Ms. Adverthinker

Thank you to Roby Brock of Talk Business for the invitation to talk about building trust in this information age on his program. Check out the Talk Business site and watch the interview here:

Here are my full thoughts on the topic:

In the online space, we can find almost everything about almost anyone or anything. We are truly living in an information age. We are sharing information about ourselves, we are seeking information about others and from others. Everyone is doing it: consumers, businesses, and organizations. And they are doing it using social tools that allow for instant updates, instant sharing and easy searching. With all this information available, how do consumers know whom to trust? Do they trust the consumer reviews, or the expert analysis? Do they trust their individual friends or large organizations for information?

Whom to trust, as it turns out, is a bit of a moving target. Every year, Edelman conducts a trust survey.  In recent years, with the rise of social media and online reviewing systems, this trust survey has indicated that the public is more inclined to trust “people like me” over corporate entities. However, the economic recession has led consumers to become cynical (more so than they were already), leading to a swing in who and how they trust: (1) the public now wants to hear from credentialed experts and (2) corporate trust and transparency are now just as important as the quality of products and services from that company. Today’s consumers are more skeptical, savvy and sophisticated when it comes to online information.

Facing this modern consumer is daunting to businesses vying for the trust of their audiences: “Though it’s easier than ever to reach your customers, it’s less likely that they’ll listen. Today, the most valuable online currency isn’t the dollar, but trust itself.” (Trust Agents, 2009) So, how does a business work to build that trust and become a favored brand? Here are some starting steps for establishing trustworthiness:

• Be transparent. The online world is defined by the availability of information. To make that information available is to be transparent. Consumers rile at even thought that information they seek is unavailable to them for any reason. And, if a company or organization isn’t providing the information about themselves, someone else (a less trustworthy source) will do it for them and may communicate inaccurate information. Put it all out there.
• Be responsive. When consumers pose a question or express a concern, do not sit on the response in an effort at contemplation or corporate review “up-the-ladder.” Delayed responses only create more frustration among consumers and speculation as to the extent of a problem with the organization. Respond quickly, even if only to acknowledge receipt of the question or concern and promise a timely answer upon further research, if necessary.
• Ask for feedback. And share that feedback. And share the organization’s responses to that feedback. This will give consumers the views of other consumers “like them” and further demonstrate the transparency and responsiveness of the organization.
• Call on experts. Balance the information and perspectives provided directly from the organization and from consumer feedback with expert opinions and advice. These third-party insights will round out the perspectives consumers seek when information-gathering.
• Give them some face time. Use video to communicate the message. “People communicate as much, if not more, with how an idea is conveyed, than with what it said. Shifty eyes and raised shoulders can reveal anxiety; intonation can convey passion. The more non-substantive information the medium can convey, the more data a listener has to decide how trustworthy the speaker is.”

Executing all of these steps at once may not be feasible for a business just starting to engage with their online audience. It is okay to start out with one or two of these methods, then open up into full-on transparency as trust is established. As an example, one of our clients at Stone Ward recently decided to take the plunge into social media using a promotion as its diving board, but they weren’t quite ready for a full-time presence in the space. To introduce this new face to its audience, we created a microsite with a distinct URL separate from the home/traditional site. The idea was that this site would eventually become the community hub and live on past the promotion, but the promotion (sweepstakes) would help draw the initial audience to engage with the brand. Being new to the social media space, the client didn’t have the resources to manage a completely open site and respond as quickly or as completely as necessary to build trust. Given that issue, the site launched with a combination of pre-set content and consumer-contributed content, and allowed for question submissions to an expert. The pre-set content was a bank of “tips” that could be commented on by users, and encouraged user-submitted tips. New tips automatically generated a Twitter post and a Facebook post. The consumer-contributed content was a community forum where users could submit questions and get responses from other users. The “ask the expert” questions were posted with the expert responses for others to view. Additional engagement elements included a daily poll and music playlists that tied into the brand and promotion concept. Starting out with elements that didn’t require daily maintenance and monitoring allowed this brand to introduce themselves to the space, start building relationships and start establishing a basis for trust without risking alienation with an unavoidable misstep due to resource limitation. As a result, the site has lived on past the promotion end and the brand now has a manageable engagement tool that can be built upon when they are ready.

The bottom line: Provide honest and complete information to consumers and their trust will follow. Understand that making information available is necessary for social bonding and while it may feel like putting that information online makes an organization vulnerable to attack, there is a need to reveal that vulnerability to ultimately build trust and relationships. And, if you are not ready for the all the steps to building trust, start out small and build from there.

There was a Super Bowl gathering at my abode, and in between cooking, conversation and conviviality around the Saints, we Googled, blogged and surfed the social networks.  Because we work in the business, our web use centered around the Super Bowl advertising.  And while most commercials were disappointing, there were some stood out from the overdone guy humor that was abundant this year.  I am not going to get into my opinion of what advertising was good, bad or ugly – you can find more than enough commentary about that here, here and here.  I want to talk about is the morphing of the event into an online social experience.

Watching the Super Bowl has always been a social event: friends gather, eat, drink, boo and cheer. The advent of social media made our parties grow exponentially over the last couple of years as we interacted with those we knew online in addition to those watching the game with us in person. Last year, 12% of Super Bowl viewers were online during the game, according to Mashable. But this year, rather than having to search out the pertinent discussions on Twitter and Facebook separately, communities have developed around areas of interest, be it sports, food or advertising.  Hashtags are now used more consistently, making search for relevant commentary outside those communities easier, too.  With these community hubs and hashtag prevalence, our online interactions have gone from just the people we know (and the people they know) to introductions to people, content and views we might never have stumbled upon before.  And just when we thought we couldn’t be more connected to the world.

I didn’t want the Super Bowl fun to end last night. In years past, I have only watched the Super Bowl for the commercials, and even then become bored by the second half. Last night was different, it was bigger and it felt like my world expanded just a little bit more.  And that is always a good thing for the curious being that is me.

For fun, here is my favorite commercial of the night.  Although, as it turns out, it has been around for a few months, last night was my first viewing.

Social media sites are addicting.  These sites allow us to peer into the lives of our friends without getting too involved.  (Although sometimes it is like watching a soap opera and we begin to feel like we are part of our friends lives, without actually being part of their lives.)  But the nature of social sites is to create conversation.  So the problem with social media voyeurism is that we are expected to share back.  We create community when we share.  We learn about each other and keep in touch in ways that were never feasible in the past.  I love to learn new and interesting things from my friends.  I love to see how they spent the weekend or what their dog is doing.  Social media expands my small university into a giant one and is usually a complete joy.  I share a lot online: if I want you to know what I am doing, you will know – through Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr.  And maybe a little Flickr, Posterous and Loopt every now and then. Do I share too much?  I don’t know, maybe sometimes I do.

Social media can also be a burden; and this week I am feeling overwhelmed by my social media connectivity.  Yes, I preach about the value connectivity and social media.  Yes, my phones are practically connected to me and my computer is within reach 18 hours a day, on average.  While I keep up with messages, I don’t always respond immediately, or at all.  The reasons for this inaction vary.  Sometimes I don’t feel like talking.  Sometimes I don’t have anything to say.  And, yes, sometimes I am with real people and feel like it might be rude to be glued to my device in their physical presence.

Then there are those times when you just want to unplug.  It is hard to have “alone time” with the influx of social media.   When I need “alone time,” social media becomes a burden.  If you send me a text, email or chat conversation and I don’t respond, then just let it go and give me some space.  If I haven’t posted in a while, then maybe I am feeling overexposed.  Don’t attempt to make me feel guilty about my silence.  Being quiet says a lot.

Hmm. According to new research from Harvard Business, more women (55%) are on Twitter than men (45%).  But, men have more followers, by 15%.  “Men also have more reciprocated relationships, in which two users follow each other. This ‘follower split’ suggests that women are driven less by followers than men, or have more stringent thresholds for reciprocating relationships.”  And, not only are men more likely to follow men, but women are 25% more likely to follow a man.

According to the study, this man-following has nothing to do with how much he tweets: men and women tweet at the same rate.  What is up with this?  Possible hypotheses (based on nothing but my intuition):

• The format for Twitter (short bursts of information) is more conducive to the male style of communication, whereas women tend to want to be more verbose and explanatory?
• The subjects women tweet about may not be as diverse as those that men tweet?
• Women tend to tweet about their personal lives, men tend to tweet about business?
• Women have higher “follow” standards because their time is valuable and content is their currency?
• Is there something wrong with Harvard Business’s methodology for determining who is male and who is female on Twitter?  (“To get this figure, we cross-referenced users’ ‘real names’ against a database of 40,000 strongly gendered names.”)

I would like to hear what others think about this “follower split” on Twitter.  More women are online.  Women have more influence on purchase decisions.  Women are more likely to research before making any decision.  People trust “people like me” for advice.  All of these factors would indicate that women would be following other women in droves on Twitter.  Thoughts?

For those who still want to argue against the influence of women on the future and their impact online, check this out :

“…42 million women in the United States (roughly 53% of the 79 million adult women in the United States who use the Internet) participate in social media at least weekly. As they spend more time with social media, women are spending correspondingly less time with traditional media: 39% less on newspapers, 36% less time reading magazines, and 30% less time watching TV.” (source)

…

“The women who post to blogs are the most actively engaged. They spend the most time online. Over 80% also participate in social networks like Facebook, and over one third of bloggers also participate in Twitter. But more to the point, those who blog are more likely to be tech savvy, on the leading edge of trends, and invest time searching for new products online.” (source)

These stats are the result of a survey conducted by Blogher in March 2009.  We already know that more women are online than men.  And now we know how engaged they are in the online space and how influential they can be on each other: women reported that they are significantly more likely to make a purchase decision based on customer experiences reported on blogs.  They are relying on blogs for information on politics and news, technology/gadgets, cars and business/career/personal finance.  They are relying on their social networks for social activism, sex/relationship/dating, entertainment and shopping.

Any marketer targeting women should be leveraging the influence of blogs and social networks to communicate brand and product messages, as well as news and information.

• Provide a forum for these women to speak to each other and to you about the brand/products/news.
• Communicate back and worth with these women.
• Reach out to them in their world.  Show that you are paying attention and that you care what they have to say.  Ask for their opinions.
• Monitor what they are saying and address issues and concerns.  Or reward them if they are brand ambassadors.

I have been reading The XX Factor blog on Slate for several months now and I really like it.  It is smart, funny and not the overdone stereotypical female voice.  This is not a mommy-blogger site or a fashion site or a celebrity stalker site.  But they talk about mom stuff, fashion and celebrities.  And they talk about politics, current events and pop culture.  The blog has been received such a great response that they are turning it into its own site: Double X.  Here’s a brief description from The New York Times today:

“To turn the blog into a full-fledged Web magazine, the site will draw from a number of contributors to include commentary and critiques of popular culture, film and television, home design and family life, along with features like personal narratives from women on surviving the recession. Double X has also formed a partnership with Google to offer a news feed focused on women on the site.”

Check it out.

Frustrated with Facebook a few nights ago, I de-friended some people.  I cleaned house.  I assumed that no one would notice.  And I got caught.  Lesson learned: if you are active in the social media world and you live in a relatively small market, then your absence won’t go unnoticed.  I am now sheepishly re-friending.  Please consider this my apology to all my de-friended friends.  I will not blame you for not accepting me back now.

This experience has me thinking about privacy versus sharing in this age when social media participation has become expected and the societal norm.  Are we sharing too much?  Are we at a point where we expect people to share everything?  Is it weird that I find myself thinking of my daily activities in 140 character updates throughout the day (“Ms. Adverthinker is frustrated by stiff shoes that rub blisters; Band-Aid Blister Block helps though.”  “Ms Adverthinker is disappointed iPhone died, but excited about pretty pink cover avail for new one.  Damn accessories get me every time.”)?  I ask these questions when I find myself uncontrollably sucked into Facebook.

The risk we take in exposing ourselves in the online world is that we actually expose ourselves.  It seems so simple to type a few words and click a few buttons.  But the impact of these small actions can be large.  We are sharing our lives with the world.  The world.  Admittedly, in a market like Arkansas the world might be a little smaller: everyone who is online knows each other, even if they have never met.  We are all friends without actually being friends.  And I feel like I know everything about their lives.

Although I might not want to know everything about their lives, I just can’t help but read, watch and dig a little deeper.  It is human nature to be voyeuristic and social media allows us to feed this desire.   But it is easy to get caught up and overwhelmed by other people’s lives:  What does the cryptic status update mean?  Who is that person in this picture?  Why are they sad?  Why are they happy?  Who are they talking about?  Who are they quoting?  What does it all mean?! So I started thinking that I didn’t need to know everything about all of my friends.

Because I have very little self control and can’t quit Facebook cold turkey, I decided to taper cessation of the habit by cleaning the friend house.  Maybe I overreacted.  Or maybe I didn’t take it far enough; I left the door open by not canceling my account (much like cutting up your credit card when you have the number memorized: it doesn’t stop you from spending).

As an active resident of this new social media world, I should have known better than to think a person can do anything online and have it go unnoticed.

I get a little fired up about wanting female representation on lists in Arkansas (although I am happy to have only one officially named on this list).  And, I should be fired up: there are more women than men in the state, and as it turns out, there are more women than men online, too:

“eMarketer estimates there are 95.9 million males online in 2009, or 48.2% of the Internet population, compared with 103.2 million females. Although the US Internet population will continue to grow, by 2013 males will make up just 47.9% of the online population, and at 105.9 million users will still be the minority.”

To be fair, the article states that men spend more time online than women.  But we all know that is because women are much more efficient.

This fictional Internet-Age Writing Syllabus and Course Overview had me laughing out loud.  A highlight:

“Students will learn time-saving tricks, like how to construct an 800-word blog entry in 30 seconds using a simple news article and copy-and-paste. And, as an exercise in the first-person narrative form, students will blog intimate details about their lives, their studies, and their sexual histories (with pictures), with the intent of being linked to by gossip sites and/or discovered by future employers.”

Enjoy.

We are launching a new program over here at Stone Ward: Stone Ward Interactive Meetings, or SWIM.  We saw a need for education among college students in the area of online communications and decided to create this eight week course.  Anyone can attend the sessions live, but they can also be viewed online through live, streaming video.  The first one will be May 1st at 5 PM at U.S. Pizza in Hillcrest, Little Rock, Arkansas.  We hope you will participate.

Check out the 99 Things You Should Have Already Experienced on the Internet.  Seriously funny.  And seriously time-consuming.

On Friday morning, I had the opportunity to listen to Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS Shoes, talk about his company and the shoes it gives to children in need.  Blake spoke at the Clinton School of Public Service as part of the Clinton School Speaker Series.  TOMS Shoes started in May 2006 and has since given over 130,00 pairs of shoes to children in need around the world.  The company is able to do this by selling shoes to consumers under the agreement that for every pair of shoes purchased, one pair of shoes will be given away.  Through this model, TOMS Shoes has become a sustainable company that is both profitable and philanthropic.  The story of TOMS Shoes success is fascinating and inspiring, but the thing that interested me the most was that–according to Blake in his presentation on Friday–they have never spent a single dollar on advertising.  The company grew solely on word-of-mouth.  Granted, fashion publication editors became enamored with the TOMS Shoes story (rightfully so) and took it upon themselves to get the word out to those they influence.  Without that help, would the company be as successful now?

Many philanthropic start-ups struggle to get the funding they need to do the giving they set out to do.  The TOMS Shoes story is the exception rather than the rule.  In 2006 when TOMS Shoes was founded, social media was prevalent, but not to the extent we are seeing it used today.  The next “TOMS Shoes” will need to leverage the online social media space in much the same way the Obama campaign did to see a similar success.

How does a fledgling organization present itself as legitimate and use the online space to generate interest and raise money?

1. Establish a professional-looking website.  This will take a considerable investment, but the payoff is enormous: a website is a first impression.
2. Create a voice for the “brand.”  People interact with brands just like they are people online.  In the social media arena, the brand will need to speak through blog posts, Twitter posts, online video, social network fan pages, and whatever the next new channel that pops up.  Someone will have to manage all of these communications in a consistent and timely manner.
3. Be everywhere online with the official brand voice.  Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, blog, YouTube channel, Flickr, etc.  And have links to all these online spaces on your website.
4. Offer interesting information on a regular basis.  And deliver it to your priority participants first: those that sign up for email or text message updates.  Use this data to build your database, then use it to make requests.  Remember when Obama announced his running mate?  The announcement was sent to those who had signed up for text message announcements first.  He later used this database of mobile phone numbers to ask for $5 donations to the Red Cross.
5. Allow donations to be given online in small increments of the donor’s choosing.  This is a duh, but with some many young people interested in participating, you must allow for as little as $5 donations at a time.  As they grow, so will their donations if they have already established a relationship with your organization.

While I am not the expert on this topic, I have an interest in helping organizations that give back, so I am trying learning more.  They are several books on the market now that I will be checking out.  The two I am looking to read next are People to People Fundraising: Social Networking and Web 2.0 for Charities and Digital Giving: How Technology is Changing Charity.  In Blake Mycoskie’s presentation, he specifically mentioned Bill Clinton’s Giving as a starting place for those that want to contribute.  I am ashamed to admit that I bought Giving a year and a half ago, yet neglected to read it until today.  Even more shameful is that I gave this book as gifts to all my friends two Christmases ago, without having read it myself. The combination of hearing the TOMS Shoes story and reading Giving have inspired me to give more and I hope to use this space to help those that want to change the world for the better.

For the people that use Twitter is an interesting way, thank you.  I am active on Twitter and I follow people that share information that I find relevant.  I don’t use it perfectly, but I don’t over use it either.  The tool and the possibilities for sharing information that it open up for us are infinite.

Don’t tell me what you are doing.  I don’t care.  Tell me something you have learned, tell me breaking news, educate me.

Twitter feels dirty and overused; I just want it off me.

My first tweet was on November 15, 2007.  I thought Twitter was great: I linked it to my Facebook status and updated frequently.  All those “in the know” on technology and social media were using it.  It wasn’t overused, people were sharing information and gathering information.  Fantastic.  I had big dreams about how Twitter could be used for online focus groups and research: instant feedback from people that were plugged in and engaged.  I even blogged about Twitter last October and was excited about it momentum.

Today, I officially came down with Twitter-fatigue.  If I hear one more news “personality,” government official or agency old fart talk about Twitter I might officially turn my Twhirl feed off.  Watching MSNBC this morning, an anchor signed off with: follow me on Twitter @whatever.  I rolled my eyes and might have even yelled at the TV.  I got to work this morning and it seemed like every article that was sent to me and every blog topic on my favorite blogs was about Twitter.  Now even the government is doing it, because government is always on the forefront of new technologies!

Here is what Twitter should NOT be used for:

• A way to text message with your friends in a public forum.
• A way to promote yourself constantly.
• A way to promote your friends constantly.

Here is what I appreciate about Twitter:

• The passing along of interesting information.
• The sharing of “what are you doing?” for those people that really care about what you are doing throughout your day.
• Breaking news.

I follow 82 people and have 59 people that follow me.  I don’t know most of the people that follow me, so I have no idea as to why they think my tweets are interesting, or if they even follow me for that reason.  I have experimented with the different ways I use Twitter over the past year and half, and yes, I have broken some of the rules I list above.

I tend to be somewhat of an early adopter of technology (Twitter had been out over a year and half–March 2006–when I signed on, so not even that early in this case) and usually by the time it becomes mainstream, I am over it.  I will keep using Twitter for now, but will be much more selective in who I follow.  And, I will be on the lookout for that next thing to replace it.

Until I sign off completely, you can follow me @Reeves501.

Courtesy of Eyecube, find the original post here, that includes the key.