM will be a great tool for business but right now... I don't know.
That depends on the site.... reddit seems to convert better than digg...simply because of the type of reader it draws( read an article illustrating this point using analytics, and can't seem to find it).
Many sites are simply not prepared for their article to get traffic from these sites. The ones that do have measures in place to make sure that readers stay to view something else, like article suggestion(e.g. Cracked.com, Double Viking, Ars Technica, xkcd{technically does not "suggest" articles}, etc.) These sites sell merchandise/advertising well.
Site preparation has a lot to do with it as well. Scalable bandwidth for the server, cached files for dynamic content, all of these can affect conversion. If your site can't handle the traffic, your conversion rate is going to suffer.
Also, if you are selling a product or service, the link love that you get from some these articles will more than make up for any conversion you may lose. This can also set you up as an expert in your field, allowing you to charge higher rates for the services you do sell.
$KA-to-the-CHING$
It depends, I persoanlly have been successful with social media marketing but it has to be done by the niche, well for my brain at least
I agree with you and still have doubts on the longevity and profitability of focusing on Social Media Marketing as well. I guess I should rephrase that, it depends on the type of social media marketing you choose. Do I think YouTube and MySpace are the direction to go? They are great and definitely generate traffic, but it's not where I would focus if you are trying to flat out sell something.
Most e-commerce is done by the demographic of professional twenty-somethings that have disposable income. They have that disposable income from their jobs. There aren't a lot of jobs where you can easily load up and watch some videos on your PC because of privacy or workplace restrictions. But almost anyone can go to a traditional web site and buy something online in a matter of seconds. I think that is where the conversion rates make such a significant difference.
Sure, people buy things online when they are at home and more freely able to view whatever content they choose - but you have a more captive audience when people don't have better viable options like going shopping in the real world. But if someone is stuck at work, and remembers that they need to order a new whatever gadget, they go to the internet and order it. I think there is a strong role for Social Media, and moreso for "Web 2.0" based sites where people are part of a community and can share reviews and ideas, etc. Videos are cool, and will always exist, but will not convert to sales the way traditional web does. But the blogging aspect, RSS, forums, and user contributed content will do better, and even they will likely still trail traditional web e-commerce sites for a very long time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't believe anybody should focus all of their efforts on SMM. As we've witnessed with several of our clients (and SEOmoz itself) it can be a valuable component of a comprehensive online (and/or offline) marketing strategy.
Thanks for the tips. This will help pitching social media to the big wigs.
Gracias!
Rand,
It is interesting that you mention Walter Cronkite as far as MSM validity/respectability. He is a figure which immediately comes to mind when you think of fairness in journalism.
He was fairly neutral with his reporting, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would have been able to pin him down as belonging to a set of political ideals.
In personal interviews, you find that he is an individual who has extremely progressive beliefs.Some of them are actually pretty audacious(Yeah, not exactly the word that comes to mind when think or Mr. Cronkite).
Whether you hold his views or not, you are forced to give his beliefs higher credibility, simply because you hold his reputation as a journalist in high esteem.
Same media, same visibility, vastly different opinion...same response.
Oprah vs. Edward R. Murrow....Mr. Murrow...it is I who wish you "Good Night and Good Luck".
As I was thinking about larger and more conservative companies BMW came to mind along with the work they did in the BMW Films. This is perhaps another answer to the question about willingness: a lot of time a big company wants a solution that's big in scope. Unfortunately for me I don't have Adriana Lima or Wong Kar-wai on speed dial.
I find I'm usually just as excited to hear what song you've picked each week as I am about the topics you actually cover!
I would totally agree that the less face to face contact people have, the less tact, courage and in my opinion, manners they have. When you're in person, even if something does anger or offend you, you take a moment and try to process it. Online, people are pounding the keys before taking a moment to think about the situation.
Such is the life of the internet I suppose lol
I'm a little worried about what you've done here. Did you do any research, or have research to back up your graphs? It really feels like all you've done is take conventional wisdom and your opinion, and fabricated a graph to add validity to it. Which is interesting especially given your topic. You may have just placed you're self on the top left corner of your second graph.It seems you should save graphs to illustrate data not create it.
Nice attack dude ........
Actually, this is a "valid" concern and it is the way a lot of people might think of this presentation - it was not an attack, it was a very calculated and logical thought.
While I can see where IrnBru001 is coming from - having a healthy concern for the validity of statistics and a healthy dose of economic theory and the scientific method - I am comfortable saying that this makes sense as an observation of the behavior of people on the web versus in person. The plot is merely an expansion of the observation by taking the behavior patterns aforementioned and defining them further. I think Rand has adequate experience to formulate these thoughts from pure observation - at the same time, I would also note that there are probably tests already complete (or being conducted right now) or this is something that could be tested and the chances are high, in my opinion, that Rand's graphs/data/observations would be proven correct.
Scientific theory according to our favorite resource (wikipedia):
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
While measurement may or may not be finished, this appears to be a sound observation by SEOmoz.
I wasn't saying it was an attack,
I was saying to the guy above me "nice attacK" on Rand,
Its his first comment and he went for the throat NOT releazing what seo moz can do for him in a positive way,
I just hate when people "pre-judge"
"- it was not an attack, it was a very calculated and logical thought..." was meant for you wethead - it is my opinion that IrnBru001 wasn't attacking SEOmoz, sorry I should have posted that comment as a reply to yours wethead.
Ok I didn't mean to start a flame war. Sorry if I came off as short. The power the internet has to change the face of media is one of its greatest potentials, IMHO. Having hard data on the success or failure of this is interesting and I was just wishing there was some for the graph, which doesn't paint the outlook as so rosy. But I'm not sure the same principles don't apply. IMDB or Wikipedia didn't become huge because they were simply online, but because their information was valuable. There a study not too long about about Wikipedia doing pretty well up against Britannica: https://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 Is wikipedia an exception? My guts actually says not but I could be wrong. The graph is helpful in pointing out that there are other factors to a sites visibility on the net, other then its accuracy... say SEO optimization for example ;)
IrnBru,
You'll notice that Rand is clear to say that there, "will always be outliers," (ie. points that fall outside the predicted data set) depending on your feelings, this could include certain political pundits, bloggers, celebrities, etc.
Although I think even the most casually observed anecdotal evidence shows that, in general, Rand's hypothesis here is broadly accurate.
Actually, he's doing exactly what Rand says.He's being critical of what is said and what is being used to argue the point.Even though Rand and the rest of the team are great sources of information, they too can be wrong or use data out of context.
Sometimes you may not have statistics, but experience gives you a great idea of how things work.
For how long have you been reading SEOmoz? Just to make sure you understand my point, I am not talking about your experience, but Rand´s.
This is very common for small companies, they usually don´t have statistics but experience gives them good judeging. And I am leaving out of the discussion Bad statistics...
I've been reading for a while. And don't get me wrong, he's probably 'got the gist of it' in his graphs. The ideas are there, I just wish there was some hard data to back it up. It would be a very interesting study. Media evaluations are very difficult subject. For one there is a real fear that the same thing that can make some one visible can cloud their judgement. It's a tough topic that could use some tough research. My personal background, which made me want to post, is politics where the MSM has become problematic.
Yea, Rand usually studies and then over studies things before going public,
Having the actual data to back it up is good I agree, thej again , who is to say he doesn't?
Showing datasheets in a vide would be boring, so I agee colorful graphs are more appealing :)
I understood your point on the post, because I always follow statistics, they give you a direction. But sometimes statistics are not all and is something that I have to get used to too. Combining statistics and experience is very powerful.
And, of course, everybody knows that statistical correlations always yield valid conclusions.
;)
I'm a great believer that human instincts along with powers of reasoning are actually better than statistics, which can be manipulated any old way you want.
I think he basically put together a graph that visually shows exactly what we already know. Not sure this needs scientific facts to back it as I think anyone who has a history of reading content online knows that this is accurate. It was nice to see it visually to really hit home as a "oh yea, that is a good point" kind of visual aid more than trying to prove anything.
In response to the chart, one true talent is being able to maintain the same level of tact on the internet that you would in person. This is challenging and difficult to anyone, but definitely a true sign of experience and professionalism.