Tweeting with authenticity: genuine or strategic?

A rather new friend of mine recently launched a blog. I checked it out the other day and she had posted on authenticity. In the post she raised a point that would resonate with most of us (or so I hope): that we feel more connected to authentic people.

I asked her, and we have yet to discuss, whether this was a matter of feeling or a matter of fact. In other words does the "authentic" person have to reciprocate? Feel connected to us, in return? Or demonstrate and act on their authenticity in any way?

Or is it a matter of appearance, impression, and vibe?

You probably know where I'm going with this. It may be easier to impress authenticity on a person online. Impressions we make and take of people we don't know online can be far from the mark. Impressions are twice as likely to be off:

• The impression we make of a user reflects our own interpretations
  
• The other person's expression is not fully captured when it's online
  

In other words, the other person expresses less fully, and we fill in more. The impression we have of the other person, and their appearance to us, are informed more by our interpretations than by their intentions and expressions.

So is authenticity online something that we project onto the other person? Is it something that even if they intend, they can't fully express? Is a connection formed online a matter more of a connection we imagine and attach, and invest in -- or is it still a reality created by our communications and interactions with each other?

Regardless of how you feel about authenticity (we prefer it) and feeling connected (ok, some of the feeling is projected, but authenticity does seem to secure connections), there's no denying that it can be faked.

Since fake authenticity is a contradiction in terms, we need to distinguish between intention and appearance. Sincere intentions can appear insincere, and vice versa.

So if you're a brand using twitter, and you wish to reach your customers authentically and sincerely, how would you do it? How would you show it?

• Would you emphasize your actions -- make sure that you're being real and genuine in what you say, share, and do?
  
• Or would you consider how you appear, and instead create a sense of authenticity strategically and tactically -- recognizing that it's not ultimately in your hands and the other user's impression of you matters more than how genuine your feelings are?
  

I'm not just splitting hairs here. The people who post for brands that use twitter are real people. Every day they must choose to tweet as themselves, personally, and genuinely -- or post inauthentically and insincerely. In communication theory, this has been described as the difference between understanding and effect. Authenticity contributes to a shared understanding; strategy merely has to produce results; communication being simply effective.

As much as we want to see authenticity win, there's no logical reason why a brand wouldn't choose to communicate disingenuously, and for effect. Realizing that the "customer is always right," and that it's really the (other) user who makes the impression, strategies might be better if they are designed for effect. It is contrary in spirit to "conversational media," but it's more consistent with advertising/marketing. Seduction, deception, appeals to price, value, image, quality... impressions of brands need content!

The argument against this of course is built on time and repetition. None of us is fooled, over time, by the disingenuous behavior of a brand acting according to strategy and plan. Over time, and through ongoing or recurring interactions, we augment our impressions with experience. Trust grows. And with it, the risk of damage to the relationship.

The reason for authenticity then it not strictly in the impression you make, or in how you appear. Authenticity begins as an appearance but becomes experience over time. Brands that intend to keep using twitter, for example, might choose to communicate with greater effect now, frequently, with new followers -- or instead sustain relationships over time (at higher cost perhaps).

The former can be achieved with effective communication -- the latter demands consistent and genuine communication. Or so it would seem.



Riffed and inspired by a post on Lizasperling.com.

Utilizing Social Media for Marketing: Tips

In our never-ending quest to define social media -- whether for ourselves or for our clients -- there's one tendency that stands out, and I think it's the result of a simple semantic slip. We refer to social media as if it were a thing, an object or technology, in short, a noun. Well yes, social media applications are tools and technologies. But social media is also a verb: : experiences, practices, conversation, talk. We switch back and forth sometimes between describing social media and its industry applications: social media marketing, distributed conversations, social networking. But in general, and in part because we are hail from the technology industry, we stand by the noun.

I'd like to explore the verb.

There are four views of social media that organize most of the industry's conversation:

• The builder's view from the perspective of technology


• The startup's view from the perspective of adoption


• The user's view from the perspective of experiences


• The marketer's view from the perspective of distribution

While each of these is valid on its own terms, none is sufficient by itself to describe "social media." But there is one view that is privileged, and that is the user's view. If an application fails to deliver a compelling user experience, there will be no application worth speaking about. No application adopted, no business funded, no market reached.

Now, social media are not just used by users. They're used also by the companies built around them; used by the advertisers advertising within them; and used by the designers and architects who build them. Since not one of these groups "owns" social media, and since none takes the position of the end user, who knows best what a social media tool should be like, how it works (in practice), or for what it is used?

If there's one thing in the way of PR, marketing, and advertising professionals succeeding in their use of social media, it's that many of us are limited by the interests that govern our perspective. Thankfully, we can learn a lot by taking positions other than our own. The builder learns from the user. The founder, from the marketer. The marketer from the user.

I'd like to attempt the marketer's perspective. How might social media best and most successfully serve their purposes?

In conversations with marketing professionals I often hear of the need for real case studies and examples. SNCR has many to cite. Charlene Li and Jeremiah Owyang continue to dig up gems. But for all the tools out there, we suffer a shortage of best practices and success stories.

A marketer might easily conclude that social media are not ready for distribution. But I think the challenge for social media in the marketplace is not in their lack of utility. Rather, I think, they're simply being under-utilized. Under-utilized not because the technologies are incapable of meeting the marketer's needs: but that the creative and campaigns deployed misuse the media.

These are tools and applications built by the people for use by the people. They were not not intended as new distribution channels for commercial messaging. Therefore any successful social media marketer should pack away the commerce and converse with authenticity. Users are not there to receive the messages of marketers, but are there for their own purposes. There's a connecting line between the phone line and online, and that line is drawn between the commercial and the personal.

Social media serve highly local, personal, and episodic purposes. Conversations are fast, disjointed, and discontinuous. In other words, they have little in common with mass media and broadcasting. Talk starts with the user more than with published content. It unfolds in front of an audience on the medium, not outside of it. Commercial participation needs to come off the screen and embed itself.

Can it? I think yes, if the marketing perspective takes the position of the user.

We're talking about a shift in marketing from impression to expression, and from image to relationship. Messages will get recognition if they are meaningful. And they will get "distribution" if they are retaleable. On blogs, PR and marketing want to be contextual. On social networking sites, marketing and advertising wants to be actionable.

Social media and mass media have one thing in common: communication. So let's look at the communication needs of the industries most interested in reaching social media: PR, marketing, and advertising.

PR

• the content is news, the mode is the release, the form is a brief (narrative), the connections possible are to the company profiled, the news announced, the testimonials offered, the persons involved.
  

Marketing

• the content is image, mode is a branding campaign (image + message), the form can take multiple media, the connections possible are consumer interest, impressions, and associations with the message's connotations and thrust.
  

Advertising

• the content is an offer, mode is campaign with call to action (image + call to action), the form can take multiple media, the connections possible are the relevance and appeal of the offer, and means by which to act on it.
  

The above are descriptions of how commerce seeks to benefit from communications media, be they mass or social. But if we believe that users run social media according to their own interests, how do commercial concerns ply their craft in an industry that is user-centric? What do they do differently to participate in the language of social media users?

Let's take a look at three distinguishing aspects of social media: their transformation of how we talk, how that talk is distributed, and what kinds of relationships we maintain while talking.

Social media provide new forms of talk, using multiple media types, across many different platforms, in long and short form, in front of different kinds of audiences, and appearing of course in a diverse number of forms: from pages to "streams." Commercial interests need to learn these forms of talk, as they would need to learn any new mass media format. Because most campaigns still rely heavily on banner and display advertising, the opportunities ahead for embedded and conversational advertising are great.

We might consider, for example:

• New socially-interactive ad units


• New types of content, group, event, and conversation sponsorship


• New advertising units to take advantage of the medium's many kinds of talk: reviews, recommendations, invitations, questions and answers, tweets, feeds, and so on


• New types of social games with embedded and actionable (playable) ads


• New kinds of narrative, including branching and participatory stories


• Feed-based marketing that offers event tickets, time-sensitive discounts, and so on to friends


• Sponsored reviews and recommendations appealing to those who spot trends and share discoveries


• Question/Answer formats appealing to end user expertise

Social media provide new means of distribution, using many social platforms, on which different kinds of audiences are assembled, for talk that is fast or slow, structured or loose, categorized or streaming, and using all media types available (text, message, video, game, animation, audio). Commercial interests might implement campaigns in multiple media types and for different applications. Here again, interactive and online ad agencies are still using conventional web 1.0 approaches, so there are wins ahead for new creative efforts.

We might consider, for example:

• Feed-based marketing


• Feed-based and direct-action advertising offers


• Social applications built around popular online social activities


• Social ad networks


• Mobile promotions tied to location or social networks


• User interest-based and targeted promotions

Social media offer new types of relationship, including closed groups of affiliates, colleagues, co-workers, and friends, friend-networks, follower audiences, blog subscribers, and more. Commercial interests can appeal to the network as well as the individual, or to the audience and context in general. And again, many departments would rather run their campaigns from the sidelines, and opt out of directly engaging the social media conversation space. The opportunities for success here, I suspect, are a matter of the depth of engagement commercial interests are willing to test.

Here we might consider:

• Commercial marketing to and through influencers


• Event offers and promotions distributed through inviters


• Branding and advertising to the social graph through top recommenders and influencers


• Group sales and promotions to social networks and trust circles

I feel that I have only touched on what can yet be done. With the user's permission (and that is a big "if," I'll admit, but that said, we love brands and we identify through commodities, so...) there is room for a new kind of "adversation" or "convertising." Consumer interests in consumption and things consumed are real, and genuine -- the threat of spam or commercialization is a matter of how it is handled.

I began by claiming that social media were as much a verb as a noun. Well, so the contents of media are people. People are fragile. But they can be moved. Simply handle with care.

Let's talk about social media marketing

To extend my thoughts on people vs content further, let's consider the opportunities for those in marketing, PR, and advertising who hope yet to realize value by engaging social media. In spite of their differences, one thing these industries have in common is a taste for volume. Their taste for success is a taste for more, and their appetites sated best by high calorie helpings of servings that perform.

That said, we all know that high volume advertising across social media are just *this* far off the bottom of the feed trough. Just ask Scott Rafer of Lookery (here's Allen Stern's interview with him, dated but relevant). CPMs are notoriously low on social media because users are disinclined to pay attention to ads whilst they're busy with friends. But sites like MySpace and Facebook serve up a huge number of pages, and are the equivalent of the outdoor advertising marketplace online.

Richer, more embedded, better targeted (by means of micro-targeting to the user, social graph targeting to the group, or social context targeting to audiences of followers) marketing is a better indicator of the future of online marketing. But as anyone in this space knows, ROI is not yet measurable, as is performance. In order for one-to-one or relationship marketing to make their comeback in the guise of social media marketing, industry and application standards will need to show success. And those successes will need to be evangelized by the social media community as case studies and best practices. The phase of application and service innovation is maturing, and is ready for adoption by those who can see a path to engagement.

And now back to my point on people vs content. It strikes me that there's a fork in the path to adoption, one that possibly reflects a choice between people or content.

On the People side are those of us heralding the cause of influencers and influencer metrics, supported by social media practices like following and friending. Industry speak on the social graph, on conversation, on feeds, lifestreaming, flow apps, and so on all suggest that marketers should get in with the people doing the talking, by means of course of the talk tools we all use (twitter, friendfeed, etc).

And on the Content side are those of us who champion the visibility and relevance of social media news, supported by social media practices like content rating, digging, aggregation, blogging, posting and commenting. Industry speak on the value add of socializing the web, of user generated content, of conversation around published and wired stories, videos, images, and more all suggest that marketers get in front of the context in which social media content is produced and consumed.

These are possibly just two sides of the same coin. Marketers can approach influencers and through them obtain exposure to more relevant audiences, and by means of more valued and trusted sources. Or marketers can buy exposure in the sites, on the pages, and possibly in the feeds that get the most traction, thereby and presumably reaching those most influential and attentive.

I've seen more discussion around influencers and the need for a measure of social impact than I have around their content. This could be that content is covered by web analytics and page rank, search, etc already. Or it could be that social content still awaits robust and reliable sentiment and semantic tools (yes, there are some but social talk is notoriously lacking in the context and meta data that content analysis needs for accuracy).

So I don't know if the distinction I'm making is material in the end. Current marketing and advertising practices continue to emphasize exposure: messages are placed alongside audiences and their activity. But merely being contiguous to the social isn't good enough. One wants to be in and of the social. So perhaps the industry still needs its paradigm shift. From being in front of the audience to being in the audience, and from being associated with the consumer to talking with the consumer, attentive both to who she is and what she says.

Kraft cheesy singles -- using social apps for branding

Out with friends last wk from a local social marketing firm and while enjoying the pleasant blend of mojitos and metabolic processes, the topic of branding and advertising on social media bubbled up. A silly and giddy exchange ensued. Agreed that a Kraft page on Facebook is like a box of mac and cheese in the toiletries section, I suggested a Kraft cheesy singles Likeness or dating app. Why not? How about Kraft cheesy singles Likeness questions?

How do you like your singles?

a) cheesy cheesy cheesy!
b) goodness all in one wrapper
c) warm
d) in the bread

Where do you get your singles?

a) at the corner store
b) at the bar
c) one at a time please!
d) in bulk

Where do you keep your singles?
a) stored up for a lonely night
b) in your pantry
c) in my drawers
d) in the bread

and so on...

Facebook users would click through and match with their friends. Krafty or silly, it'd sure be more fun than joining a Kraft Facebook page....

Mining social media

I had some compelling conversations with Joseph Carrabis of Nextstage Evolution this past week at SNCR's NewComm Forum where I was also formulating what I'll be doing this year as a sr research fellow. Joseph's company has a patented method for predicting or anticipating user behaviors online. As described, the patent sounded quite broad, but with or without patent his approach was interesting.

It's based on a number of user profiles based on information. I'm a relational and communication-oriented person, so I took some friendly issue with his approach. Insofar as the social web is a communication space, and social media facilitate talk -- in varying degrees of speed, depth, persistence, contextuality, and topicality, I can't see how a model can ignore characteristics of communication and interpersonal psychology.

When our interactions are mediated, ambiguities of intent, trust, sincerity, motive and so on seep into online communication. Psychology and personality differentiate user behavior as they do in any social encounter, and people engage and respond according to their tendencies, sensitivities, and blind spots.

A combination of user psychology (developed perhaps in the form of personality types modified to suit communication styles online) and information-centric interests and preferences might make for a powerful tool. And as the glut of information online is intensified by the sudden popularity of talk tools like Twitter as well as feed-based applications, anyone interested in reaching users/consumers by interest, affinity, or taste, will need intelligent engagement tools.

This will be a huge market. And the companies that not only succeed on the analytical side of monitoring, tracking, and measuring user behavior but also on the engagement side of giving marketers, publishers, and advertisers targeted, social graph-informed, and actionable campaign management tools will pull in some serious cash.

The social web is a gold mine. And as was the case during the gold rush, it's the guys selling mining tools that will make a killing.