Posts Tagged ‘twitter’

Why Marketers Should Use Native Interfaces

Posted on: December 6th, 2011 by Geoff Livingston 9 Comments

Facebook engagement ratio likes fans
Image by EdgeRankChecker.com

Recently, conversations have picked up on possible third party interfaces for Google+. Marketers in particular want to schedule updates, sift through posts using simplified search, and measure click throughs.

The proliferation of Tweetdeck, Hootsuite, and other third party API-based clients to update social networks within the marketing space is substantial. It’s not a question of if you use one, rather which one.

Rarely do you hear discussions of Twitter’s native interface. And just recently this conversation surfaced about Facebook as analysis revealed that third party interfaces dramatically drop engagement rates by as much as 80%.

That argument in its own right tells you why you should update in the native Facebook interface. Recently, head of Facebook’s Nonprofit effort Charles Porch confirmed with me that for maximum impact communicators should absolutely update within the social network.

Beyond Facebook, regardless of whether it’s easier to update or more measurable to use a third party interface, marketers should still spend some time (note: not all of their time) each week on native social network interfaces. Why? Because most stakeholders don’t use third party interfaces. Even on Twitter, 58% of people use native applications.

If you are trying to communicate with people, it’s good to know how they will receive the message. Literally. What does your update look like to your stakeholders on xxx social network? You can only know this by using native interfaces. And knowing this helps you intuitively create better updates.

If Steve Jobs could find the time to take customer service calls, online marketers can certainly make time for native interfaces.

What do you think? Should marketers use native applications?

Popularity: 1% [?]

Bashing Google+: Fashionable, but not Smart

Posted on: November 28th, 2011 by Geoff Livingston 21 Comments

Pinata time
Image by Monkey at Large

Many social media wonks bash Google+ at social media conferences and in online conversations. Doubting the new social network is the fashionable thing to do. Yet you have to wonder if this absolute negative view is professionally smart.

While the network has not surpassed Facebook and to date lacks the business impact of established networks Twitter and LinkedIn, it has developed its own community. Engagement waned after a stellar launch, but new voices continue to join Google+ and more of Google’s core applications have been integrated into the network. As a result, traffic has increased. AddThis recently reported that Google+ had its third highest in bound traffic week to date.

Google continues integrating its entire ecosystem into the + social network, and the biggest social chip is being added to the mix — YouTube. As YouTube (and Chrome) become more integrated, Google+ will only gather further steam.

Keep in mind, my attitude about Google+ has been conservative with a wait and see approach. As time has continued doubt remains, but Google+ is consistently a top 10 referrer to my blog. In general, because of the larger ecosystem, the smart thing to do is to begin engaging mostly because of search benefits, and to protect brand reputation.

Regardless of pros or cons, a professional’s job is to view Google+ with an analytical eye. Otherwise, it is hard to provide objective counsel.

History Shows Google+ Won’t Beat Facebook

Much of the Google+ negativity finds its basis in the over exuberance of some social media experts who initially lauded Google+ as the great Facebook killer. But marketing history shows that it is almost impossible to unseat an entrenched market leader like Facebook head-to-head.

When competing against a dominant leader with no major differences in technology, distribution or product, most companies cannot win. Avis’s “We Try Harder” positioning against Hertz rental cars was an acknowledgement that it could not escape second in the marketplace.

Ironically, Google is one of those rare companies who has knocked out a market leader. In the 1990s Yahoo! had a lock in the search marketplace. But in 2000 it lost its lead to Google, which won the market with its unique search algorithm.

Yet Google’s success over Yahoo was due to an improvement in technology. Without some sort of major game changing technology or major collapse on Facebook’s part, Google+ will likely end up competing for second place in traffic and page views against Twitter and LinkedIn.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Current Social Network Punditry Causing Naps

Posted on: September 22nd, 2011 by Geoff Livingston 7 Comments

nap time
Image by LOLren

Oh yes, there are many changes afoot amongst the social networks. Facebook, Google+ and Twitter, oh my! And of course, the social media punditry has ratcheted up with the competition. Could it be more meaningless and boring?

Seriously. New feature social network roll-outs are about as exciting watching the fall line-up of TV programming getting announced.

Interesting? Yes. Meaningful? No, not until you get to experience the show a couple of times.

The difference is that instead of several TV critics, we have tens of thousand of so-called experts offering declarations at ever opportunity. The social media marketers who claim to know how these features will impact business are just ridiculous.

Sorry. It’s laughable. Can anyone possibly know how these new features will work out before even using them? Even for just a week?

Point being, who really knows? No one.

Let’s be frank, there is no social networking revolution, no dramatic change in the way people interact online that has been caused by any of these updates. Just more options. And that’s why for those of us who use these tools to communicate professionally, the current punditry is worthy of a big long nap.

Popularity: 1% [?]