Marketing Technology

Yikes. Is it really that long since my last post here? Funny how 5 years ago you would be lambasted for “not getting it” if you didn’t post at least once every day, yet now look at us.

However, I digress. Picking up on the theme of influence, everything I do in my role as community manager for Hill & Knowlton seems to come down to measuring social media influence. So here’s my Social Media Influence Manifesto, encompassing all the things I believe to be true about how influence plays out online.

1. Influence is determined by the receiver not the transmitter. Attempts to measure influence based on volume of output are misguided and futile.
2. Influence is contextual. People are influential about something. Knowing what that ’something’ is, is the key to accurately measuring influence.
3. Value is a proxy for influence. Things that people are willing to reward carry more influence for them.
4. Influence is about behaviour. To be influential, the receiver has to do something, whether that’s change their opinion, buy a product, or pass on a joke. Measure the actions.
5. Influential people do not influence everyone. People can be influential without influencing.

I’m currently involved in a project to support Hill & Knowlton’s sponsorship of the COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference next month, which involves analysing the different media, influencers and topics driving the conversation.

One of the things we are doing is measuring the most prominent tweeters (the COP15 Twitterati - latest table here and Twitter list here). We’re doing this purely by volume of tweets mentioning specific keywords (translated into about eight languages), so there’s no magic pixie dust until we get to the job of semantic analysis to extract the people and topics being referenced.

However, I thought it might also be interesting to look at the correlation between the volume of tweets from our top 15 and their respective influence, as measured by Edelman’s TweetLevel methodology. The scatter plot appears below (click for the readable version), but in summary:

• There’s a positive correlation between volume and influence at 0.33, albeit a weak one
• The r² value is 0.11, suggesting that around 11% of influence is attributable to volume

Correlation between Tweet volume and influence

I intend to explore this further. I’ve long thought that online influence measures are fairly ropey, and it would be interesting to see exactly how much volume really is the only useful measure. We keep banging on about quality being more important than quantity online, but is that really so?

On 1 December 2009 new guidelines (Guides) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising come into force in the United States.

The most significant development in this revision is the inclusion of social or consumer-generated media as a form of endorsement. Whilst there is much in the full 81-page Guides (PDF link) that brand owners should review, the following actions are the most pressing when considering any campaign.

• Review the full Guides available at http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf
• Review existing and planned endorsements in light of the Guides
• Ensure that marketing staff and agencies are aware of the Guides and their implications
• Monitor the activities of consumers who participate in social media marketing campaigns
• Put in place specific social media guidelines for employees to advise them of their disclosure obligations when participating in online discussion (Hill & Knowlton’s are available here as a model).

Perhaps one of the most frequently missed points is that the FTC Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act. They are not themselves binding in law. Worth remembering.

A full briefing note on the topic is available on the Hill & Knowlton Scribd channel.

Almost a month ago, I asked for help to update Hill & Knowlton’s social media principles.

This afternoon, our CEO sent out the final version to all staff worldwide. We’ve already updated our public principles on our website, but I also wanted to share the full document here and explain a little about the process we’ve been through, what we’ve changed and why.

Summary

Our principles are split into three sections: personal use of social media; professional use of social media on behalf of our company and clients; and use of our official social media platforms. You might say this separation isn’t necessary, but we have found that not all of our staff operate in all these spaces so we want to make sure they can quickly identify the bits that are relevant to them.

You might also say that this makes them too long, and the only guideline should actually be “use your common sense”. That is undoubtedly a valid approach but if we are talking about being accountable to ourselves, our clients and the social media community, that simply doesn’t wash.

Our principles are centered around encouraging staff to participate appropriately not restricting their ability to do so. As communications professionals, it is essential that we are able to explore, understand and participate in social media in order to credibly advise our clients how to do the same.

A few other things worthy of note:

• We have a 24/7 email hotline - as well as our extensive digital practice - where staff can ask questions about what is/isn’t appropriate. Again this is designed to help, not hinder.
• We have defined a complaints procedure designed to be fair to everyone. Too often, we see knee-jerk reactions that don’t look at the issue objectively.
• Unlike version one, this time we have asked all staff to click a link in order to confirm that they have read and understand the principles.

The Process

For those of you trying to conduct a similar exercise in your own organization (or with clients), you might be interested in how we did it. If not, skip to the next section. Bear in mind that this was an update to existing guidelines not creation from scratch.

1. We put the existing guidelines on our internal wiki platform and invited everyone to edit or comment on the different sections.
2. Someone took all the feedback and created an updated version of the guidelines
3. This was circulated as a draft to that community, socialized with senior management for comment and shared externally on this blog
4. Final feedback was incorporated (mainly clarifications) before being signed off by the CEO, COO, CMO and digital practice head.

The Principles

Links to the text of each section of the principles can be found below.

• Personal use of social media
• Professional use of social media on behalf of Hill & Knowlton and clients
• Code of Conduct for our official blogs at Collective Conversation

Please feel free to use, copy or adapt these principles as part of your own social media policies. It would be nice if you could let us know if they’ve been helpful too.

I keep getting drawn back to the topic of augmented reality and how it might impact on marketing and communication. When I wrote my first post on the subject I was beginning to explore some examples of the technology. After a period of reflection, I’m left with two questions:

1. How to describe it in layman’s terms
2. What the applications to marketing/PR might be

For the first, I think I’m getting close. Get people to think about a physical object (reality) and data about it (or data about that data) that could exist online. These are the two core components.

Augmented reality is the technology that connects the two together. This technology has to do a number of things:

• Provide the user with a way of capturing the object
• Recognise the object
• Search for the relevant data about the object
• Display the data in a way that augments the physical representation

Let’s take the simple example of a painting in an art gallery:

• User points device at painting
• Software recognises the painting
• Software searches for information about the painting or artist
• Device displays data to user as an overlay on the image

So with description, let’s turn our attention to the applications for marketing and PR. The first question to ask is what the physical objects are. People, products, buildings, headlines, newspapers, etc. all spring immediately to mind. Now let’s think about the associated data. Profiles, reviews, comments, articles, sentiment, etc. all come into play. So augmented reality applications that can tell you whether a headline in a newspaper is positive or negative and what people are saying about it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The key technology challenge is recognition, and this is where I expect to see developments in the future. I’m already imagining a world where every object - animate or inanimate - can be recognised (visually, aurally or otherwise) and given a unique identifier. If that happens, then the process of tagging information and looking it up becomes as straightforward as sending an email is today, opening up a whole new world of augmentation.

Dennis Howlett thinks so (although he doesn’t say whether his hypothetical crock is full of gold or some other raw material).

I started writing a brief, witty response to his ZDNet post whacking anyone who dare use the term Enterprise 2.0 over the head with his stick of experience (and a touch of hindsight, which as we all know is a wonderful thing). Then I realised it would have to be a more reasoned and tempered response. After posting, I guessed that like most comments on blogs owned by big media it would be unlikely to be seen by many so here it is for your delectation. I’d be interested to know if you agree.

—

Yes, Enterprise 2.0 is a label. So was Groupware. Remember that? New things will always be given labels by the people trying to educate the market. Get over it.

So is Enterprise 2.0 trying to solve a problem? No. Because it’s just a label. Is it a thing you can go and buy? No. Because it’s just a label. Is it going to change the world? No. Because… you get the idea.

But the tech that sits under this label isn’t just about creating community, as this article seems to be implying. There ARE real business problems that this tech can HELP solve (but like any tech, not solve in itself).

Things like streamlining internal communication in businesses when information overload is the norm - in order to ensure employees are informed, engaged and motivated.

Things like getting sales people to share best practice from the field with the product and marketing people - in order to keep the product line relevant.

Things like improving collaboration amongst people who have never spoken to each other before, or work in different countries, cultures and time zones - in order to secure that vital piece of business.

Things like connecting people with each other and information (answering questions like “do we work with this prospect anywhere else in the world?” that no other piece of tech I have seen can do quite as well), and between information - in order to ensure that the company knows what it knows, what it knows it doesn’t know, and what it doesn’t know it knows.

Should tech vendors in the space start focusing on how their products solve some of these real business problems and stop evangelising Enterprise 2.0 as if it is some kind of panacea to cure all ills? Absolutely.

Is Enterprise 2.0 a crock? No. Because it’s just a label.

In May 2005, Hill & Knowlton wrote and then published our first personal blogging guidelines. Two years ago, as we started to give our clients more and more social media marketing advice, we updated these to create a wider set of social media principles.

Now it’s time to update these again. We’ve consulted widely internally, and would now like to hear what the people we might encounter online whilst representing our clients think.

So we’ve published the current version of our internal draft. You can review it below or on Scribd.

Please leave a comment here or on Scribd and let us know what you think, what works and what doesn’t, and what your experiences of PR and marketing agencies participating in social media have been.

We’ll review all the comments and the end of the week and update as necessary, before adopting internally and publishing the final version here.

Since becoming the proud owner of an iPhone 3GS I’ve annoyed family, friends and colleagues silly be flashing it around and telling them which direction North is. I’ve also been marveling at the ecosystem of third party applications available (which, apparently, would cost over $140,000 if you bought them all).

But the apps - as these programs are called - that currently exist only just scratch the surface of what is going to be possible now that the iPhone knows where it is and even which direction it is pointing.

Welcome to the world of augmented reality.

Whilst at the time of writing there are no true augmented reality applications available, there are a number in the pipeline - and their developers have not been slow to post videos showing what they can do online.

The first I came across is Nearest Tube, and app that will quite literally point you in the direction of the closest London Underground station when you hold up the iPhone. Watch the video below to see it in action.

Today I discover TwittARound (geddit), or at least a video of the first beta version. In the words of the developer, “it shows live tweets around your location on the horizon. Because of video see-through effect you see where the tweet comes from and how far it is away.” Again, seeing is believing:

So why I am suggesting that augmented reality is the next killer marketing technology? Quite simply because as these apps show, the physical and virtual worlds have just moved closer together as a result of devices like the iPhone 3GS and the ingenuity and creativity of application developers.

How long then before we have augmented reality apps that do things like:

• Show messages left by others at the same location (in fact, there are map-based apps that already do this)
• Display internet ratings or reviews (or alternatives) for products in shops
• Call up news/opinion about a company when you pass by their premises
• Provide interactivity to any outdoor ad by pointing the mobile device at it
• Help you find the nearest outlet for a particular brand (in fact, ING Direct already did this on Google’s Android platform with their ATM Finder)

To paraphrase the ad, there’s bound to be an app for that soon.

I for one am going to be watching this space with interest over the coming months. If you have examples of companies using AR as part of their marketing or communications, please let me know.

Update: Just discovered that Apple has already filed a patent for something called ID App for identifying objects in the user’s surroundings. Mashable has more on this.

Over the last three weeks, I have had as many conversation with senior executives about how they can cope with the constant barrage of incoming information, mainly via email.

In various lengths of windedness, I tell them rather smugly that my inbox is empty 95% of the time. Not because no one ever sends me anything (although that may well be true) or that I just delete it, but because since January 2008 I’ve followed David Allen’s Getting Things Done (GTD) system.

Now I don’t know why it works for me. Maybe it appeals to the left side of my brain, maybe I just like process, or maybe it just works. But I highly recommend it to any senior executive whose inboxes control them rather than the other way around. If they can get it working (and you do need to work at it for a couple of months) I can guarantee they will feel more productive, less stressed and more in control.

In fact, I think there’s such a big internal market for this I’m considering offering one-on-one coaching to H&K’s elite.

A few different projects have got my mind focused on influence this week. The first is planning the research design for the centrepiece of my book on social media in B2B (can we measure the influence that social media platforms have on the different staging of the B2B buying cycle?). The second is connected with our cooperation next month with Twitter at the Cannes Lions.

In both contexts I am reaching the conclusion that influence cannot be measured, and thus is a futile metric for exploration. Sure, you can ask people how much influence something has or has had, but do they really know? And what is influence anyway? In my mind it is a power that makes someone do something, not a property that any individual possesses. Invariably when an individual does have influence, it is only over a specific thing. Even the most influential people in the world (politicians, one could argue) have no influence over whether I will buy a Sony or a Panasonic television this weekend.

In a public environment, you might (just) be able to attempt to measure influence by looking at people’s networks, the re-communication of their utterances, but to me this is just reach. Someone who says something that reaches 100,000 people is no more influential than someone who reaches just 100, if all of the latter act on that communication but none of the former do.

In short, influence needs to be measured in context and at the receiving end not the transmitting end. That is not something you can do by looking at their blog posts, tweets or Facebook profile.

So do we continue to try and measure things that cannot be measured, or do we measure things that can be measured and can give us as marketers comparisons that we understand.

I think it’s the latter.