- Feb 09
- 3
Obama Is Truly the Internet President
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Online Video, Social Media
In my American History class back in high school I remember hearing that “Kennedy was the television President,” and I remember watching footage of the first televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. To a classroom filled with teenagers of the so-called MTV Generation, it was painfully clear which candidate was at ease with the new medium and which one was not. In fact, Kennedy was more than just at ease with the medium, he embraced it, he made it work for him.
I have absolutely no doubt that my children (hypothetical in this case…I don’t have kids yet) will learn that Barrack Obama was “the internet President.” Like Kennedy was with television, Obama is with the web. The internet is the defining communications medium of our time, and the skill with which President Obama has embraced it absolutely dwarfs that of any other politician I am aware of.
I have developed a fascination with our new Commander-in-Chief’s use of the digital realm. Last week, I wrote about the White House website rollover, and since then I have been closely following new White House presences online. One of my favorite finds is the White House YouTube channel, where the masses can have instance access to President Obama’s weekly video address, and a slew of other content like Vice President Biden’s new video. For anyone who’s interested, the TubeMogul blog has some cool demographic stats on the White House channel.
Evidently the Obama Administration isn’t stopping its video distribution strategy with just YouTube. Social Media Playground pointed out that the White House also has a channel on Vimeo. Now the White House just needs to get a Twitter account and they’ll be running on all Web 2.0 cylinders. (Note: the twitter account @thewhitehouse is not official.)
I suppose the real question here is what all this social media will amount to. We already know that the Obama Campaign all but revolutionized use of the internet for campaign fund raising, but it is far too early to know whether the Obama Administration can that tech savvy to revolutionize governing. It seems to me that in a democracy “of the people, by the people, and for the people” any system whereby there is a more immediate connection between the electorate and elected officials is a positive thing. Will President Obama’s White House 2.0 be that conduit of the democratic promise? In this question each and every one of us has a say. We, as citizens, must choose to use these new information channels for them to amount to anything. If President Obama is leading the charge towards a more connected democracy, success will only be reached if we follow.
No Comments- Aug 08
- 13
Social Networking is Not Just for Teenagers Anymore
- Posted by Patrick Everett Tadeo
- Published in Social Media, Social Media Marketing, Social Networks
A few years ago, the idea of gathering online to meet people who shared your passions seemed weird, because, for one thing the conception was you’d only find other geeks online. But these days, more and more people from different demographics are going online through social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook – sites where people create their own profiles, add other users to their list of friends, and share photos. But lately, online social networking has taken another step and has been moving offline into the “real world,” with people using these sites in new ways to recruit businesses, employees and in some cases philanthropic donations.
In a very short time, social networking has been redefined beyond its initial scope of just being a way to keep in touch with family and friends. For one thing, legitimate news organizations are now keeping an eye on online social networks as they’ve become an alternative source for news. Some social networks are even consistently “outscooping” traditional media outlets when it comes to the latest news. The viral success of social networks speaks to the fact that social networking has become mainstream and that it’s no longer the domain of the geeks and the teenagers. It’s Ironic really, since a few years ago social networking was considered just another online fad.
One quick look at the recent social networking map and you’ll find sites that target different demographics, from sites like LinkedIn that focuses more on business networking to sites like Eons for the Baby Boomers. Recently we’ve seen the rise of small, niche-driven social networking sites that cater to such topics as pet ownership and cake baking. As for the bigger social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, there are interest groups that you can join to talk about your common interests. It’s interesting that, after building up to monstrous sizes, social networks are scaling down and focusing. Due to this fact, there is really something out there for everyone.
What’s really remarkable, however, is that these online social network connections are now moving offline, with people meeting their online ‘friends’ in the “real world.” With the prevalence of Tweetups (for Twitter-based friends) and sites like Meetup.com, we’re in the midst of watching the online world prove that it is an effective way to mobilize people who share interests to gather offline.
Let’s take me, for instance. I’m a big Star Wars fan, so when the prequel trilogy rolled in, I was interested to meet individuals who shared the same kind of passion that I have for Star Wars. To make a long story short, what started out as a small Yahoo! Group of Filipino Star Wars fans that I helped begin turned into the Philippines’ biggest, internationally-recognized, George Lucas-approved Star Wars fan group. We see from my example that online-based groups can and have gained real world clout (and yes, we do wear costumes to many real world events). With local, user-generated groups gaining international clout and credibility, it’s really not surprising to find companies now using what was once a “kid’s tool” as their new medium to spread the word about their products and/or services, or even to recruit more people into their fold.
The benefit isn’t only to the companies themselves, but also the employees of the companies. Due to social networks like LinkedIn, today’s business executives can now network online, and even use LinkedIn to check the background of their new contacts. In a way, LinkedIn, and its European counterpart, Xing, is becoming the business card of the internet.
Artists (particularly musicians) have also benefited significantly through the use of social networking since they now have a medium to let their work be heard, and hopefully, attract the attention of record executives. As a matter of fact, some music industry insiders are even calling this shift of focus “industry changing.” Gone are the days of playing in clubs, hoping to be seen by record executives, or shopping around for a record deal by giving away demo tapes. After all, why go through all that hassle when you can just create a profile on a social networking site like MySpace, upload some of your songs, promote your MySpace page at events, and let people stream your music from it? It’s faster and definitely more cost-effective for up-and-coming but still-penniless artists.
The biggest surprise to me is that non-profit groups have turned to social networking to raise awareness, and funds for their causes. If philanthropy gathers people behind different causes, then social networking is really the logical next step in the advancement of those causes. That way, it becomes a definite win-win situation for not only the non-profit organization and the donor, but of course, the beneficiaries.
Even with these examples of social networks affecting people in real ways, many critics of social network marketing base their argument on the ephemeral qualities of social networks and the fact that these social sites don’t “do anything”. Might this be an example of the old guard protecting its turf from the new wave? Those same critics will soon need new arguments.
Patrick Everett Tadeo is PandemicBlog’s eyes and ears in the Philippines and Asia. This is Patrick’s first post at PandemicBlog, subscribe to our feed to hear more from him.
- Aug 08
- 7
Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing, Continued…
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Social Media, Social Media Marketing
Introduction
On August 5th I wrote a post about the confusion surrounding the traditional meaning of the term “social marketing” and the varying ways that it is currently being used in many circles. The idea for the post came from Mike Kujawski’s post entitled, “The Difference Between Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing,” so here again I give him a proverbial shout out. (NOTE: for any who want to read a fantastic post on the traditional meaning of social marketing, check this out.)
The reactions to my post were astounding, not because of their number, but because of their quality. I feel honored to be a part of this discussion, and even though it appears that I have angered some people, I think the discussion is something that should be taking place.
There were many great points made in the comments, and I have spent a good bit of time on the blogs/sites of those who commented. So that you all don’t have to go back and filter through the comments, I will list some of those sites here:
- Craig Lefebvre – http://socialmarketing.blogs.com/
- Bill Smith – http://www.aed.org/
- Mike Kujawski – http://www.mikekujawski.ca/
- Jim Grizzell – http://www.healthedpartners.org/ceu/sm/
- Jim Mintz – http://www.publicsectormarketing.ca/
- John Davies – http://www.johndavies.com
I have decided to write this post as a follow-up because it really is just too long to be a comment on the last post. There were many great points made in the discussion of the previous post. and also I think my initial post could use some further clarification. I would like to clarify my point here, and continue the discussion with all involved.
My point in the last post was that the term “social marketing” is starting to be used by some to refer to marketing that uses social methods like social media, events, street teams, and even 24/7 customer assistance to achieve its goals. Meant only as examples, certainly not proof, the following two sites appear in the top 11 results for “social marketing” on Google:
- Social Marketing Journal
- Social Marketing by Michelle MacPhearson
Of course Google search results are not proof of taxonomic change, I merely point to these sites as examples that “social marketing” has (rightly or wrongly) started to be used to mean something other than what it has in the past.
The problem here is that the term “social marketing” already refers to something else…and it has been around for quite some time. As Craig Lefebvre notes in his comment:
When one of the most respected academic marketers-Phillip Kotler-decided that we needed to think about applying marketing concepts to social problems in the early 1970s, he coined the term [social marketing] to describe a BIG idea. Thirty years later social marketing is being used around the world to address major health and social issues.”
Before moving on, let me be crystal clear about one thing. I understand that the term “social marketing” has been in use for nearly four decades and I also understand and support the work that has been done in the field since that time. I am in no way indicting or minimizing the field of work which “social marketing” traditionally refers to. It is well established both academically and professionally, and I myself, have worked on social marketing efforts with non-profits in Boston. For any who thought I was saying that field of “marketing for social good” does not exist, I apologize. That is certainly not what I meant.
Clarification
Now we come to the areas of confusion where I either did not adequately make my point or my point was misunderstood. Let’s look at some of the comments:
Bill Smith:
Listen social marketing is a exactly what it used to be. I’m sorry we got there 40 years before you did – actually I’m not really all that sorry – but there’s books, a peer reviewed journal, an Institute and yes a Wikipedia definition. There are also thousands of caring men and women in countries all over the world who know that social marketing means using the technology of marketing to make a positive difference in the world. They are marketing condoms to prevent HIV in Africa, helping kids wash their hands to avoid diarrhea, promoting breastfeeding, fighting against the environmental footprint of bottled water and helping families in America deal with early on-set diabetes. They don’t deserve to be treated as though they never existed because you think social marketing “isn’t what it used to be”. And they sure don’t care about your linguistic games.“
Jim Mintz:
I have taught social marketing in the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia/New Zealand and through out Europe since the mid eighties. It is an established field of marketing study. Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field. Now that is chutzpa .. Oh yes after close to 40 years we in the field of social marketing should change our name. Fat chance that will happen.”
First, I would make clear that if people begin using the term “social marketing” to refer to marketing using social methods, it would certainly not “treat [thousands of caring men and women] as though they never existed” as Bill describes. The crucial work he describes in his comment would have the exact same benefit regardless of how people referred to it. Furthermore, I did not say that “social marketing isn’t what it used to be.” I was very careful to be clear that I was talking about the term, not the field of work. I said, “I’m not so sure social marketing means what it used to.” I fear that there is confusion entering this discussion because I am talking about nomenclature and labels while others are talking about the fields those labels apply to. If one renames a folder on their computer, they do not change, diminish, or otherwise affect the files contained in that folder. I reiterate that this is a taxonomy issue.
On that note, I want to discuss Jim’s statement that, “Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field.” That makes it sound like there is a person or group of people that are making the conscious choice to hijack a term. However, language change is an organic process, often with little or no active input. Sure there are people who make the mistake — they say “social” when they really mean “social media” — but there are also people for whom “social marketing” means something different. They are not making a mistake, nor did they actively and purposefully sit down and decide to steal a name from another field.
I have had numerous discussions with other marketers and representatives of companies who use the term “social marketing” as an umbrella term to refer to marketing using social methods, not simply as a shortened stand-in for “social media marketing.” If one uses the term that way in a group of five other people and everyone understands it to mean the same thing, are they all wrong? I cannot correct them and say that they mean “social media marketing” because that is not what they mean. They are speaking of a larger marketing ideology of which “social media marketing” is only a component (albeit a large and popular one). These people use the term (rightly or wrongly) to encompass the branch of their marketing plan that focuses on consumer interaction and conversation, both online and offline. These “social methods” can be anything from blogs and other social media, to sponsored events and street teams.
Lexicons change all the time, and there is always the interesting problem of when a new change stops being wrong and starts being the right use of the new meaning. No one is ever sure where to draw the line. “Fast” is now both an adjective and adverb. But a couple hundred years ago “Fastly” was the adverb form of the word. One would “run fastly” just as they would “walk slowly.” When did the change happen? It’s hard to say. Was it when 51% of the population stared using “fast” as an adverb that it finally became right?
While not perfectly analogous to our current taxonomical discussion, I feel that the “fastly” example presents an interesting way of viewing this discussion. For the purposes of this example, I am using the idea of a “traditional meaning” and a “new meaning.” If, let’s say, 10% of the population uses the term “social marketing” in its new meaning, we could likely all say that they are making a mistake. But what if it takes off and in a year 30% of the population uses the term “social marketing” in its new meaning. Are they all still wrong? What if 80% of the population used “social marketing” in its new meaning? Are they all wrong? Do they all need to be corrected? Or has the meaning of the term changed? Obviously we can’t measure word usage with this sort of accuracy, but lexicographical shift can happen in this way.
Conclusion
Please note that I am not advocating a change in meaning. I am not taking a side, nor am I actively trying to change the meaning of the term. I am commenting on an organic shift that I am observing which may or may not pan out. As M4CHANGE put it, “Ultimately, the marketplace will decide this debate.” I couldn’t agree more. It will sort it self out organically and there is very little we can do to affect the outcome. Perhaps a new term will be coined soon that encompasses the idea of “marketing using social methods.” Perhaps not. Perhaps (for better or worse) the masses will re-adopt the term “social marketing” under their new definition and it will take off like wildfire. Perhaps not.
I would also argue that those who have taken to using the term “social marketing” as an umbrella term for “marketing using social methods” are not thumbing their noses at the field traditionally referred to by that label. There is no malice nor disrespect.
Last but not least, I reiterate that not everyone who uses the term “social marketing” means “social media marketing.” There seems to be a belief that people are talking about one or the other. But, the term has taken on a new meaning (what I keep referring to as the umbrella meaning) and I see it used in many circles.
In conclusion, I say that as a marketer and a man with an interest in linguistics, I watch the current taxonomic and folksonomic environment with great interest. To my knowledge there has has never been a time before where the maelstrom of new terms was so chaotic and moved so fast. I do not have an answer, nor can I even come close to predicting the way it will shake out. I can only watch and opine.
Again, I thank all those who commented on the last post. I invite you all to subscribe to our RSS feed so that you can catch further updates. Perhaps we will even be able to secure a guest post on this topic from one of our commentors.
3 Comments- Apr 08
- 14
A Problem with StumbleUpon?
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Social Media, Social Media Marketing
Last week, Jiannis wrote a great post called “Why You Shouldn’t Stumble Yourself” in which he brought up the seemingly little-known fact that the more you stumble pages within the same URL, the less effective your stumble becomes. The post stirred up a lot of great discussion and got me thinking a lot more about the Stumble algorithm and the important steps that need to be taken when using Stumble for social media marketing purposes.
A major point of the post was there is a mysterious ratio buried deep within the innards of the SU algorithm that compares your total number of stumbles to the number of stumbles you have given to any specific URL. This was brought to my attention by a comment on the post mentioned above. The comment is from Kimota, and I quote him here with many thanks.
I recently saw my stumble traffic plummet and my submissions from my own domain no longer get accepted. SU didn’t even respond to my enquiries as to why this would be. It wasn’t until days of research had gone by that I discovered a buried little paragraph deep down on one of the SU pages that mentioned the ratio of one domain to other stumbles being a factor and that if this ratio is tipped, SU prevents you from submitting any more from that domain and affects your entire traffic. No warning and no possible way of readjusting the ratio to repair the damage.“
The most immediate application of this knowledge is that you have to be very careful when submitting your own content to StumbleUpon. If you submit all of your own stuff over and over again, it is going to get less effective. Kimota knows this first hand.
Of particular–even alarming–interest, though, are the repercussions of “tipping” this magic ratio. To better discuss this question, lets say there are two elements: the Offender (the user) and the URL (the URL that has been submitted too much). Is it simply that StumbeUpon stops counting URL submissions from the Offender, or is the URL blacklisted? In the same comment, Kimota goes on to say, “Even when someone else stumbles me, I’m not getting anywhere near the same figures.”
Could it be that the URL is punished for the sins of one overzealous SU user? Can your frequent self-submission ruin the SU traffic potential of your URL even if you never submit yourself again?
Of course, this is the kind of social media sensationalism that gets rumors started and some of you might think this is tantamount to tabloid journalism. Let me be clear right now, I do not know the answers to the questions. Indeed, when it comes to the mysterious web algorithms out there, we are all making our best guesses based upon research.
The ultimate takeaway here is to be overly careful when it comes to helping your fledgling blog through its baby steps. But I am very interested by the idea that a URL as a whole could be penalized for being submitted by the same users all the time. I can’t imagine that would be the case, because that would actually penalize a blogger for having a rabid fan base. I greatly welcome any input and discussion from those of you who can provide insight (anecdotal or, even better, factual). Have you noticed trends? Take a look at your own stats and share them with the community in the comments. As we get some good stuff together, I will round it all up into a follow up post. Let the learning begin.
38 Comments- Mar 08
- 31
Why You Shouldn’t Stumble Yourself
- Posted by Jiannis Sotiropoulos
- Published in Advice and Tips, Social Media
More than a month ago, we featured a post about the paradox of self-promotion. This paradox describes, that although social media frowns on self-submission…
[...] the sheer numbers of new videos, posts, sites, pictures, and stories appearing each and every day, [means] self-promotion is a necessity for anyone starting out and hoping to gain any sort of foothold.
Debates occasionally emerge, discussing the narcissistic and moral aspects of self-submission. While several social networks do not officially accept self-submitted content, it has been argued that self-submission is not wrong and in fact necessary. I’m not interested here in these aspects of self-submission.
Instead I want to concentrate on the logical reasons to refrain from submitting your own content.
These of course depend on the social network you are participating and submitting content. But if we take StumbleUpon as example, we will see that letting others submit your content is a much better way of promotion.
The Algorithm
First of all, let’s take a look at the algorithm of StumbleUpon. Although this is not verified information, it has been noticed that when the same user repeatedly submits articles from the same blog, the posts will not get promoted. So if you practice self-submission regularly, after a while you will notice that your traffic will not show any pretty peaks. Tim Nash writes:
[...] the number of times the domain is stumbled by a user is a factor therefore the initial stumblers audience score is affected by the number of times they have previously stumbled the domain. If this is done for both the initial stumbler and all stumblers thumbing the page up or down it would explain why mailing lists and friends stumbling the same domain has less and less effect.
Clustering
One of the basic rules of social networks – in fact, of networks in general – is clustering. In simple terms the rule says that most people’s friends are also to some extent friends of each other.
Every time you stumble something, the people that mostly see your stumble are your fans and mutual friends. In most cases, these are the ones who will continue promoting the submission. If you often promote your own work, the articles will be recycled among you and your friends – your strong ties; your content will never go beyond your network, due to the principle of clustering.
On the other hand if you leave your post to take its own course – to be discovered by someone else – it will appear in different circles. Never disregard the strength of weak ties (see Mark Granovetter’s research on weak ties for more information. It’s a *.pdf file).
Being Social
As mentioned by Matt, social networks are about being social.
You never know, next month you might have twice as many subscribers and realize that TheNanny612, Zaibatsu, and DoshDosh all think your stuff is great. You wont know if you don’t stop for a second and take a look.
If you don’t let other people submit your work, you are just giving a monologue. Let social networks become a part of the dialogue and learn from it. If you are interested in improving your site and promoting your content more successfully, stop submitting your stuff and start observing its development:
- See who submits your content. They might be loyal readers, that you didn’t know. Check out their work, make a contact with them. You will notice, that they will return to your blog with a stumble.
- Study which articles are being stumbled. Not every post is appropriate for every social network. Observe which posts get stumbled and which ones get popular. If you have a sharp eye, you will manage to direct the attention of stumblers to every post you write.
Conclusion
I don’t think there is any moral obstacle in self-submissions. If you don’t overdo it and choose wisely which post to submit where, it is a practice necessary to make yourself heard. But it is also a very easy and certain practice; you have daily 200+ pageviews and you call it a day.
You will notice much more satisfactory results when you think beyond this strategy. Refraining from self-submissions is a learning process. You learn more about your readers, about the content they like, and how to draw their attention. You are also facing a challenge, which alone motivates you for further improvement.
Of course, that’s my humble opinion. Do you let your community do the submitting? Are you analyzing the submissions and submitters to improve your work and your network?
23 Comments- Mar 08
- 17
The Issue of Plagiarism in Social Media
- Posted by Brennan White
- Published in Blogging, Social Media
More questions than answers regarding the acceptance of plagiarism in social media.
The other day, I visited my favorite social news site, Mixx, and saw something that sparked a lot of questions in 
my head. It was an article, quite popular on Mixx in the few hours it had existed, that had an interesting title. The truly interesting part of the title was that it was only one word off from the exact title of an entry on this blog less than one month ago. Furthermore, the title structure (exactly the same between the two posts) was very specific. The title-similarity alone got my attention. I was further sucked in when I noticed the writer of the new article on Mixx had read (or at least voted for) the article on our blog when it came out last month and, yet, he had not even mentioned the original post in his new post. No link, no citing, no credit given even to the idea what-so-ever.
Intrigued, I read the post and left a comment expressing my confusion with the forgotten link or possible plagiarism (in addition to providing more standard commentary on the content of the post). Since the title and main thrust of the content was largely similar to the original post on our blog I really wanted desire feedback or at least explanation from the new writer.
While this is a predictable, emotional response (”he’s ripping off my partner’s ideas!”) it is not worth giving real weight to. The actual interesting part of this whole episode is not how I reacted initially, but the question “how I should react in the future?” It seems there may be some changing in the definition of plagiarism as related to social media. The aforementioned unanswered questions that burst into my head are:
- To be honest, I liked the new post. I thought it added value to my morning and was definitely worth a read. Do these facts remove the need of the author to give credit to where credit is due? Is credit due?
- It would seem to me that if I wrote a new book on sales/negotiation and titled it “Getting to an Affirmative”, I’d have some credit to give and a link to include (and possibly some royalties to pay). Is the analogous situation valid? If not, why not? If so, is this same rule not true with social media?
- Occasionally some blogs or social news sites will tackle the same issues, ideas and content at the same time. This is an unavoidable fact of having 60 million blogs in this world. Does that mean “plagiarism” is no longer a problem in social media? Or has the rule merely gotten more lax?
- If the rules have loosened, where do they stand now?
- In the theoretical sense, if our population growth and internet usage continued to increase without bounds, we would eventually reach a point where there were identical (or nearly identical) posts being written by unrelated people concurrently. That wouldn’t be plagiarism as neither writer would have seen the other’s post prior to writing. Are we there already?
In the particular case, the author of the questionable blog post explained the genesis of his post to me in such a way that convinced me that he did not mean to plagiarize in any way. Does his good intent clear his name?
Personally I think the “plagiarism line” is definitely moving and re-hashing people’s content is becoming more acceptable due to increased acceptance in the community. I would guess these pressures come from the ever-increasing number of posts and the rather finite bits of news in any given day. If this is true, the biggest question that every one of us needs to consider is “is this changing definition plagiarism a step forward or a step back?”
I’m not so sure I have an answer to that one yet.
8 CommentsOne of the best sites you can join to connect with other bloggers is Blog Catalog. PandemicBlog has had the good fortune of being able to sit down with Tony Berkman and Oscar Tijerina of Blog Catalog to discuss their past, their new widget and the future of the site itself. This is the second interview in a series of interviews which PandemicBlog will be conducting with movers and shakers in the worlds of social media and marketing.
For those out there who are new to the game, give me the one sentence description of Blog Catalog.
BlogCatalog is the fastest-growing member-driven social community for bloggers.
Isn’t BlogCatalog a lot like MyBlogLog? How are you different? How are you better?
BlogCatalog’s purpose is to help bloggers connect, share ideas, and grow through group and general discussions. It also provides a variety of tools, features, and widgets to help bloggers. So our emphasis is on building a community and helping bloggers rather than an interactive volume-driven blog directory. We also screen blogs to minimize splogs, spammers, and questionable content.
What are your vital stats? How long have you been around? How much have you grown? How many users do you have?
When Angie Alaniz and I acquired it last year, BlogCatalog was a basic blog directory with a heavy emphasis on adult content and splogs. Our team cleaned up the membership and began integrating robust social network features such as a general discussion board, groups, and neighborhood feeds. Since then, we’ve added a number of tools and campaigns that strengthen the community and help bloggers improve their blogs. Right now, BlogCatalog has approximately 100,000 blogs indexed. More than 15,000 are submitted for review every month. Traffic, in the same period, has gone from 30,000 a month to well over 4 million.
We hear you’ve got a shiny new widget. Tell us about it?
Yes, that’s right. We just released a News Feed widget. It is a powerful little tool, that when added to your blog automatically displays what you are doing on social networks.
The widget is a member-driven application. Bloggers were telling us that they wanted to streamline networking, stay up to date with friends across the Web, and share their own social network activities without having to visit eight to twelve networks. So the widget was a logical next step in that it made this information customizable and portable. Portability is the next evolutionary step in social networks. People want to manage when, where, and how they share data. This widget helps do exactly that.
So it’s like social network cross-pollination! What is the biggest benefit of this for the average blogger?
The biggest benefit for most bloggers is that it allows your friends to know what you’ve said on Twitter, what article you’ve submitted to Digg, what site you discovered on StumbleUpon, or what song you’ve listened to on Last.fm where ever you place the widget. This also allows them to connect with you on Twitter, Digg the article you submitted, check out the site you stumbled, or discover that you have some of the same musical interests. It makes sense because people tend to connect online with people who they share interests with.
How many people have begun to use the widget since launch? Is it too early to ask?
It’s too early to say. However, what you might find interesting is that many bloggers have already found that the widget can be used for a number of additional applications. Some bloggers are using it for a recommendation tool, some bloggers are using it to update one blog across multiple blogs, some are using it to increase their opportunity for a viral post and some have set it up in a way that only displays their affiliate marketing links. It’s become their product recommendation engine. It’s surprisingly versatile in ways we never considered; every day, different bloggers are trying to find new uses for it. We originally looked at the widget as a way for bloggers to make their social network activities public on their blogs. No matter how you use it, it adds real value to a blog.
The widget connects with your social dashboard on BlogCatalog, right?
Yes. Except, rather than share information about all your friends, it only shares your activities. Unless, you point to your friends post, link, or StumbleUpon, Digg, etc. submission.
When the widget is placed on a blog will it increase page load times?
Not that we are aware of, at least not in any noticeable amount.
You mention on your website that this widget will help things to go viral. How will it help?
As I mentioned, if you submit an article to Digg, anyone who subscribes to your widget or sees the widget on a blog or site might Digg that article. Even more amazing, if your friend Diggs it and also has the widget, then all his or her friends might also Digg it. That’s a very powerful way to share information.
Isn’t the “viral potential” something that is still very dependent on the number of people following an individual? If I don’t have a large community of friends then just because I Digg something doesn’t mean that it will now go viral.
There are never any guarantees that something will go viral. However, the size of your friend network or number of blog readers is not part of that equation. We know several bloggers that have very few friends and readers by comparison to top ranked bloggers. Yet, these bloggers are read by top ranked bloggers. So sometimes it’s not about the quantity of people you know, but the quality of people you know.
Other than the potential for more efficient viral spread, do you think the widget has potential for marketers to reach consumers in new ways? Have you thought about that at all?
I suppose there are applications, but we really didn’t develop the widget for marketing purposes. We developed it to help bloggers.
What’s next for BlogCatalog in general? In terms of widgets?
What would you like to see next? … Maybe we’ll do that!
Is there anything that could make you leave/abandon BlogCatalog? (a tough one, we know)
There was a time last year when I was speaking with several potential investors, including venture capitalists, about the possibility of making BlogCatalog the next bright and shiny new object. But I decided to pass because it seemed to me that every proposal would require us to move away from our core values. Maybe one day BlogCatalog will be the darling of the Internet, but right now I like the idea of being a diamond in the rough. It gives us the opportunity to stay focused on helping bloggers and working to enhance their experience as opposed to always thinking about ourselves. It’s more fun our way, don’t you think?
_____________________________________________________
We’d like to thank the entire BlogCatalog team for agreeing to this interview and sharing their insight, history and vision. It will be very exciting to see how this new feed widget affects social media as a whole and to watch Blog Catalog grow in the coming year.
Keep an eye out for future interviews from the social media world.
6 Comments