Jott Blog Post

One of the really interesting futures in web 2.0 is hole applications can be develop they can work together. In this case I am working with Jott’s to devolop a blog post for my wordpress blog. I have also expermented with Twitter. So I am going to see how this works out with the a blog post.
Click here to listen

Powered by Jott.com – Try it at 1 (866) JOTT123 – Jott.com

Later: I did this from my cell phone on the way to lunch. I think it’s kind of neat that you can click through the link and hear exactly what I said, because the transcription isn’t perfect. I’ll have some more thoughts on this and on Twitter with Jott later.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , ,

Facebook and Twitter: Off-Label Uses

Twitter Facebook Tools
Too many people look at the latest social media gadgets and can’t get beyond first impressions and what’s on the packaging.
They see the “What are you doing?” interface at the top of Twitter and they say, “How pointless and narcissistic is that?” “Who cares what I’m doing right now?” And “Why would I care what you’re doing?”

Or they see the “poke” lingo in Facebook and can’t imagine serious business uses.

They miss the point. It’s not about the initial application as envisioned by the developer; it’s about what you can envision as an implication of the application.

To paraphrase Ted Kennedy eulogizing his brother Bobby: “Some men see Twitter as it is and say ‘Why?’ I dream new uses for social media and say, ‘Why not?'”

These aren’t like pharmaceuticals that should be used only as directed. Off-label use is fine.

For example, Twitter could be one way to rapidly alert an emergency response team that they have been activated. You could create a Twitter account called “Your company alerts” and have all of your key staff subscribe to cell phone alerts from that account. You wouldn’t use the account except in an emergency.

But then, when a disaster strikes, you would have Twitter as one way of getting the word out. As Dennis McDonald recommends, you wouldn’t rely on it as your only means of communication, but it could potentially shave several precious minutes off the time it takes to reach everyone. You could use Twitter to send a message like this to get your team to participate in a crisis activation call:

Explosion at plant. Conference call at 800-555-1212 at 8:45 for details of emergency activation.

At the same time, you could start working through your old-fashioned phone tree until you know that the message was successfully delivered.

Likewise, you could create a secret Facebook group called “Your Company Crisis Management” and have all of your key staff join. Then, when a disaster hits, you could use the Message All Members function to blast an alert to everyone (which may include sending text messages to some), and you could use the Wall and Discussion Board to post information your team needs and to clarify issues.

Facebook Twitter tools

This kind of group could remain invisible to the general public; you could create a companion site (or a blog) very quickly for public interactions.
I’m quite certain that neither Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg nor Twitter founder Biz Stone envisioned this kind of use for their applications when they began developing them.

What kind of “off-label” uses for social media have you found?

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , , ,

Google Will Spur Facebook Growth

Google Facebook Growth
Facebook‘s so-called “walled garden” is about to get a lot more like the blood-brain barrier, which is good news for people who want Facebook to become their all-in-one networking utility.

And the privacy concerns some are immediately raising seem to be reflexive rather than reflective.

In biology, the blood-brain barrier protects the brain from chemicals in the bloodstream. Likewise, Facebook puts up a barrier to the wider internet that prevents spam messages from getting through.

Facebook announced today that extremely limited versions of its users’ profiles will be available for viewing through Google, Yahoo and other search engines. Techcrunch rightly notes the grave implications for some start-ups looking to fill the people search niche. An SEO blog also notes benefits for companies that want to be found online (and therefore for their customers, who are looking for them). Other reasonable analyses are here, here and here.
Many of the objections raised today are the standard response of those who see a privacy threat in every aggregation of online data, or worse yet, a conspiracy. Like this laughable Flash-in-the-pan that tries to connect Facebook’s Terms of Service (in which users are saying, in legalese, that they have the right to upload whatever they put on Facebook and that Facebook has the right to display it on the internet) to everything from global climate change to the JFK assassination.

In essence, the Google bots will come in a month from now (after everyone in Facebook has had the opportunity to opt out) and will index profile content. But when your (or my) Facebook profile comes back in the search results, all anyone will see will be something like this:

Google Will Grow Facebook
Hard to see a big threat there. And those with phobias about privacy implications can opt out, so no one outside Facebook can search for them.

For the fearless, this is a great development. I will be able to do a Google search for people I know and find out whether they are in Facebook, so I can send them a message or a friend request. But because people who aren’t Facebook members can’t send a message without joining, we don’t have to worry about this opening the spam floodgates.

It will, however, encourage lots more people to join Facebook, as they see Facebook listings for people they know showing up high in the Google results, and as they discover they need to be members to send a message to them.

Facebook has been growing at over a million users a week already; this will only accelerate what Newsweek called its “astonishing” growth.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,

12 Tips for Social Media Success

12 tips for Social Media Success
Jeremiah Owyang highlights a well-done white paper by Chris Kenton from MotiveLab called “12 Essential Tips for Success in Social Media” by calling attention to the first tip: Establish Clear Business Objectives and Metrics. There’s a good reason why that’s first: too often a project will be launched without a clear sense of where it fits in the organization’s overall strategy.

Like Jeremiah, I highly recommend this paper, which you can download here by joining the Facebook group Chris established, called MotiveLab Network.

But while Jeremiah called attention to the first point, I would like to highlight the last:

Fail Quickly. Fail Cheaply.

If you’re launching your first social media program, focus on an initiative with minimal investment in time and money. Success is more often than not an iterative process. You’re likely to fail. So do it quickly, do it cheaply, and correct your course. Don’t set out with a big initiative that ties up a lot of resources putting all the bells and whistles into a flashy launch, unless you’re ready for a flashy failure. Social media lends itself well to this kind of iterative and incremental process.

This ties to some of my previous posts about why building a community site within an existing social network like Facebook makes sense, at least as a way to start.

First, I think it will give you maximum likelihood of success, because a certain portion of your target audience already is in Facebook. You’re not asking them to sign up for a new username/password. And if they’re not in Facebook yet, asking them to sign up isn’t asking for more commitment than if you were just inviting them to your own homebrewed or “white label” site. So for getting people to join your online community, the simplicity factor either favors Facebook (for existing users) or is a wash.

For you as the developer of the community, however, forming a Facebook group is much simpler than either of the other options. You can create a Facebook group in less than an hour, even as a complete novice — and even if you spend the first 45 minutes exploring the Facebook group settings.
That leads me back to Chris’ point about failing faster. I believe using Facebook for your first foray into social media makes failure less likely, but even if you find that it doesn’t work as well as you had hoped, it will cost you less for this social media education, both in time and money, than if you set up a standalone site.

If you find your Facebook group experiment is a miserable failure, as Administrator you can end it. I just set up a group to test this, and invited my youngest daughter to join. Here’s what that page looked like:

12 tips for Social Media Success

Right after she joined it, I used the “Edit Members” function to remove her as a member, and then I changed the status of the group to “Secret.” It’s as if the group had never existed; like Stalin without the political assassinations.
So, if you formed a group in Facebook and it absolutely didn’t work, you could put it out of your misery (although it probably would be best in a case like that to have introduced it as a pilot; for Wal-Mart’s Facebook group an attempt to disband would bring bad PR.)

A more likely scenario might be, as Chris suggests, that you experiment with a social media platform like Facebook so both you and your intended community learn whether this kind of networking would be mutually valuable. You may see some features missing that would be helpful or even crucial to its success, and then you can focus development efforts on either extending the Facebook functionality through the F8 platform, or using what you learned in developing an alternative.

Whatever you decide, you can either then enhance your Facebook site, or use the Message All Members function to let everyone know that the action has moved over to a new site. This is much better than taking months to develop a site, perhaps pouring development resources into functions your users may not value, and lagging behind your competitors in engaging customers in conversations.
Even if you eventually go to another “new and improved” site, you would still have your outpost in Facebook, so that as people are there and perhaps looking for your organization, you can have this group with a link to your “real” networking site.

Here’s a demonstration of what that might look like:

Social Media Success tips
As Dennis McDonald says in another interesting white paper, you should incorporate social media into your crisis communication plan because these tools will be used by others in a crisis. Likewise, since some people will search for your organization’s name in Facebook (especially as it continues to add users at an “astonishing” rate), you should at minimum have a presence there so people can find your “official” site via a link on that page.

Sometimes faster failure is the key to success.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“The Social Graph” Makes Facebook “Business” Friends Inevitable

Social Graph Facebook Business Friends
Facebook will have a way of enabling its users to create various levels of “friendship.” It’s inevitable, and not just because of the speculation on the Inside Facebook blog.

I don’t know how to interpret the new API methods uncovered in that post and what the code really means, but this news does seem to indicate that Facebook is on its way to developing what Nick O’Neill calls Facebook’s Killer Feature. I’ve written previously about some work-arounds for this problem of personal and professional friends being all in one group, and how segregating them would be essential to widespread adoption of Facebook for B2B networking.

This recent speculation only suggests to me that the new feature enabling classes of friends, which would be a serious blow to LinkedIn, may be coming sooner than I had expected. But whatever the timing, I am absolutely convinced that Facebook will have this feature.
Why? Because it is essential for Facebook to have if it wants to achieve its goal of representing what Mark Zuckerberg calls “the social graph” within Facebook. Zuckerberg says the social graph exists in reality, and Facebook is just making it visible.

Well, the reality is people have different kinds of relationships. Some are strictly personal. Others are professional or business-related. If Facebook is to accurately mirror The Social Graph, it must have a way of distinguishing between these kinds of relationships.

You can do this already to some extent through the limited profile and by using groups, but that’s the MacGyver way. It needs to be easy. Facebook needs to make maintaining these “arms length” relationships as simple as the regular “friend” interactions.

It will, because continuing its “astonishing” growth and maturing into a true information-sharing utility depends on it. Zuckerberg knows it. He’s a smart guy. Like the United Way commercial used to say about Minnesota Vikings Center Matt Birk, “He went to Harvard.”

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,