Guess what? Facebook has confirmed that "all Open Graph-enabled web pages will show up in search when a user likes them.” Some call this a tactic in Facebook's war on Google. However, while Open Graph and the social plugins that enable likes will improve your position on Facebook searches, it’s not yet the driver for Google’s page results. The reason is simple. Google indexes the web. Facebook indexes its user activity. That’s a pretty big difference, regardless of how big Facebook is.
But, Facebook like does matter. Over 200 million users sign-in to their Facebook accounts everyday. You can expect that many of them will launch a search while there. So, a strategy of your own to integrate the Open Graph and to take advantage of Facebook's social plugins will benefit you. Facebook likes (as well as Twitter posts) are in some ways the “links” and “keywords” of our day. I expect to see their impact made more manifest in all search but search on the home field (Facebook itself) is a great proving ground.
Some will argue and perhaps rightly so that no matter how much information Facebook is able to give users it will always be limited, and will not be able to deliver the web in the way Google can. But isn’t that why Facebook supplements its own search with Bing results. Who knows? Maybe the real winner in all of this search shift will be Microsoft's Bing. That’s a post for another day.
Bottom line: like matters NOW even if only to the prospects and customers who are looking for your products and services while on Facebook. And, that happens to be about 400 million of the best connected people in the world. So whether it completely changes the shape of search or not, like is already relevant -- even if only to those who begin their search on Facebook.
ToyStory and Your Brand
An anxious Woody says, “Look I just need to get out of here.” Buttercup responds, “There is no way out!” Woody stares back at him in horror. Buttercup (laughing) says, “Just kidding. Door’s right over there.” That’s when it hit me. It’s not the CGI that makes the ToyStory franchise work. It’s the credible story telling, compelling characters, and great audience experience. And, that’s the essence of any great brand.
When the ToyStory franchise launched the buzz (sorry Mr. Lightyear) was all about the technology. The computer animation that brought the characters to life on the big screen was the first of its kind. But we’ve seen all of that now. CGI is everywhere. The franchise has been sustained by entertaining plots and endearing characters. And, there are some lessons in their success that serve all brand owners. Here’s a few:
The Characters – how does your organization connect with a diverse audience? At Bigfish, we strive to develop personal messages (some call them key messages) that support the brand idea but connect with individuals. I for example am a Woody fan. He’s more nerdy than cool and can at times be impulsive but his core values are never in doubt – be a friend.
The Story -- your prospects and customers don’t engage a logo they embrace an idea. That idea evolves into an experience. The experience is the manner by which your brand connects with its audience. It’s the way your story becomes their story. And when your story is their story, you have a brand advocate (see my Advocates v. Followers blog).
The Plot – in the movie ToyStory3, Andy has grown up and is moving to college. He is about to determine the fate of the toys. They decide to take matters into their own hands. Can they? Likewise, your customer wants to participate. They have a stake in how their experience with you “turns out”. So, you have to ask yourself, “Where is my brand headed and is that a journey that my customer will take with me?”
Visual Effects – lest I be misunderstood, the visuals do matter. They have to align with the story. But be careful not to patronize your real audience in developing your visual identity. Case in point: Bigfish is developing a new brand and marketing communications strategy for a group of pediatric physicians. Great folks. During the discovery process our competitive research found countless websites featuring primary colors, building blocks, and stick figure kids on playgrounds. Time-out. The kids aren’t using the websites. The parents are. My point, don’t confuse story illustrations with your brand.
You get the idea. Effects are a platform. Stories create context. Plots relate your message content. Characters are the manifestation of your ideas. Each helps connect your brand with its audience.
You’ve got a friend in me, @timbigfish on Twitter or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/timcnicholson
Fans are Valuable. Advocates are Priceless.
Recent studies have proposed to place a dollar value on your brand’s social media connections. You know – fans. The study is onto some something. Yet it may have missed the big payoff - fans are nice but advocates are where the money is. Advocates are the ones who'll stand up for you in tough times and promote you within their sphere of influence at all times. So it makes sense to mine the list of people who "like” you for those who are your advocates. And since Facebook contends that the average user has 150 friends, they potentially have considerable potential to advocate your brand.
The study: Syncapse surveyed 4,000 fans of 20 of the top brands (i.e. Nike, Starbucks, Coca-Cola) on Facebook. Then they estimated the value of each fan’s spending as well as the value of continuing to have that fan as a customer over time. The result? Each fan is worth $140. That’s a lot coffee if you’re Starbucks. It may even be a conservative estimate for highly successful social brands. Of course it seems logical that fans would buy and would continue to buy stuff. However, I propose that their value is less about their “spend” and more about their “recommend”.
The same survey found that four-out-of-ten fans would recommend a product that they fan to their friends. I'll call the "recommenders" advocates. Now, if we use Syncapse’s $140 fan-value that makes the advocate worth potentially much more. I’m not a mathematician but here’s my formula:
The study: Syncapse surveyed 4,000 fans of 20 of the top brands (i.e. Nike, Starbucks, Coca-Cola) on Facebook. Then they estimated the value of each fan’s spending as well as the value of continuing to have that fan as a customer over time. The result? Each fan is worth $140. That’s a lot coffee if you’re Starbucks. It may even be a conservative estimate for highly successful social brands. Of course it seems logical that fans would buy and would continue to buy stuff. However, I propose that their value is less about their “spend” and more about their “recommend”.
The same survey found that four-out-of-ten fans would recommend a product that they fan to their friends. I'll call the "recommenders" advocates. Now, if we use Syncapse’s $140 fan-value that makes the advocate worth potentially much more. I’m not a mathematician but here’s my formula:
- Average number of friends per Facebook user: 150
- Average number of friends fans recommend to: 60
- Multiply friend recommendation by Syncapse’s valuation: $8,400
That’s before considering the value of new customers who become fans, who may subsequently become advocates that recommend your brand. Wow! Priceless (sorry, MasterCard).
Your next assignment: find and/or create advocates. It will be easy to find some. They’re the ones retweeting your posts or liking your comments. The others? Well, that requires a strategy and it’s worth more than I can charge here (smile).
Let’s talk www.twitter.com/timbigfish or www.facebook.com/timcnicholson
Hello, my name is Proof.
The man on the other end of the line said, "We can't do your plan." His organization is struggling to maintain relevance. He knows it but he's frozen in time waiting for something he calls "proof". Meanwhile, another man calls with a similar predicament. His business isn't near the end of its life but he's halfway through the year and not remotely close to achieving his sales objectives. What should he do?
The two men don't know each other but they have heard the same thing -- social media and search engine optimization could be part of a solution. But is it one or the other? They seem like competing interests. They're not. They may be competitors but they are not mutually exclusive ideas. And, I'm not the only one saying it.
This past weekend Web Pro News wrote, "Most savvy webmasters have learned by now that they can't rely on Google rankings alone to drive traffic. This is why social media opportunities presented by networks like Facebook and Twitter have become so attractive. The way people search and obtain information is becoming more and more diversified...the importance of ranking in a completely natural, organic search has become greatly diluted over time...it's getting harder to rely on as well as less critical for discovery."
I know what you're thinking, "That's just another opinion. It's not the kind of proof that your prospect is looking for." Well, my friend, Proof usually doesn't come walking in the door at 8AM. Proof is busy working. It works around the clock. Sometimes Proof seems to contradict itself. Other times it's the perfect manifestation of our best efforts. Either is fine if you know what you're measuring and if you're flexible enough to tweak the plan.
"About 6 months ago Bigfish launched the Starfish Strategy for a local boutique realtor. The results have been part of a record Spring season -- best in 5 years in the worst market perhaps ever. Web site traffic has multiplied by four; Facebook fans by 10 fold. The client's average page position in Google is 3 or higher. While about 1/2 the traffic to their site comes from Google (paid and organic) a full 20% comes from Facebook and respectable percentages from Twitter. The Starfish Strategy has also produced five figure views of home-tour videos on YouTube and makes over 200,000 impressions per month via keywords and interests tied to the client's Google and Facebook ads. The client has even slashed their print ad budget to nearly nothing." Proof, who is becoming bored hearing itself talk, ends the riff and heads back to work.
Hmph. Well, maybe I was wrong. Sometimes Proof does come walking in the door. Want to hear it for yourself? Talk to me www.twitter.com/timbigfish
The two men don't know each other but they have heard the same thing -- social media and search engine optimization could be part of a solution. But is it one or the other? They seem like competing interests. They're not. They may be competitors but they are not mutually exclusive ideas. And, I'm not the only one saying it.
This past weekend Web Pro News wrote, "Most savvy webmasters have learned by now that they can't rely on Google rankings alone to drive traffic. This is why social media opportunities presented by networks like Facebook and Twitter have become so attractive. The way people search and obtain information is becoming more and more diversified...the importance of ranking in a completely natural, organic search has become greatly diluted over time...it's getting harder to rely on as well as less critical for discovery."
I know what you're thinking, "That's just another opinion. It's not the kind of proof that your prospect is looking for." Well, my friend, Proof usually doesn't come walking in the door at 8AM. Proof is busy working. It works around the clock. Sometimes Proof seems to contradict itself. Other times it's the perfect manifestation of our best efforts. Either is fine if you know what you're measuring and if you're flexible enough to tweak the plan.
Wait! Proof has entered the building and is in a talkative mood. Let's listen in.
"About 6 months ago Bigfish launched the Starfish Strategy for a local boutique realtor. The results have been part of a record Spring season -- best in 5 years in the worst market perhaps ever. Web site traffic has multiplied by four; Facebook fans by 10 fold. The client's average page position in Google is 3 or higher. While about 1/2 the traffic to their site comes from Google (paid and organic) a full 20% comes from Facebook and respectable percentages from Twitter. The Starfish Strategy has also produced five figure views of home-tour videos on YouTube and makes over 200,000 impressions per month via keywords and interests tied to the client's Google and Facebook ads. The client has even slashed their print ad budget to nearly nothing." Proof, who is becoming bored hearing itself talk, ends the riff and heads back to work.
Hmph. Well, maybe I was wrong. Sometimes Proof does come walking in the door. Want to hear it for yourself? Talk to me www.twitter.com/timbigfish
The Problem with Privacy: You and Me
Recent moves by Google and Facebook have more than just a few of us talking about privacy. Yet, I think the conversation is misdirected. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we’re not that concerned about privacy. What we’re interested in is control.
A few weeks ago Google decided to add all of your Gmail recipients as friends on Google Buzz. And, Facebook decided that you’d want your friends and brands to know which sites you’re visiting and which of your ‘likes’ were really expressions of a brand preference. So, they default their systems to do just that. Share everything as you visit web sites.
In the end they may have been right. After all, most of us who are still carrying around a little angst regarding our high school popularity or lack thereof want to have as many friends as possible. So, thanks Google and while you’re at it, can you get that cute little redhead in Honors English to sign my yearbook? As for Facebook, aren’t we already expressing likes and interests in everything from American Idol to Zappo? And, posting pictures of little Johnny’s spelling bee championship trophy? So, Facebook thanks for allowing me to accelerate the word-of-mouth that is my opinion.
But they were wrong. Right? Yeah, maybe. They were wrong to assume that just because we’ll share every little thing in our lives that they can share it too. Google responded by disabling the default. Facebook has essentially done the same with an “opt-out” feature for changing the option regarding sharing info with web sites (just check the Privacy Settings/Web Sites of your Account). All they really had to do us tell us about the benefits, prompt us with a message at sign in, and allow us to “opt in” or “opt out” immediately upon launch of the new feature. My guess is most of us would have retained the default settings. After all, we’re all but over the secrecy of the Information Age. We simply want to know where the kill-switch is when our data spills out onto the social web.
Talk to me www.twitter.com/timbigfish
A few weeks ago Google decided to add all of your Gmail recipients as friends on Google Buzz. And, Facebook decided that you’d want your friends and brands to know which sites you’re visiting and which of your ‘likes’ were really expressions of a brand preference. So, they default their systems to do just that. Share everything as you visit web sites.
In the end they may have been right. After all, most of us who are still carrying around a little angst regarding our high school popularity or lack thereof want to have as many friends as possible. So, thanks Google and while you’re at it, can you get that cute little redhead in Honors English to sign my yearbook? As for Facebook, aren’t we already expressing likes and interests in everything from American Idol to Zappo? And, posting pictures of little Johnny’s spelling bee championship trophy? So, Facebook thanks for allowing me to accelerate the word-of-mouth that is my opinion.
But they were wrong. Right? Yeah, maybe. They were wrong to assume that just because we’ll share every little thing in our lives that they can share it too. Google responded by disabling the default. Facebook has essentially done the same with an “opt-out” feature for changing the option regarding sharing info with web sites (just check the Privacy Settings/Web Sites of your Account). All they really had to do us tell us about the benefits, prompt us with a message at sign in, and allow us to “opt in” or “opt out” immediately upon launch of the new feature. My guess is most of us would have retained the default settings. After all, we’re all but over the secrecy of the Information Age. We simply want to know where the kill-switch is when our data spills out onto the social web.
Talk to me www.twitter.com/timbigfish
The Social Web and Really Cute Shoes
The question from the audience was simple. The response was equal parts a first step toward the social web and a fashion tip -- accessorize.
He asked, "Won't these social plugins and sharing utilities seem out of place on our old web sites?" I couldn't help myself. The audience was nearly 70% female and a guy was asking what essentially was a fashion question. My response was this, "Ladies, should last year's dress keep you from rocking this season's cutest shoes?"
The social web is not a fade but it may seem fashion forward to those from the Information Age. Still, having a web wardrobe that isn't "this season" is no reason to hide yourself in the closet. Develop a strategy for stepping out. In the meantime, accessorize your current site. There are plenty of affordable ways to do it. By the way, I hear that it starts with the shoes (or, the addthis utility).
Talk to me twitter.com/timbigfish
He asked, "Won't these social plugins and sharing utilities seem out of place on our old web sites?" I couldn't help myself. The audience was nearly 70% female and a guy was asking what essentially was a fashion question. My response was this, "Ladies, should last year's dress keep you from rocking this season's cutest shoes?"
Sure, from a technical point-of-view the social web is about web parts that are easily identified by users and shared via APIs but the spirit of it is embracing the cultural shift toward participation and enabling users (not search algorithms) to determine what is relevant on the web.
The social web is not a fade but it may seem fashion forward to those from the Information Age. Still, having a web wardrobe that isn't "this season" is no reason to hide yourself in the closet. Develop a strategy for stepping out. In the meantime, accessorize your current site. There are plenty of affordable ways to do it. By the way, I hear that it starts with the shoes (or, the addthis utility).
Talk to me twitter.com/timbigfish
Wow! Uh Oh.
If you’re a marketer you have to be watching the recent moves of social media darlings Twitter and Facebook with equal thoughts of “Wow” and “Uh oh”. First the “Wow”. Twitter and Facebook have made interesting moves of late. Twitter with Promoted Tweets and Facebook via Open Graph. These initiatives are bound to affect online advertising as over 500 million users will see more promotion on their favorite platforms. Wow.
“Uh oh” if you’re a business that has yet to seriously explore social media as a touch-point for interaction with your prospects and customers. The longer you stay away from social media, the further behind you will be in attracting prospects, cultivating relationships, and accumulating customers through fans (likers) and followers. And if like me you believe that selling in the Participation Age is more farming than hunting -- you can’t afford to remain disconnected from the digitized form of word of mouth that the rest of us know as tweets and posts. Not even for one more day.
I'm not saying you can't run a successful business without social media participation, but it’s not going away. There are more applications, strategies, and opportunities being built upon it. You can’t afford to ignore it. "Uh oh" is not a strategy.
Talk to me www.twitter.com/timbigfish
Note: My position for sometime has been that each of these platforms is relevant to your search advertising objectives NOW even if you don’t have an appreciation for the Participation Age itself. Both Twitter and Facebook matter because tweets and posts have emerged as a high worth element in Google’s search algorithm.And now, each player has amped up its own ability to compete for ad dollars. This brings me to the “Uh oh”.
“Uh oh” if you’re a business that has yet to seriously explore social media as a touch-point for interaction with your prospects and customers. The longer you stay away from social media, the further behind you will be in attracting prospects, cultivating relationships, and accumulating customers through fans (likers) and followers. And if like me you believe that selling in the Participation Age is more farming than hunting -- you can’t afford to remain disconnected from the digitized form of word of mouth that the rest of us know as tweets and posts. Not even for one more day.
I'm not saying you can't run a successful business without social media participation, but it’s not going away. There are more applications, strategies, and opportunities being built upon it. You can’t afford to ignore it. "Uh oh" is not a strategy.
Talk to me www.twitter.com/timbigfish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
