In Social Media Marketer-Land, we often make sport of the constant ego-building, attention-mongering activities that are all too prevalent. I do it, you do it (oh, I know you do don’t act all innocent), and it’s great that we call each other to account for being egomaniacal jerks.

Sometimes, though, we’re just having fun. For example, on our recent vacation in Phoenix, we noticed that at Chase Field, home of Major League Baseball’s Diamondbacks, fans could get Tweets displayed on the big scoreboard in center field. All you had to do was include the #godbacks” hashtag.

• Ego gratification? Check
• Gratuitous hashtag use? Check.
• Publishing message on Twitter that everyone can see, not just people at the Diamondbacks games, for maximum lack of context? Check.

So, do I promise to be less cynical when others do silly attention-getting things in social media?

Nah. Probably not.

A version of this post originally appeared on the Voce Nation Blog

In February, I attended Boston’s Social Media Breakfast 26: “The New Rules of Content Marketing.” Since much of what my colleagues and I at Voce Communications/Porter Novelli do  centers on content, I figured I would hear a lot of interesting things, and I was not disappointed. Among the potential social media bingo games (claim your prize if you had “Infographic,” “engagement” and a Marshall McLuhan quote on your card) was a useful discussion of what content means in this world of the expanding notion of “publisher.” The panel, moderated by Social Media Breakfast’s own Robert Collins is listed here.

Here are some of my own takeaways:

First of All- None of These Rules are New

What is new are some of the channels involved, and the people making content may often be people who weren’t in that game (or, like me, had gotten out of the traditional media content game at some past point). So, are we really talking about new rules for content? No. What we are doing is indoctrinating new people into an expanded notion of the “content producer.”

Nobody Reads Long-Form Content

At one point, one of the panelists remarked that nobody reads white papers. I don’t believe this for a moment. It depends on the audience. In fact, when the question, stated more broadly about “long-form content,” was asked to the panel, CC Chapman, to his credit, said as much: “It depends.”

While digestible (ok, someone said it: “snackable”) content is often desirable to draw in audiences without taxing them, the notion that nobody wants long-form content because our attention spans are crippled in the Internet age is nonsense. Certainly, pundits said the same as radio, television, and other popular forms of entertainment came to be. The truth is, you may better serve your audience with long-form content such as whitepapers. The key questions to ask have to do with identifying your audience and matching them with your end goals for putting content out there.

Always Remember that “Infographic” Begins with “Info”

Speaking of taxing your audience, the headlong tumble into infographic-mania has made people like me grumpy. We have been assaulted by a new form of so-called infographic that neither imparts information nor is a particularly compelling graphic. Panelist Joe Chernov of Eloqua said it best when he admonished us to remember that “Infographic” begins with “Info.” He also quoted noted statistician Edward Tufte; “It doesn’t matter how cool your interface is, it would be better if there were less of it.”

How do you balance “less is more” and actually imparting something valuable? It’s a hard line to walk, and sometimes it’s just a judgment call. As a Boston guy, I’ll refer to my favorite recent infographic (which I have definitely posted here before, so apologies): the Boston Bruins’ bar tab at Foxwoods Casino after they won the NHL’s Stanley Cup last spring:

This infographic fits in one viewing screen, imparts the main thesis at a glance, and provides optional details which can be gleaned quickly through the visual, with “fine print” that is merely optional. Why can’t more (all?) infographics be more like this?

Zero Out the Brand in Content Marketing?

This topic follows along the ‘balance” theme I mentioned above. I’ll agree it is important not to be in “hard sell” mode all the time, turning off potential audience members through incessant hawking of your products and services. However, the notion of “zeroing out your brand” in content raised by the panel makes very little sense to me. In the end, you have goals, which probably involve driving leads, customers, and/or sales to your company. At some point you need to have that ask in there. Whether you are simply but obviously sponsoring “neutral” content or more pointedly laying out a point of view that leads to your company as solution but also espouses your founding values, there needs to be some value to you as well as the audience.

What Was Not Discussed?

Context. Part of the solution to the question of balance is in creating a context around every piece of content you publish, from a Tweet to a white paper and beyond. I wish context had been mentioned more in the panel, because it is important.

Context is what leads people to react in a certain way to your content. To some extent you can’t control your audience’s surroundings and mod at the time they consume your content. However, the more information you give them – say, repeating a link in a follow-up Tweet or response on a topic, or reframing the overall theme in each episode of a multi-part video series, the more successful your content. You have to make and remake context constantly. Even the most renowned content creators in the social media world screw this up from time time- that’s how hard it is.

It is hard– that’s why we keep bringing people together for events like this.

in my cynical, skeptical way, I have spent the last several months heaping doubt and scorn on Pinterest and Instagram, mainly as a hedge against the people who seem too excited about either of these being the “next big thing.” I have, some of you will like to hear, since started truly enjoying these services. But I did have real doubts. Both are based on images, and don’t allow more complex expressions of text, video and audio. Neither is focused on housing things on your own site- they are really spokes in the hub-and-spoke world of social media content, aren’t they?

Instagram, in particular, seemed limited to me. Not only was it only available to iPhone and iPad users until the beginning of April, severely limiting the availability and alienating Android users (again, they solved that), but the content was limited as well. It’s basically a preset group of filters meant to shock and abuse your photos’ color and lighting to hide the limitations of smartphone camera. Yes, it was fancypants doo-dahs masquerading as art.

As I has recently been involved in a family photo scanning project, I liked to joke about the limited appeal of making fresh photos look like they were shot in 1962. Quick, which of these is from Instagram?

I should note I thought about this post before Facebook announced they were buying Instagram for $1 billion. Um, wow.

Pinterest? Again, the content is limited to images. It’s not a be-all social network. It would be nice to embed these pinboards into your own sites (something I expect will become a real feature at some point); then, it would be a nice complement to your own content on your own domain (yes, your blogs. Blogs are awesome).

For my snark, I started boards dedicated to my personal bete-noire, infographics. Items from my board on “Infographic Crimes Against Humanity” (yes, I blogged about this recently, sue me) have been repinned without regard for context to “Sexy Infographics” and “Great Infographics” boards, sometimes with my withering remarks intact. Suit yourself, I guess. I should also mention the seeming lopsided appeal of Pinterest to women and the more obvious utility to retailers of “stuff” over people trying to convey “ideas.”

Limited.

However, in actually using these, I found one thing to be true that shook my skepticism, almost wiping the sneer off my face. When I posted content? People shared it. Almost instantly. While I still chafe at the limited type of content, that very simplicity along with the attractiveness of the visuals creates an instant, addictive, appeal (even with the rather ridiculous lack of context in some of the repins as mentioned above).  That makes using these tools more fun than research, and backs up the contention- to a point- that these are the “next social networks.”

That’s great- but how can I apply this to the primary content hubs yeah, those blogs that are supposed to be dead), to spice up the activity, make them less stale, and re-energize our whole streams of content? That, I suppose, is the next step.

While at the PRSA Digital Impact Conference this week, I sat I in on Pierre-Loic Assayag of Traackr’s presentation on “influence.” Aside from approaching influence as a common sense topic – eschewing single scores for a more well-rounded view of finding influence that is, honestly hard work – he also talked about “signal-to-noise ratio.” Despite SNR being a bit of a hackneyed phrase in social media, my ears still perk up hearing it due to my long history in audio and radio.

It also struck me that the traditional SNR social media definition talks about balancing your content, but I realize it’s not so simple; it’s a two-way street.

Before I finish the thought, I’ll step back and review the term’s definition.

First a simple, but still quite technical, definition, from the ever-useful PC Magazine Encyclopedia:

The ratio of the power or volume (amplitude) of a signal to the amount of disturbance (the noise) mixed in with it. Measured in decibels, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, S/N) measures the clarity of the signal in a circuit or a wired or wireless transmission channel.

And here is a content publisher’s definition, courtesy of UrbanDictionary (NSFW content throughout this site, by the way):

The ratio of useful information to useless information in any given statement.

From the social media/content marketer perspective, Signal-to-Noise Ratio is typically a rule to follow to limit content about you. Perhaps you have eight tweets/status updates/blog posts about neutral topics, other people or companies, or simply responding to people to every two about you, your company or products. I pull that number out of the air, so figure your own.

But here is where that two-way street comes in. The theme here is simpler than I originally imagined it: what you consider good SNR may not be the same as the audience’s definition. And it’s important to consider both points of view when mapping out content:

1- Define signal and noise both ways (and know what audience/influencers definition is): For example, you may have an idea of a good ratio of “signal” content to self-promotional “noise.” However, your audience may think differently. Depending on their makeup, tolerance for noise may be a lot lower than you anticipated– on the other hand, they may be receptive, and you risk leaving some call-to-action on the table. Feedback from audience will tell you a lot about how you are doing there.

2- Put into practice and adapt: While you do want to consider the audience point of view, you might be best served making a semi-educated decision and seeing what happens. The best part about content is it’s ongoing, not a one-shot campaign. You can always change your ratio as you see what works.

3-Measure and figure out best ratio: I mentioned feedback above, but how you actually measure your program will really make a difference (in other words, here is how you “see what works”). Nothing says your SNR is off like adding more “noise” and seeing your numbers drop.

As I wrote this, I feared I was losing sight of the “two way street” image that came to me during Pierre-Loic’s talk. The truth is that there is only one content stream, and you must serve your audience (whether of a personal blog, a commerce/retail site, a b2b tech forum, or what have you) without giving up your own vision. That’s the intersection.

Make sense? You tell me.

1) Don’t Kill All the Lawyers

I enjoyed this short piece on managers and lawyers by Ted Weisman of Lois Paul and Partners. The truth is, between bigger brand with their own established standards and practices getting better at social media, and regulations piling up, having to deal with lawyers – not stonewalling, avoiding or scrunching your eyes in the hopes they will go away – is the norm. I deal with clients’ legal departments (directly or indirectly) regularly, and the positive far outweighs the negative.

2)  Homeless Hotspots: Two Sides of the Story

I was happy to be following South by Southwest Interactive from afar this year. One of the most talked about stunts was the marketing firm BBH’s Homeless Hotspot campaign, in which homeless eople in Austin were equipped with portable wi-fi for SXSW attendees, who would make suggested donations. It was easy to mock the campaign’s apparent dehumanization of the homeless (a Hotspot? How about human patio furniture or piggyback cab rides? You bet I had fun with it).

But yet, was it a laudable attempt to get people to talk about the homeless problem, including and talk to homeless people? There were reasonable arguments on both sides. Kneejerk reactions from people like me (whether you were there are not) often oversimplify the story.

Read.

3) My Version of Diving Into the Pinterest is Craze (such as it is)

I like Pinterest. I really do. I do counsel caution to companies wanting to jump in (why are you doing it?) and am cynical about breathless quoting of growth statistics, but understand the addictive nature of visually sharing things we like.

I jumped in, but on my terms. I have spent the last year or so commenting on the sometimes horrifying trend towards producing “infographics” for any possible,sometimes grotesque, application.

To be fair, I have spent time trying to find infographics that work and I like as well as those I hyperbolically deem “Crimes Against Humanity.”

4) Bloggers: Stop Trying So Hard

After scrolling through post after post in my RSS feeds, one thing is clear: bloggers are trying too hard. I’m a big fan of writing to publish on personal blogs rather than fussing too much about perfection and format. However, does that mean everything is a top ten list? That we can find social media lessons in everything from the latest unrelated news event to (to pull an email ample from a friend) pole dancing?

Sometimes I think we try to hard. Not everything fits neatly into a Top 5 list, not even this weekly blog post series (which you might notice is far from weekly).

There is no 5).

Photo Credit: Robert Thomson on Flickr

Yeah, nobody’s reading this fresh because everybody’s at SXSW Interactive, right? Except those that aren’t.

“Humanize” – Rush to Publish Causes Confusion

The fact that publishing tools are plentiful and easy to use does not excuse mistakes made in the rush to publish- though it does cause them. On the other hand, the self-correcting nature of social media is another, more positive side effect- if people are willing to communicate. An example of this came this week when social media monitoring /analytics company Radian 6 published the eBook “Building Stronger Customer Relationships: How to Humanize Your Company with Social Media.”

The problem? A book with similar themes was published only a few months back. “Humanize,” by Maddie Grant (a friend) and Jamie Notter, is a good read, a worthy book, by the way- recommended.

Was there a trademark issue? I actually don’t know for sure. But with the book being current, confusion between the two publications was a real possibility. rather than public passive-aggressive putdowns (though some folks, including myself, did make references on Twitter), mutual acquaintances alerted Radian 6 to the issue, and within minutes (seemingly, it was probably an hour or two)- the title of the ebook was changed to “Building Stronger Customer Relationships: Making Your Brand More Personal with Social Media.” Crisis averted- or at least minimized- by simply talking to folks.

Humanize, indeed.

Is the Marketing World (Too) Facebook Centric?

Just a simple question that came to mind after being invited to a Facebook discussion group on social marketing. An overwhelming amount of the threads were about Facebook. There are several reasons this could be true:

• It is a Facebook group, so natural to discuss Facebook there (that could be true)
• Facebook IS dominant , silly, so that’s what we need to be talking about (I’m not so sure, but can agree to an extent)
• The group is filled with Facebook experts (true), who seem to be among the more active members
• We are being shortsighted by isolating ourselves to the current hottest platform

Community Manager vs Community Analyst?

Chuck Hemann (another friend) wrote an interesting article in the Spredfast blog: “Ditch the Community Manager, Hire the Community Analyst.” First off, after reading the article, I’ll add “Ditch the Headline Writer” too, as that is misleading. Chuck is not saying the Community Manager function should go away, but that the need for people who know data and analytics is more urgent than ever in social media marketing. As someone who crunches numbers and analyzes trends for clients, I would say the same thing. Whether or not that person is also the community manager is something to be answered by availability of people and the resources to hire them, but the pendulum of need, I agree, swings in that direction. I would caution against letting it swing too far, to the point that we don’t have community managers- or quality content producers- to fill that end of the social media process. Chuck is an analytics guy so take that into account, but I agree with the need.

An Infographic to Like – For Once 

I often complain about bad infographics in this blog, but with good reason. The idea that infographics should be pleasing to consume and convey actual information has been lost. I often tout the Boston Bruins’ Foxwoods bar tab as an example of a good infographic, but thanks to friends (thank you Amy Vernon) I have found a new one. It conveys info without making me scroll, there’s not too much into it so I can grasp it in one look, but yet it is still useful. An excellent example. I wish more people would do it this way, instead of the tiresome, unreadable graphics we are being subjected to.

Rain at SXSW

My word (phrase, rather) of the week is “Schadenfreudian slip,” as when I accidentally make references to the apocalyptic rain storms greeting SXSW Interactive arrivals this weekend. Someone should be able to get some good publicity handing out ponchos. Wonder if that happened?

I have been involved in some form with the Social Media Club Boston Chapter since its founding in 2006, and remain so to this day, currently serving as a member of the board. This year, the parent organization is raising operational funds and asking people, past and present members and friends, to submit their stories with the “#MySMCStory” hashtag. Here’s mine.

Why is 2006 important? As much as there are great social media events, programs and professional successes with or without SMC, its establishment was one of the original beachheads in social media’s invasion of the communications disciplines. 2006 was a big year for me in that regard. Although I had been using social media extensively for about two years at the time of the first Boston Chapter gathering, getting something formal together was a big undertaking. Right around this time I also got involved in the very first PodCamp and first logged on to Twitter, but this is about Social Media Club.

Led by my then-colleague (at Topaz Partners) and friend Todd Van Hoosear along with others (I don;t want to leave people out, but Todd was definitely my entry point), Social Media Club Boston debuted with a large gathering that piggybacked on the presence of the Society for New Communications Research Symposium- another organization I have been supportive of since then.

The inaugural meeting is my “story” because it involved so many world’s within social media for me. The Boston contingent, including Todd, Steve Garfield, David Meerman Scott et al. Also there were folks who would later leave Boston, like Bryan Person (Austin) and Scott Monty (Detroit). Last, aside from a fellow school parent I have only come to know well recently, we’re two people who would hire me over the next few years. Yes, my professional life was more or less laid out for me that night. That’s my Social Media Club story. What’s yours?

Pinterest and the Copyright Bogeyman

Pinterest has captured the hearts and minds of social media shiny-object navel-gazers. It’s great, it’s simple, it’s visual.. but back in January, I couldn’t help but wonder if there were copyright issues. Boy howdy were there. While I now wonder if the current hysteria over copyright protection on Pinterest is a bit overblown, it is worth considering for both individual and corporate users.

Individuals now worry about being sued, and even being responsible for legal fees incurred by Pinterest (according to their Terms of Service). Companies need to worry not only about inappropriate use of their trademarks in sharing images, but in being liable themselves (and being bigger targets for suits) even if they merely “repin” something a fan put on the site.

A bigger issue- will companies see Pinterest “pinning” as flattery, fans liking their things and even linking back to their sites and shops, or as a violation of their marks? There will be cases for both all over. The question for Pinterest is, will this scare off users? Not sure about that.

For now, the real force behind copyright issues seems to be photographers, who are historically aggressive over their online intellectual property rights- hence Flickr introducing Pinterest-disabling code. It will be interesting to see if this gets hotter or melts away.

Defining PR- Pinch Me, Am I Dreaming?

I have had a complicated relationship over my career with industry associations. Hence my ambivalence towards the entire process of trying to define public relations. The attempt to “crowdsource”  a new definition for the industry skirted the fine line between listening and letting the inmates run the asylum. Further, it’s not really clear it was an open process more than it was a “mad-libs” exercise, as some friends have described it. Whatever the faults or favors, here is the new, unveiled definition:

“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

I am…whelmed. It’s vague, pretty, and hopeful. Everything a guy could want in a sweetheart. To be honest, I’m not sure PR needs a definition. We need to do better work to prevent being defined by our worst actors: the apologists for ethical villains, the liars and loudmouths. I’m not going to knock this definition, but I’m not celebrating in the streets either. Back to work, people.

Zynga Tries to Show it Can Breathe without Facebook Life Support 

I hate Farmville, and all Zynga games are prohibited from loitering on my Facebook lawn (dagnabit), but I thought it was refreshing to see Zynga launch its own independent platform. The doubters that didn’t see a long-term value in a Facebook-bound platform (or any company dependent on a third party platform for sustenance) are right. And investors should be happy that Zynga has been smart enough to realize it. I’m assuming this has been in their thinking for a long time. So, here’s to long-term thinking.

Infographic Naughtiness: I Think You Meant “Exhausting”

With all due respect to my friends at Hubspot, who do a lot of great things, this infographic made me cry. Forget whether or not this is truly an “exhaustive history of marketing,” I’m not going to get into factual accuracy or point of view. As a visual, is this comprehensible? Do you get the entire thesis at a glance? Are the minute details optional, or better yet, elsewhere? This is the sort of indigestible infographic that makes it rain dead kittens even on a sunny day. I sized it to fit on this page, just to the right. Tell me what you think:

Grammar Nit of the Week

Saw someone use the phrase “good common sense.” I could only think, “what’s bad common sense?” What would that look lke? I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know.

Image credit: “babau” by skesis on Flickr

I’m always tickled to be included among smart people on a panel to discuss social media, communications, and other issues. Earlier this month, I was honored to be included in the following group for an online panel on Content Marketing moderated by Steve Farnsworth of Jolt Social Media and hosted by Focus.com:

Joining me were:

•  John McTigue EVP, Co-owner , Kuno Creative; and
• Joe Pulizzi Founder , Content Marketing Institute

You can hear the audio (approx. 1 hour) from the panel at the archive page, or play it directly from this link:

https://www.hidefcorporate.com/wav/rec/30/conf50230_11323448.mp3

Rather than try to recap the conversation, I did want to pull out some of the more interesting bits we covered. If you have any comments, feel free to leave them here or at the archive page.

• When starting a content marketing program- what are your content assets?
• Create expectations with your content by being consistent
• Write in a way that’s engaging without sacrificing the marketing goals of your content
• Think about metrics in terms of program tracking but also in terms of what the C-suite wants (and needs) to hear
• Think about where talent comes from for content marketing programs- perhaps not from the marketing and PR industries, but from traditional content creating roles like journalism
• Topics I never touch on (like marketing automation) were brought up, underscoring the need for PR, Marketing and other communications departments to be aligned in content marketing efforts
• The shrinking world of effective free tools for managing online content, with some input from the audience to tools they use. (I have been hearing a lot about Crowdbooster lately, for example)
• Ways to get contact from reluctant executives, such as Q&As and short videos
• Whom and how many to follow on your social media accounts (and how much does that matter)? Relevancy and reciprocation matter
• I was surprised and pleased to note the panel’s collective attitudes towards infographics (think “visual” not “infographic” as there are so many bad ones out there) and Klout as an influence measure (no thanks)
• Plus: I got to throw in two of my favorite themes:
• “No message control” in social media is a myth
• “Data lies, trends don’t”
• “Make me scroll, I’m gonna troll” (re: infographics)

I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic as well

Photo Credit: yourdoku on Flickr