Twitter accounts: one lump or two?

Question: How many accounts should a brand have?

Issues: Promotion, Customer Service, PR, internal/external communications; product launches; momentum vs. customization

The types of content you send via social media depends, of course, on your audience.  B2B, employee-centric, information vs. advertisement.

So, how do you decide what to do with your Twitter account when your audience varies? Large companies have to deal with this, of course, but so do many small ones.  Most companies will have content that is extremely applicable to one segment of an audience, but completely useless to another segment.  As we know, content is king, and useless content normally means exile.

This fragmented relevance narrows your audience, and the reason can be manifold, from geography-specific content (i.e. in-store promotions, discounts or special events) to promoting large campaigns or initiatives content (new book launch with dates and updates, new product line that needs the publicity).

To an extent, geography can be taken care of with targeted posts on Facebook (free) and Twitter ($), although it's worth pointing out that most companies opt for multiple accounts instead of geo-targeting from one account.*

Pros for multiple accounts:
1. More relevant content to a more specific audience (hopefully higher engagement)
2. You can always cross-promote with a RT for big announcements
3. More flexibility
4. Customer service

A quick word on the customer service potential. It's nice to see that a company is paying attention to customers via Twitter (particularly because followers expect it), and it may be fine for smaller firms.  For large companies though, Twitter can become the Customer Service hotline, and it may be necessary to have a Twitter account designated for that purpose.

Cons for multiple accounts:
1a. It will seem like you have fewer followers for the main and subsequent accounts.**
1b. Momentum will be more difficult with tweets and retweets
2. More monitoring is required, particularly if different departments are in charge.
3. Depending on how much content you produce, it could be difficult to maintain the account and establish a reliable cadence.


If your company were deciding this, what would you suggest?  Does it even matter?





*take a look at movie theaters. Plenty have indiv. accounts for each cineplex. 
**The # of followers isn't everything, I know, but it's not irrelevant.

Google and Waze: Antritrust?

I think I may have an unhealthy attachment to Google's activities.  I write and talk about what they're doing nonstop.  But have you seen what they're doing?

Google is really starting to use its muscle and financial clout to make some things happen.  In the past week, the tech giant announced it's acquisition of Waze, the Israel-based popular social mapping application for mobile devices.

If you don't know about Waze, it's basically Google Maps, minus Googly stuff, and plus social interaction.  You can share traffic updates and hazards with other "Wazers," provided you pinky-swear  that you're not doing it as the driver.*

So, Google bought it for 1 billion dollars.

Here's the story on TechCrunch, if you're so inclined. 

Google's social activity is highly scrutinized, as evidenced by the large number of detractors who proclaim monthly that Google+ has officially failed (more on this later, I'm sure).  But I find it an amazing move.  

Waze was the first one to really popularize the social element of traffic. In fact, Waze was becoming a pretty dangerous competitor as the mapping/directions provider on smartphones.  Google's like the Coca-Cola of the internet or something, I don't know. 

So, I think that what Google+ was meant to be for search, Google Waze will be for mapping.  What I think they should do is integrate the Waze accounts and Google+ accounts to strengthen both.  Boom.

Of course, this hasn't come without attention.  In fact, the FTC is reviewing allegations of antitrust involving the deal.  Those who have reported the deal to be unlawful purport that Waze is Google Maps' biggest competitor in the mobile space (Apple Maps is not available on Android devices). (See ZDNet Story)

Obviously, both firms want to make money, and there is competition for users, but I don't normally think of antitrust when there's free services involved.  

I don't know a lot about this so feel free to weigh in. My two big questions moving forward:

1. How do you measure competition when there's no record of revenue?

  -The reason Google didn't even have to consult the FTC is because Waze falls under the minimum revenue requirement. Clearly, though, they're big competition when you consider audience.

2. How does antitrust work on a global scale? 

 There are monopoly allegations whenever multinationals merge or make a major acquisition,** and the rules still aren't clear.  How will this play out in online, cloud-based services?!

*clearly, Waze has a legal team on the payroll.
**American Airlines and US Airways, for instance.

When do you outsource social media?

Don't outsource your core competency.

It's a pretty big battle cry for the modern organization, and it makes sense in most traditional areas. My company is currently looking at options for outsourcing our social media presence. As a non-profit, our product is content and relationship management.

The reason we're headed this way with outsourcing is mainly a headcount issue.  I oversee our online presence, and we simply don't have the time or personnel to adequately progress the consistency, quality, and measurement of our social presence.

So my boss and I started looking into ways that the day-to-day, cadence-type things could be maintained, as well as the metrics of it all.  We're very protective of our brand and voice, so partnership with a vendor would mean extensive tests and trials before anything actually happened.

I think it's the right move, mainly because it's where our audience is and I can't capitalize on our potential on my own.  The real questions are:

1. How much control can/should I give up?

-In some ways, I like having control because it is ultimately my responsibility. However, if I'm micromanaging the process, then it's not really benefitting me.

1.  How much should this cost? 

-two stages: triage (getting everything up to speed) and ongoing maintenance.  Depending on who I talk to, it's anywhere from a couple hundred bucks to $20,000/month.  My company knows it's valuable enough to have it as a part of my job responsibility, but now the real ROI measurement kicks in.

What do you think? Because social media deals with your company's voice and overall brand, is it a risk to entrust it to a third party?  Or is it riskier when it's just one of my priorities?

Google on the defensive

Google is huge. For SEO, it not only makes the rules, it is the game.  I also think that Google has been trying to play a bit of a PR game. So is Apple, actually, but that's for another post after the Worldwide Developers Conference.

Google has its own social media arm, of course, with Google+, and it has recently souped up its web and app offerings on mobile devices. This hasn't been without incident, though.

First, let me just say that I love Google+, both on the iPhone and on my laptop. The interface is fresh and beautiful, the services are fantastic, like Instant Upload:



I know that G+ is not meant to be a direct competitor with Facebook, but just for kicks and giggles, check out the side-by-side comparisons of the two on my phone.

You may prefer Facebook's familiar look, but I like the attention to design the Google has shown, particularly in getting rid of cumbersome nav bars that take up valuable screen real estate. It's intuitive. 

Now, where was I?

Two things have come up negatively for Google recently, and one is particularly relevant to understanding a mobile audience. First, the government is getting outed for a lot of invasion of privacy deals lately, what with the IRS and Verizon (which is still getting a lot of focus), and the NSA's "Prism" (thoughts on it from The New Yorker).  This matters, certainly.  But not today, to me. I'm all about this next one.

I'm not very superstitious, or even all that suspicious.  I'm curious to a fault, and I love to tinker. I think that if I pay attention, then I'll be fine.  

Oh, but I sure am suspicious with apps, though I didn't know it.  Google released a new version of its basic search app and integrated "Google Now" into it.  The goal is to treat your data like "cards," for sports, directions, weather and the like.  But there's one problem with Google Now:

This is the enemy of battery life for iOS, especially when it's purple. And then I found out that I'm a paranoid freak with my apps. It was incredibly frustrating, because I basically had to disable the Google app, as I thought it was draining the battery.  And I wasn't the only one.  A couple of weeks after the update went live (I'm guessing usage tanked as more people noticed), Google released another update, with "bug fixes" and this caveat:

And, they've included it prominently in the app to try to let users know that all is well.

So Google has realized that we're a fickle bunch, and it better not threaten our data usage or battery life, or we will almost immediately stop using it.  I downloaded four other apps to replace its functionality that day.

So what lesson did I learn?  Well, new features and utility is important, but there is a cost-benefit analysis that every user unknowingly goes through when deciding whether or not to use your ______ (website, app, product, service, etc.) The trade-offs are endless, but here's a sample of some costs and benefits:

There are literally thousands of apps that give directions, reviews, to-do lists, calendars, or any combination of them all. But in the mobile environment, I want someone to put my app on the home screen and use it to take notes, schedule meetings, or reflect on his day.

The only way I can do that is to pay attention to the small things and not only know what I'm offering, but what it really costs my user to buy in. Not every app will please every user.  Some don't care about data usage. Some obsess over battery life. But users are speaking.  And it looks like Google is listening. 

Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy

Amazing video.  I saw this in a classroom for entrepreneurship, but this video is even more powerful to me when I think about it in my own faith and life.

What does it mean to start a movement? What does it require to start a movement?

Watch the video, and share your favorite line or part in the comments. I'd love to hear what spoke to you.

The end of Snapchat as we know it?

A number of websites have sprung up recently, revealing the scary truth for lots of high schoolers: people can screengrab your Snapchat pic, dumbo.
Snapchat, for those unfamiliar,* is a picture messaging app where users can send photos to each other that disappear after a few seconds.  Obviously, people are sending....intimate....selfies all the time to their bfs, gfs, bffs, and lots of other fs, I'm sure.

CNN actually ran a story recently, on "The Perils of Snapchat":


My favorite part comes from Samuel Burke:

"And let's be honest here, Hala, a lot of people are using these to send private photos." 

Or, translated:

"And let's be honest here, Hala, I'm using these to send private photos."

This opens a ton of legal issues, particularly where minors are concerned, but I want to focus on three semi-businessy ideas here:

1. My kids will give me their phone every week with NOTHING deleted. I get to see everything.** 

2. Snapchat's "special sauce" is officially obliterated. I'll be interested to see if the company continues forward, ignoring the controversy, or if they see the need to evolve. Let's be honest, Snapchat knows why so many people download the app. I'm not sure why it's a surprise to users that screenshots are a possibility, but now even the illusion of privacy has eroded.

3. Is Snapchat, or other gimmicky things like it, a way that businesses can interact with fans and followers?  What if there were an app or a site that used short, time-sensitive photos to offer deals, give secret passwords, or do treasure hunts. Instead of offers expiring, clues expired.  What would that do, to make customers excited to shop for your stuff?  What would that feel like for consumers? Oh I don't know, maybe....

What's the next creative way to interact with others in the mobile world?  Snapchat introduced the time-sensitive nature to this.  I could easily see a video version of this app, too.  Or what if you could send an audio clip that "will self-destruct in..." or something.  

I might be in love with this idea, now that I'm writing about it. It's an extra way to differentiate yourself.  Instead of merely repeating your product in multiple spaces, what if you enhanced it differently depending on the platform of choice for consumers?


*or with actual lives.
**how is this related to business? well, I MEAN BUSINESS.