According to Adage our latest recruit has one of the hottest jobs in marketing.

Deana Burke has joined us to provide full time community management for one of our major clients.

As the Adage article states, there is a growing interest in the community management function from clients in diverse industry sectors. This isn’t too surprising given the increased emphasis on all things social. If an active presence on platforms such as Facebook is part of your digital communication strategy then community management skills, if not the recruitment of a community manager, will be a hot topic of conversation.

Wordle tag cloud of Deana's CV

Deana has moved to Scotland from New York and brings with her a strong track record of overseeing social campaigns and programmes of various shapes and sizes. This includes managing a community of influencers for TNT (US cable TV channel), plus community management for animal welfare organisation The Humane Society, the US Forest Service, Pepsi brands including Mountain Dew, and GE Appliances. She also managed a private brand ambassador community for Snapple.

With Deana on board our involvement in things social will extend beyond strategy and content provision to the day to day, sleeves-up management of these spaces.

Exciting times.

Being the “Tail End Charlie” or the rear gunner in a second world war bomber was a lonely and exposed position.

Strapped into a glass bubble at the back of the plane, you had to deal with whatever got thrown at you.

And “whatever” usually took the form of faster moving, better equipped people with hostile intent.

Can you see where this is going?

Working at the sharp end of social media for a brand or organisation can be just like that.

Exposed in a glass bubble, having to deal with whatever gets thrown at you.

And it all happens fast, in very real time.

And just ask Nestle and BP about hostile intent.

Indeed, I bet the social media and PR people at BP feel like a right bunch of tail end charlies right now.

An official social media presence for an organisation isn’t an experiment or a toe in the water. It’s an invitation and an obligation.

You’re inviting dialogue and you’re obliged to respond.

That obligation to respond can be discharged well or badly.

Doing it well is partly about the aptitude of your social media people.

But it’s also about infrastructure and integration.

Your Tail End Charlies might be exposed in their glass bubble, but they shouldn’t be isolated.

If people are going to ask for T-shirts, you should have (cool) T-shirts ready to go. And you should have a well-oiled process for getting them out quickly.

If people are going to ask where to find your product in Falkirk or Frankfurt you need to have the answer at your fingertips, and/or the direct line number of the person who can tell you.

If your organisation’s customers can find you in social spaces, it’s odds on that they’re going to complain to you in social spaces.

That should have been anticipated and there should be a procedure in place to deal with it.

Done well, every social media obligation turns into an earned media opportunity.

Done badly…

Domino’s Pizza has been running a promotion with Foursquare whereby anyone who elevates themselves to “mayor” of each outlet can claim a free pizza.

This is one of many such branded offers on this location based social network which some are people are billing as “this year’s Twitter”.

(Aside : If, at the end of 2010, Foursquare is an order of magnitude smaller than Facebook, has a significant proportion of dormant profiles, and a minority of super-users who post most of the content, then it will indeed be this year’s Twitter.)

Here’s how the Domino’s promotion worked in practice for a friend of a friend of a colleague when he tried to fulfil the promotion in a Domino’s outlet in Shepherd’s Bush.

“Hi, I’ve just become mayor of this shop. Can I have my free pizza please?”

“I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Come back later when the manager is in.”

The Tail End Charlies of social media aren’t just the people posting tweets and Facebook content, it’s anyone who has a role to play in keeping social promises or responding to social requests.

Don’t just think fans, followers and free advertising. Think infrastructure, integration and fulfilment.

This has kind of slipped out under the radar in the midst of all the election noise and yesterday’s widespread reporting of the Facebook f8 developer conference.

But this is significant.

Forrester have launched a new Word Of Mouth analysis tool called Peer Influence Analysis. (Non-subscribers will be able to read an excerpt only).

This builds on and augments their Social Technographics profiling tool that we already use extensively as a framework for properly understanding and analysing the relationships that people have with technology.

Blonde has used Social Technographics data and Social Technographics methodology on numerous occasions to ensure that our strategic thinking is underpinned by insight rather than wishful thinking.

Peer Influence Analysis stands to add another layer to our people-first planning approach. It will allow us to quantify and analyse word of mouth dynamics based on statistically robust, quantitative, sector-specific data.

It adds to the existing Technographics surveys questions that measure “influence impressions” in social networks and “influence posts” on blogs, in blog comments, forum posts, ratings and reviews.

Based on early U.S. data there are some interesting findings.

Peer to peer influence impressions are of a significant scale – in fact the number of “influence impressions” is 25% of the number of paid for online advertising impressions over the same period. Given that a p2p impression will have more influence than an advertising impression this is a big deal.

A small minority of people (6.2%) generate 80% of influence impressions. And 13.4% generate 80% of all influence posts.

Forrester calls these people Mass Connectors and Mass Mavens respectively.

“Mass” being the operative word.

6.2% of the online population in America is 11 million people.

You can’t target these people individually.

That’s why Peer Influence Analysis could be really powerful. It should give us sector-specific insight into the demographics and technographics of Mass Influencers and allow us to develop robust word of mouth content and seeding strategies.

We look forward to UK specific Peer Influence Analysis data becoming available.

A further summary of the tool is available here on the Groundswell blog.

Hi Phil,
Hope you’re well. I’ve now changed my mind completely and decided that Twitter is rubbish.
Yesterday we got 50k visits on the site. Facebook sent 6,000 people and Twitter 600, but we have more Twitter followers than Facebook ones. No one clicks on the links and there’s too much on it.
It’s OK for the punters but for driving traffic and building brands I think it’s a lame duck.
There.
Have a great weekend.
Paul

Paul Stokes
Publisher
The Daily Mash

I received the above email from Paul Stokes over the weekend and subsequently got his permission to quote him.

Twitter = rubbish for building brands in his view.

He makes an interesting point about there being too much on it and no-one clicking on links.

I suggested that this might have something to do with the fact that The Daily Mash uses Twitter as a one-way, broadcast channel (see below), and that a more “engaged”, dialogue approach might yield better long term dividends.

With such a broadcast approach it’s probably not surprising that Facebook performs better as a traffic driving channel. People tend to fan/follow fewer, more considered, more personally important people and organisations on Facebook than they do on Twitter. The signal to noise ratio is higher. And Facebook is hardwired for word of mouth.

Is Twitter rubbish for building brands?

A few clicks on from another excellent Mashable update and we’re demonstrating and debating our own variance in social behaviour with chat show style banter on Google Buzz. Here’s the discussion thread…

Following an email around the office this morning, investigating what our individual thoughts were on Google Buzz, I received a few pretty cynical responses. To be fair, many people are still recovering from Google Wave: asking where and what now?

For me, it’s a bit different. Google is half my social equation. I have a Gmail account and am also a member of Tech Meet Up, Mobile Monday Edinburgh and Girl Geeks. TMU is a Google group, as is Mobile Monday and for Girl Geeks we organise information around Google Sites. I have a number of files in Google Docs, plus I’m in and out of Google Maps all the time. It’s fair to say I like Google.

Not everybody feels the same though. Here were a few thoughts from other Blondes about Google Buzz, starting with our tech team:

“It’s like twitter, but without any clients and unable to tie into any other of the microblogging/social media things…

It does follow the two people I have set up in googlemail already though.

Sadly, until they create some reason for it to exist my thoughts are:
“Just what the world needs, another twitter-clone.”

Oh it has “like” from facebook, which twitter haven’t managed to add yet.”

The bandwagon of Buzz bitchin’ rolls on…

“If everyone starts using it then it becomes really relevant. Haven’t seen a killer feature yet…

Google have been, shall we say, intermittent in their marketing of services so the jury is out about how big it will become.”

Having said that the current debate (going on around me while I’m typing this) is that if you are a heavy gmail user (I am) then it does appeal -as long as the take up is good.”

And then the rest of the planning team jump in….

“Google Buzz – initial reaction = “groan”.

Groan because as a digital marcomms professional I’ve got no option but to try it out, when my gut feel and the input (via Twitter) from people I trust are telling me that it’s going to be no great shakes.

Groan because I resolved this year to add more depth to my social graph (more emphasis on RSS, blog writing and commenting), and this feels like more breadth. That’s my personal take on the whole signal to noise issue.

Groan because there’s this stool called RSS, and there’s this other stool called Twitter, and I can’t see a valid role for anything between those two stools.

Groan because I only ever use Gmail for opening Twitter accounts. I really really can’t be arsed to have another following mouth to feed.

So I’ll watch with interest how it develops but at the moment it’s not even coming out of the box for me. “

And the tech team is still going….

“It just seems way to complex and unfocused.

Twitter
Share and discover what’s happening right now, anywhere in the world.

Facebook
helps you connect and share with the people in your life.

Simple. I get it.

Buzz
Go beyond status messages
Share updates, photos, videos, and more.
Start conversations about the things you find interesting.

Try Buzz in Gmail. (why do I have to do it in gmail by the way?)

You lost me at “Go beyond status messages”. Er.. not so sure I get it.

Really bad design as well. I find it really hard to scan. Twitter is so easy to just fly through and pick what’s interesting. Buzz is a mess and feels horrible to read.

Google seems to have forgotten their design roots. A million miles away from one input box to search shit.

Social network app fail.

A lot cleaner in t’iPhone though. Bordering on being useful.”

Before finally concluding…

“My friends are on Facebook (for the most part)
My friends aren’t on Gmail (for the most part) and if they are they’re not updating their status there.

So, for social/picture sharing stuff = Facebook.

I get interesting web/marketing/wotsit links by following people and searching on twitter.
I don’t get that from Buzz (yet, since there’s noone on it)

So for interesting links/finding out what random “famous” people are upto/whatever = twitter.

Buzz is only as good as the people using it – and currently noone is.

I expect it to go the way of Google Lively, to be honest. “

It appears I am the lone voice of Google Buzz support here.  I don’t think this product… this service… from Google is anywhere near complete and of course I’m aware of the privacy issues, which have been flagged up; but I need something that bridges the gap(s) between LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

Social networking online isn’t this simple. I don’t want my engagement with professional communities to be confined to LinkedIn. I want meaningful, human-to-human knowledge sharing, which goes beyond the offering of Twitter and I certainly want a richer experience than Farmville updates on Facebook. I’m not arguing that Google Buzz is the solution, but given the incredible insight Google now has into our online behaviour, I’m holding out for some improvements first, before I search for a conclusion. Here’s to growing out of Facebook and Twitter…

Big news yesterday. Forrester introduced a new category of social behaviour to their Social Technographics model.

Welcome the “Conversationalists”.

Full details of the rationale behind this addition can be found in the Forrester Groundswell Blog post. But the new category has been introduced to recognise the rapid fire, short format status update posting that is epitomised by Twitter and which is now a major part of life on Facebook.

The Conversationalists take their place on the second from top rung of the Technographics ladder as shown below.

Some of the initial commentary has focussed on the positioning of this new behaviour category on the ladder, contending that its relative importance is currently being overstated. (Check out some of the comments on this post on the We Are Social site).

But I think there are bigger issues.

We are huge fans of, and subscribers to, Forrester. And we actively use the Technographics model in planning comms strategy for most of our clients.

Thus far, the model has been very easy to explain. Each behaviour category, from Creators to Spectators, does exactly what it says on the tin. Simple, intuitive, and precisely descriptive.

And, equally important, up until now none of of the various behaviour categories overlapped. People overlapped, in that one person could exhibit more than one of the behaviour types, but the behaviour types themselves were discrete.

The Conversationalists moniker is not so straightforward. For two reasons.

1) It is neither single-minded nor precisely descriptive of the behaviours it claims to encapsulate.

2) It describes a behaviour type that overlaps with at least two of the existing categories.

Let’s look at each of these issues in turn.

Is Twitter a “conversation”?

For some people it might be. But the people whose Twitter streams are a constant flow of @replies are the exception rather than the rule in my experience.

Twitter is a lot of different things to different people. That’s why it is not easy to explain to the uninitiated. Sure there are sporadic outbursts of conversation but certainly in “our” world it is primarily an information/content/ideas exchange. And “conversation” doesn’t accurately describe the nature of that exchange.

The short format status updates of Facebook and Twitter allow you to do similar things. In fact some people annoyingly do exactly the same things at the same time on both, simultaneously posting the same content, verbatim, to both streams.

But, for most people that I’ve spoken to, the whole tone and purpose of Facebook is very different to that of Twitter, even if the status update functionality is similar.

“Conversation” is probably a more accurate description of what happens via Facebook updates.

And that brings us onto the second issue of overlap.

“Conversation” is also an accurate description of what happens in the comment threads of many blog posts. And, in a more lowbrow manner, in the comment threads that accompany YouTube videos.

So there is significant overlap between “conversing” and “commenting”.

To a lesser degree there is also overlap between “conversing” and “creating”, to the extent that regular micro-blogging can be construed as content creation.

And then we have the overlap between Conversationalists and Joiners. Joiners maintain a profile on a social networking site and/or visit social networking sites. Conversationalists update status on a social networking site.

In fact Conversationalists actually feel like a subset of Joiners, exhibiting a particular aspect of Joiner behaviour and doing it at least weekly rather than at least monthly.

All this matters to us because we actively use the model to influence communication strategy. We frequently conduct primary research to create bespoke Technographics profiles for specific audiences.

For instance, we found (perhaps not surprisingly) that people on the UK Hip Hop dance scene indexed through the roof against high-end Creator behaviour. Being able to categorise and quantify this gave us the confidence to create a community hub that largely depended on user generated content.

Hitherto, constructing questionnaires and research methodologies to generate bespoke Technographics profiles has been relatively straightforward because none of the behaviour categories overlapped. If we are to embrace the Conversationalists, this will be more tricky henceforth.

Here’s a test for you.

Read this post.

Read it in its entirety.

In one go.

Without breaking to check email or Twitter.

If you’re anyway engaged with what Forrester would hate me calling “social media”, reading a post of that length, in the context of everything else that you could (and tell yourself should) be reading, in the context of everything that you should be doing, ain’t easy.

And that’s the whole point of the post.

And I quote.

“For the last couple of years I’ve jacked in to this increasing bit rate of downloadable intellectual breadth and I’ve traded away the slow conscious depth of my previous life. And you know what? Now I’m losing my self. I used to be a free standing independent cerebral cortex. My own self. But not any more. Now I’m a dumb node in some uber-net’s basal ganglia. Tweet, twitch, brief repose; repeat. My autonomic nervous system is plugged in, in charge, and interrupt ready while the gray wrinkly stuff is white knuckled from holding on.”

Breadth versus depth of information and knowledge.

The post argues that we are at the point where this is an either/or decision. If you wish to retain any vestige of “normal” life then staying in touch both broadly AND deeply is out of the question.

I made no resolutions for 2010.

But I took a complete break from blog reading, blog posting, and Twittering over the festive period.

And, as a result of so doing, gave some thought to this breadth versus depth issue.

And, as a result of so doing, decided to re-balance my approach to all things e-social.

In favour of more depth.

The fact that Jim Stogdill’s post seems to have touched a nerve (broadly and deeply as it happens) is indicative of the fact that many people are feeling the same way.

For the time being this information overload, this Information Surfeit Disorder, may only affect the geeky few. But, over time, it will also affect the (increasingly socially engaged) many.

And so we need to contend with this issue both personally and professionally.

We need to wrestle not only with how we manage our personal consumption of information.

But also how we manage our clients’ content and campaigns in the context of this overload.

Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Bebo, multiple Ningworks (typically 38 Minutes), Digg, Reddit, Yammer, Google Apps (I include Mail, Docs and Wave), LinkedIn, Plaxo…. and there are more. I have also very recently started blogging and even though I knew it would be difficult to find the time, it really is difficult to find the time…

I’m now increasing my social fatigue by reviewing aggregator tools (+ mobile apps) to help me manage the various profiles I’ve set up. As Twitter and Facebook profiles become integrated in more and more apps/sites through Open ID mechanics, I find myself experiencing a degree of difficulty managing my personal PR. What exactly am I saying … to who … and where?

It has become a bit like sitting in a hall of mirrors, watching myself from all angles, though not necessarily gaining any perspective.  I wonder if it’s a bad thing that we’re slowly … perhaps not so slowly … drifting into an age where we cannot experience anything without documenting it.  I used to grind my teeth at people in gigs who would spend most of the time viewing the concert through the screen of their mobile phone. What’s the point? I would think…. you’re missing the live experience. I feel the same about people who continually micro-blog on holiday; can’t you just leave us [your audience] alone for a bit?

Micro-blogging might not be a bad thing …  I’d like to think I still have an open mind on this, but it may raise the question: how can you be entirely in a space with a loved one(s), if you’re also pondering about talking about it [however briefly] online?

Don’t think that I’m setting a better example…. I went to a gig last night and then stayed up late drinking tea and chatting to a friend [soooo rock and roll]. Yet, even though it was late when I went to bed, I still had to log into Facebook and tell my audience about my day. I’ve become addicted to documenting all my highs and lows in online social spaces.

And then there’s the subject of photos…. I have some female friends who seem to be deliberately manipulating photos … they are planned, rehearsed and Photoshopped. And who can blame them….?  Take a look at this piece on OKCupid.com…  I’ve yet to see male friends organising photo shoots to get their best side, but I have seen many pictures that have clearly been taken from a bedroom, at arm’s length, possibly involving at least a couple of takes to get an aesthetically pleasing, but in effect, dull photo.

There was an interesting article on the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge Blog on “Understanding Users of Social Networks”. The article makes a few points… not all nice …  not all that new either…?

“The biggest [social networking] usage categories are men looking at women they don’t know, followed by men looking at women they do know. Women look at other women they know. Overall, women receive two-thirds of all page views.

… A lot of guys in relationships are looking at women they don’t know. … It’s an easy way to see if anyone might be a better match.” Again, online networks act as cover.”

Social networking, particularly Facebook, can be a bit like watching late night crap T.V.; you don’t quite know why you’re there, but somehow can’t tear yourself away to do something more constructive.  I admit that I’m a Facebook girl, in the same way that certain Blondes associate themselves with Twitter. There remain some MySpace and even… ahem… Bebo users in the office, but we try not to mention them too often.

Evolution in social networking could be to focus on the profile, rather than the space (appreciate some of us are heading in that direction anyway) and lets throw in some AI (artificial intelligence) in there…. Why should our human minds have to do all the work? A possible solution, which has already been explored in parts, may accommodate technologies like this one:

“socially aware memory for companion agents”

So… creating avatars, based on various profiles/personas and to allow these representatives/programs/”familiars” to explore the Web. We would be able to pull and push information in a more dynamic, three-dimensional form; accommodating a degree of Search, C.V, business card exchange, RSS, calendar information, interests and perhaps even absorb other forms of ID.  Hmm, that’s a lot of waffle…. How about a kind of digital daemon (Pullman fans?) structured with Open ID access (independently owned)…. In fact I wonder if we could create digital daemons… whether these would become software products that people pay money to rent or own… Whilst ownership of this information remains controversial, I might be willing to review who I trust with this data if it cut me some slack in managing my profiles…

We have soft launched You Are What You App. The premise of this simple site is that your choice of iPhone applications probably reveals something about you.

And so it would seem. It’s the iPhone equivalent of having LLoyd Grossman looking through your keyhole.

The site appeals both to the iPhone exhibitionist and to the iPhone voyeur.

At the time of writing it’s early stages in terms of the number of active participants, but the average time on site is 7 minutes 30 seconds, suggesting that people are enjoying having a good nosey at other people’s apps.

I’ve already downloaded a few new gems as a result of seeing and reading about the apps that other people can’t live without.

There’s Byline, a mobile Google Reader app, which is perfect for keeping up with RSS feeds on the train.

Instapaper is an interesting looking application that allows you to save and read web pages offline at your convenience.

Around Me elegantly answers the question “where is the nearest x, y or z?”

And people are clearly sufficiently impressed with productivity applications like Omnifocus and Things to part with decent amounts of cash for them.

If you have an iPhone and a Twitter account please do add your apps to the site.

You Are What You App is our latest “hobby” project, following in the footsteps of WeMet for EdTwestival and EdTwinge.

What’s your poison?

We’ve been hired by Channel 4’s 4iP fund to promote a new iPhone application called You Booze You Looze.

4iP is an investment fund administered by Channel 4 that is designed to support non-broadcast public service initiatives.

You Booze You Looze (YBYL) is one such initiative . It is the brainchild of a game developer in Dundee called Digital Goldfish. DG is already responsible for “Bloons”, one of the biggest selling games on the iPhone ever.

YBYL is an app that keeps tabs on what you and your friends are drinking. In a fun way it also informs you of the short and long term financial and health impacts of your drinking. It has Facebook Connect technology built in to allow groups of friends to be acutely aware of what everyone else is drinking. It features various sobriety tests/games that measure the effect of alcohol on things like balance, co-ordination, reaction time and concentration.

What has this got to do with public service you may ask.

Well.

One of Channel 4’s core values is “Making trouble in the public interest”. (One of my favourite brand values of all time).

The aim for this app is that it will be fun. Being fun will lead to social use in bars etc. Social use will hopefully lead to discussion.

Anyone who has read Nudge will be aware of the Amerian campus survey that showed that students tend to overestimate what their peers are drinking, and increase their consumption accordingly. Once told that their friends are actually drinking considerably less than they thought, their alcohol consumption dropped markedly.

So this app approaches the issue of excessive drinking by accepting that social drinking is fun, in the hope that it will provoke discussion. It is very different in tone from your average public sector anti drinking campaign.

Blonde is working with Stripe, Opticomm and one of our EdTwinge friends, Andrew Burnett, to promote the app through various channels, with a heavy dose of social media activity in the mix.

Read more at http://www.youboozeyoulooze.com/.

And if you have an iPhone click the Buy Now button to get one. A bargain at only 59p.

Follow @BoozeLooze on Twitter too.