You’ve probably seen this already, but just in case, here’s Weezer’s internet zeitgeist stuffed “Pork and Beans”
Archive for the 'Web 2.0' CategoryPage 2 of 4
If Twitter is down, then how can we Twitter about it?
Why do early adopters tell everyone they know about the next big thing, and then complain when everyone starts using it?
Is it still a wiki if only one person edits it?
If you accept a friend request from someone you hate, does that make you friends?
We want brands to join the conversation, but do we really want to talk to all of them?
If blogging gives everyone a voice, why is it still so hard to hear anyone?
If you’re in Second Life more than half the time, is it still second?
Why is the next big thing small now?
If knowledge is so valuable, why is everyone giving it away?
If you can’t find yourself in Google, do you really matter?
Why is it that when you’re completely busy, the first thing you do is tweet about how busy you are?
If people are so lazy, why isn’t RSS more popular?
Which came first? The troll or the message board?
When did something behaving like a virus become a good thing?
If the consumer finding out is inevitable, why do companies still try and trick us?
If a blog has more comments than posts, who’s blog is it?
What did I miss? Feel free to add your own.
Sometimes you really can’t follow the trends.
I’m not quite what you’d call a small person. And as such, this whole hipster/skinny jean trend is killing me. Think of an apple stuck on top of two toothpicks. Not a very exciting picture.
But the important thing is that I recognize this. You won’t see me trying to squeeze myself into any ultra-slim low rise Levi’s. And I don’t expect you to be forcing yourself into social media.
If it’s not right, it’s not right, I don’t care how trendy and “hip it is with the kids”.
If you run a concrete business, or a pizza pan company, then a Facebook ad might not be right for you. A blogger outreach project might not be smart if you’re the number one supplier of caulk in North America.
I still think that the future of marketing is connecting with people. But you have to pick your battles. Besides, “Caulk Talk” probably wouldn’t fly anyway…
Have you ever tried to explain something new or “web 2.0″ to someone only to be met with a blank stare? Yeah, me too. Well have no fear, you can put your buzzwords away. Just use this handy guide as a reference.
Also, I highly encourage you to put your revisions/additions in the comments (oh how web 2.0 of me!)
Blogs - Like online journals that put new content first.
Craigslist - Just like newspaper classifieds, but online.
del.icio.us - Let’s you attach keywords called “tags” to sites. Like putting post-its in a magazine.
Digg - Someone submits a story, and if you like it you vote for it. The stories with the most votes end up on the front page.
Facebook - It’s like an online personal directory where you can connect with people, share photos, join groups, etc.
Feedburner - Lets you manage and track your blog’s RSS feeds.
Flickr - It’s an online photo album that you can share with other people.
Friendfeed - Makes it so your friends can’t pick their nose without you knowing.
Google Docs - Lets multiple people edit a text document that’s saved online.
Last.fm - Internet radio that plays music based on your prefrences.
LinkedIn - It’s like your business Rolodex, but online.
MySpace - You know your hot friend? Well this is her fat ugly cousin.
NetVibes - Lets you pick a home page with the content you want (also see iGoogle).
RSS - It’s like an email subscription that goes to your reader instead of your email account.
Squidoo - Easily build one page on a topic.
StumbleUpon - You pick categories and it takes you to a random page. If you like it you give it a thumbs up.
Technorati - Ranks and indexes blogs based on “authority”. Shows most popular blogs.
Threadless - T-Shirt company that relies on it’s active community.
Twitter - It’s like mass text messaging but you choose whose messages you see.
Wikipedia - Just like a regular encyclopedia, but one that anyone can edit.
YouTube - A free place people can put videos online.
One of the biggest criticisms of blogs is their lack of credibility. The fact that anyone who wants to can get their ideas out there has been both a blessing and a curse.
But I think that when most people make the credibility argument, they’re missing the point.
A lot of the content on blogs is creative. Ideas, thoughts, conversations, predictions, opinions. All stuff that doesn’t necessarily need “credibility” to be valid.
I think that TV ads are annoying and interrupting. I think that brands should be open to conversation. I think that capri pants generally look bad on everyone. Are these things credible? I don’t know, thats up to you. Are they valid? Absolutely.
Thats not to say that blogs aren’t credible (i.e. Godin, Jaffe, Armano, Kawasaki, Verdino, Defren, etc.), but credibility isn’t always the point. Creativity and expression is.
Now here’s some new marketing for you.
Facebook recently announced it’s new advertising model, one that lets you “connect” directly with brands. To paraphrase the process: You can now become a “fan” of a brand (or music group, restaurant, web site, etc.) via your profile. Facebook then lets your friends know, along with a socially targeted ad. For example, If I liked Mahalo (and I do), I could become a “fan” on Facebook, and if you were my friend, you’d hear about it along with a sponsored link to check out Mahalo.
Get it? Doesn’t sound too hard, but there’s a catch.
You have to be cool.
For this ad model to work, you have to be a cool brand, or be a brand with reaallllly loyal fans. Nike probably won’t have a problem, neither will Polo, Starbucks, or Mercedes-Benz. But what about Kraft Macaroni and Cheese? Or Advil, K-Mart, Sure Deodorant, and Bic Pens? Are there enough people on Facebook that are fans of these brands? And if so, will they be proud enough to advertise it?
What do you think? Will this whole thing sink or will there be enough cool brands and people wanting to show off allegiances?
…in social/emerging media, that is.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the need/quest for discovering a new way to measure social media and interaction and have come to one conclusion: No one has come to any conclusions. No one is sure what to measure, or how to measure it.
But they seem determined on trying, which is puzzling to me. It’s puzzling because there is this unyielding need for some direct form of measurement. I guess the internet has spoiled us. Online, you can nail down page views, click throughs, and conversion rates for one version of a particular ad, all things that are almost impossible in other media. How can you determine the ROI on a TV commercial? How can you measure the exact views or conversion rates on a full-page newspaper ad? You really can’t, but companies spend billions every year on them just the same.
Traditional media is just not as measurable as the internet. However, social media is not as measurable as the rest of the web, which (in my opinion) is why so many are gun shy about really using it.
They don’t really understand it, and they can’t really measure it. A scary proposition for most.
Social media should be viewed and measured in a unique way. It’s not as hardcore data-oriented as adwords, but it’s also not as ambiguous as TV. We need to understand that social media is a two way street and what matters is not how many people are going down it, but how engaged and interested they are.
My name is Matt J McDonald and I'm a new marketer & Social Media Consultant based in Charleston, SC.
Recent Comments