Cafe Witness

Thursday, July 23, 2009

I'm Bored With Your Brand

I'm bored with everything about your brand. I'm bored with your logo, I'm bored with your public outreach, and I'm bored with the endless obsession over what your brand means to others.

In fact, if I never hear another word about your brand again, I'll sleep better at night. (And I say this as someone who works in marketing.)

Stop worrying about your brand -- and, more importantly, stop making me (and everyone else you don't really know) worry about your brand.

Just do something.

Do something amazing, innovative, world-changing. Start small but aim big. Or not; small is hard, too. Just get it right. Or try to get it right, relentlessly.

The more amazing, innovative or world-changing your actions, the more likely other people will start talking about you. And they won't be talking about your brand because you want them to; they'll be talking about your brand because they want to.

Except they won't be talking about your brand, really. They'll be talking about your actions. And actions are a lot bigger than a brand.

Image by Tambako the Jaguar.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 20, 2009

5 Ways to Increase Your Blog Traffic: Chris Brogan vs. The Watchmen

One of these men has had sex in an owlshipAs I've mentioned before, I notice whenever Lijit reports a spike in my blog traffic. Normally, that spike is caused by someone with a wide online reach (like Chris Brogan) mentioning something I've written, which then drives that person's audience to me (for that day, at least).

But this week I learned a huge lesson: Chris Brogan is no Rorschach.

When Chris (and the rest of the standard social media Twitterverse) mentions something I've written, I may see a peak of 700 views on that particular post.

When I wrote my review of the Watchmen film last week ("10 Things People Don't Seem to Get About the Watchmen"), I had no idea what would happen next:



Somehow, that Watchmen review really touched an online nerve.

Admittedly, Chris Brogan's original retweet of my post (which referred to it as the "best Watchmen review. Ever.") had something to do with it first finding an audience. But that 17,000+ traffic spike is 25 times the normal "Brogan Effect" on one of my posts. This means my Watchmen post reached some kind of escape velocity and broke out of our social media fishbowl (where most of my and Chris's audience tends to live), and crossed over to an equally-passionate (and, presumably, much larger) niche: traditional comic book fans. (It also had legs: look at the numbers 5 days later, vs. the 8 readers from the previous Sunday.)

My attempts to figure out exactly where all this additional traffic came from have been patchy at best, but I suspect Reddit had something to do with it. It also appears to have been retweeted at least 50 times (with another 15 thanks to Copyblogger), and then it may have continued on being retweeted under other names / descriptions.

All of which leads me to...

5 Thoughts on Increasing Your Blog Traffic

1. Write Something That Appeals to the Hubs. I could write amazing blog posts all day, but if none of them were interesting to the folks that OTHER people listen to (like Chris Brogan or Copyblogger), no one would ever see them. I could spend months building an audience that's comparable in size to Brogan's, but that's also time I could spend making interesting media, which is what provides the hubs with interesting things to talk about. (It's a cycle, people; find your spoke.)

2. The Title Is the Hook. If someone likes what you wrote, they'll want to tell other people. In this age of Twitter, they need to be able to explain WHY your article is interesting in about 100 characters (not counting the characters they'll use for the link, plus any "retweet" attributions, etc.). What better shorthand than an interesting (or provocative) post title that does their work for them?

3. The Summary May Also Be the Hook. Sometimes a title doesn't sum it all up. In that case, provide a one-sentence summary of your article or a series of mini-theses within the post itself that readers can cut-and-paste as their "aha" quote to explain the post's relevance. (Things move quickly on the web; making the promotion of your work as easy as possible is imperative to getting it seen.)

4. Don't Confuse Your Traffic with Your Niche. I make a living doing social media, so that's where the bulk of my audience comes from. As a result, the majority of my blog posts are aimed squarely at the audience I expect to be serving. But that's also a closed loop; if all I ever wrote about was blogging, social networking and Twitter, I'd never attract an audience with other interests, and my total possible audience would have a limited cap.

On the other hand, I doubt most of the 17,000+ readers who saw my Watchmen post are interested in social media, which means 95% of them probably have no reason to return to my blog; they were simply passing visitors who were here for one specific post. (In fact, my subscribers have actually gone down since the Watchmen piece ran.) So as great as it is to see a massive bump in numbers, don't kid yourself into believing that the people who find you are necessarily interested in everything you have to say. (And don't get depressed when your subsequent posts fail to reach those eye-popping numbers.)

5. Pay Attention to What's Working (and What Isn't). Personally, I think every blog post I write is great. But not every post resonates with my audience. Some of my best articles (in my opinion) languish with nary a comment, while others (that I wouldn't necessarily expect to catch on) somehow find a life of their own.

Studying the habits of my readers helps me understand what topics most often generate comments AND which posts (or titles, or summaries) most often get redistributed. It also helps me understand when I might be wasting my time. For example, I have a tendency to share my convoluted theories on why and how certain aspects of social media work, but my audience doesn't seem to care. So no matter how interested *I* may be in my ideas, it's evident that my audience isn't (yet), which means I'm much better served by writing articles they ARE interested in (based upon past indicators), with the presumption that my aggregate audience will eventually grow to include new readers who WILL care about what the old readers didn't.

Oh, and a bonus tip:

Don't Feel Compelled to Write Something Every Day. Some people believe that daily content is the only way to maintain an audience. Wrong. People aren't reading you because you're around, they're reading you because you're good. Sure, it's great to be both, but when forced to decide, most thinking mammals prefer to read quality over quantity. And the better you are, the more your audience will forgive your infrequency between bolts of spine-tingling relevance.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

How Long Is Your Internet Celebrity Shelf Life?


Remember last year's video for Weezer's "Pork and Beans"? It was filled with all the YouTube stars of the moment.

How many of them are still recognizable today?

Internet fame is fleeting. People become disproportionately famous for (usually) doing something novel or unusual, once. And then they attempt to turn that one-time novelty into a brand. And then they try to get paid for it.

Some Schticks Last Longer than Others

Gary Vee has been successful both promotionally and financially with his Wine Library TV webcast, a gig that's grown beyond the confines of the internet and gotten him invited on The Conan O'Brien Show. Gary's content is primarily information-based, which means it's built to last over time instead of flaming out when he can't think of a better punchline.

In order for Gary to start losing traction, he'd need to be outperformed by a competitor who offers:

* more compelling information
* higher-quality content
* better ease of access, or
* a more widely-embraceable personality

And even if that were to happen, Gary still has one more ace in the hole: he was first. Some fans won't ever migrate away from the pioneer, even if the competition is stronger, because legacy occasionally trumps legitimacy.

How to Avoid Rickrolling Yourself

If you're planning on becoming "internet famous," make sure you're extraordinarily:

* informative (particularly within a scalable niche)
* entertaining (at least to a dedicated audience)
* engaging (because nothing replaces authenticity)
* original (and unlikely to be duplicated)
* available (everywhere), or
* first

Unless you're one of those things, odds are, you'll never become the kind of celebrity whose exploits titillate the rabid throngs. Instead, you might be relegated to the island of one-hit web wonders, where the real estate is cheap and the skyscrapers stretch forever upward...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Social Media + Job Hunting (1 of 3): Defending Your Online Reputation


Yesterday, I spoke at The Art Institute of Pittsburgh (my alma mater) about the ups and downs of managing your online reputation in this era of Internet job searches.

Also speaking with me was Norm Huelsman (Assistant Director of PR at AIP), who discussed the importance of converting online networking into offline relationships, and why you need to own your work (and your brand).



Tony Corasaniti (VP/Director of Career Services at AIP) spoke third in the lineup -- I'll get his video up soon.

(Note: there are very few visuals in these presentations, so you may be better served by listening to them.)

If you'd like me to speak about social media at your event, you can contact me on LinkedIn or Twitter.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

All Politicians Are Marketers

Politics.

All politicians lie. Some lie more than others, but none of them tell the truth all the time.

Neither do marketers.

The difference is, the rhetoric of politicians is designed to motivate the people who already agree with them, while the rhetoric of marketers is designed to create awareness of a product in the minds of people who may not be consciously aware that the product even exists.

Thus, the content of the words is largely useless, but the way those words are delivered says a lot about what the speaker thinks of us, and what we think of ourselves. So if we can momentarily agree to ignore the content of political speeches (and marketing campaigns) themselves, what we're left with is our emotional response to the rhetoric.

Are we inspired and energized by the words we hear, or do they talk down to us and insult our sensibilities? Do we want to be uplifted, or would we prefer to be reassured that someone else knows best?

Politicians and marketers are each betting that their words can make you do something you wouldn't do otherwise -- cast a vote, buy a product, take an action. You almost never need to do what they're asking you to do, but their words make you think that you should. The trick is to figure out whether you want to do what they're asking of you, or whether you feel you ought to.

The most successful marketers are the ones who can sell us back to ourselves.

Image by r. e. wolf.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Why Twitter Scares People

Some people claim to fear Twitter (and social media in general) because of its seeming captivity at the hands of the inane. They worry that our culture is being hijacked by the mouth-breathers and the endlessly self-fascinated, and they refuse to give in to the urge to tumble into their own navels.

Fair enough.

But an equally large portion of the populace are petrified of Twitter for its disarming ability to cut through the BS and the way it encourages its users to remove their veils. Its 140 character limit is challenging, not just because it enforces brevity, but because it robs many of us of the flowery contexts we've come to rely on in blogs, or podcasts, or other social networking tools.

On Twitter, we have to be blunt. We have to be relevant. But most of all, we have to be ourselves.

And that's when people panic.

Not everyone, obviously, or the site wouldn't be growing at the rate it is. But, now that it's entering its 3rd or 4th iteration of acceptance, and ebbing further and further into the mainstream, it brings with it a host of new users who believe these highly-targeted opt-in services are their ticket to insta-marketing dominance.

Boy, Are They Wrong.

Whenever someone "follows" me on Twitter, I check their profile to see if it's someone I'd like to follow back. I read their most recent page of posts. If those posts are all links to their blog (or someone else's), I ignore them.

Why? Because Twitter leaves the power of the conversation in my hands -- and why would I want to voluntarily be talked at by a company while I'm otherwise engaged in useful conversation?

Likewise, the people who mistake Twitter for an invitation to repost their RSS feed, or to make PR-tinged statements designed to lure people to their own website, are missing the point. Instead of proving their merit through legitimate dialogue and adding value to the ongoing discussion, they believe disrupting that very discussion with a personal announcement -- essentially, an ad amidst the content -- will somehow be well-received by the participants.

How ludicrous.

Ask yourself this: who's more likely to get your business as a wedding photographer -- the person who takes great photos, is courteous and witty when approached, and engages you in conversation near the open bar, or the person who usurps the microphone during the best man's toast to remind the guests that she offers discounts on bulk prints?

Like social media in general, Twitter is all about personality. If you don't have one, don't bother.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 01, 2007

The Negative Drain Goes to #1

Interesting.

Two days ago, I wrote a post about The Negative Drain -- the "woe-is-me" attitude that derails the productivity of both the complainer and the listener.

Today, less than 48 hours later, that blog post is the #1 Google return for the phrase "negative drain". That's #1 out of 11,000+ citations in quotes, or 2,400,000+ without. Either way, I topped a Google search, with almost zero effort.

Granted, this obviously isn't a term a lot of people are using, but I find it astounding that I could capture the top spot of ANY Google search in such a short period of time -- especially when the term actually seems to be somewhat popular in engineering circles.

So... what do I do with it now? (If you answered, "register the URL," I'm one step ahead of you...)

Meanwhile, somewhere, a guy who makes a living at SEO is losing sleep....

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Pittsburgh: Redefining "Overnight Success"

Bacn, circa early 1900s... Via Apelad

On Saturday, the term bacn was coined at PodCamp Pittsburgh 2.

By today, Thursday, the term is already the 14th most-popular term on Technorati.

It has appeared on Wired, CNet and the Washington Post websites, among others.

It's even been parodied in the buzzword-spawned (and "classic") Laugh Out Loud Cats comic (above).

Today, bacn-related interviews have already been given to the Chicago Tribune and NPR, with more (undoubtedly) to come.

All 5 days after the term was first used.

Sound familiar?

Two weeks ago, Pittsburgh vlogger iJustine created a video about her 300-page iPhone bill. That video resonated with tech-savvy surfers and, within days, iJustine was on the homepage of Yahoo, not to mention interviews on CNN, NPR, Fox News...

Some of you might be asking yourselves: what are the odds that Pittsburgh would be struck by back-to-back social media lightning bolts? As a 10-year PGH resident, I'd be inclined to agree.

However...

Earlier this month, it was revealed that Pittsburgh is the third "bloggiest" city in the country -- behind only Boston and Philadelphia -- which accounts for some of the city's ability to generate a meme wave.

Hmm...

For a city that perpetually seems to have an identity crisis, we sure are getting something right these days...

Ironic side note: Did anyone else notice that Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Boston, the three "bloggiest" cities, are also having a PodCamp in each of the next 3 months?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 03, 2007

Newsvine Loves Irony

The front page story on Newsvine just now was about a self-described pedophile, Jack McClellan, who says he finds young girls attractive but does not molest them. McClellan has been issued a temporary restraining order, insisting he stay 30 feet away from everyone under the age of 18 in the state of California.

Meanwhile, the ad on the Newsvine article page was the graphic to your left: the nubile, pseudo-pubescent Snorg tees girl.

Either Newsvine loves irony, or I think we just got a snapshot of some larger sociological problems in this country...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Who's Your Tour Guide?

For the past year, every time I've mentioned PodCamp Pittsburgh, someone's said, "Oh, yeah. I wish I'd heard about that BEFORE it happened -- I'd have loved to be there."

This year, as I'm inviting people / companies to take part, I'm well aware that the exact same thing is going to happen as last year:

1. People think, "why would I want to attend a social media conference in Pittsburgh?" (This step applies to people IN Pittsburgh, too.)

2. About 200-250 people will attend PCPGH2 over the course of two days.

3. The people who attend PCPGH2 will have a great time.

4. Those people will tell their friends.

5. Every time I mention PodCamp Pittsburgh 2, people will say, "Man, I WISH I'd heard about that beforehand..."

6. I will continue to wonder where people in this city (or anywhere else) get their information from.

The More Maps, The Better

When I was in London, I had three different maps / guidebooks. Each of them offered a different "take" on the city, as well as being practical in different ways (i.e., a pocket map vs. a fully illustrated guidebook vs. a "thrifty traveler" paperback guide). I could have enjoyed myself even with only one of the three, but having them all gave me a wider view of my options.

In Pittsburgh, the recurring argument is that no one ever knows when anything COOL is happening. We have a free City Paper, several event-based websites, bulletin boards in trendy cafes and general word-of-mouth... and yet, when I attend arts or social events, I routinely see the same people at each one.

Either there's only about 200 active people in this city, or we're all getting the same information within our walled gardens.

If someone DOESN'T hear about PodCamp Pittsburgh before Aug 18-19, I'm left to wonder -- where ARE they getting their information?

Why We Should All Be Tour Guides

How often have you really wanted to see a movie, attend a gallery show or check out a new restaurant... but you're afraid to mention it because you suspect your friends won't be interested?

By not mentioning your interest, you're preventing your friends from possibly enjoying something they might never have considered on their own.

Conversely, if I publicly promote an event I'm attending, it has a chance of being heard about by hundreds of people far beyond my immediate reach. That information ripples... but it only ripples if we make that information available.

What are YOU doing this weekend?

Do your friends know?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Advertisers Keep Coming SO CLOSE...

... and yet they still haven't found a way to please me.

Or you.

Robert Scoble's post about Nexidia is right: hypercontextual ads in tandem with video content are a great step in the right direction... if you're already looking for THAT information.

For example, If I'm watching a clip about drywall, odds are, I'd love to see an ad for a Home Depot sale. That's the logic that powers TV ad sales, and that's the logic that can now be applied to the web world.

But what about LOST? How many ads for island getaways, Swiss army knives or travel insurance do you see served up by ABC?

So, by comparison, what about Ask a Ninja? Or Dutch West? Or STBD?

What I Want

Is there ever a time in your life when you don't need information about something?

Right now, off the top of your head, you can probably think of 5 things you need a hand with. Maybe you're planning a summer vacation. Maybe you need to buy an anniversary gift. Maybe your old college roommate just asked if you could somehow smuggle a case of Pennsylvania beer to his Houston wedding.

We, as humans, are forever searching for MORE information.

So, if I must watch an ad in order to see a video for free, can't I tell the ad server what I'm actually interested in learning about?

It's not good enough for Google to track my click habits and tell me what my profile is, because all that tells me is who I've BEEN; it doesn't tell me who I AM, who I'm GOING to be or -- most importantly -- who I WANT to be.

Google, please stop thinking you're smarter than me. Instead, all you have to do is ask me: "What do YOU want to learn about today?"

If I could actually obtain useful information THAT I REQUESTED every time I stopped to watch an episode of Tiki Bar TV -- and, hey, it might be about tax preparation, not alcohol or minidresses -- would I not be even more inclined to sit through commercials?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

(Secret?) Identities

Christopher Penn has a pair of very valid blog posts about how the Web 2.0 is quickly becoming the Matrix 2.0, and on the value of protecting your brand name assets on Twitter.

This got me thinking about a number of related topics.

Self-Defense Real Estate

- Do you own the URL of your name (i.e. "YOU dot com")? If you don't, who does?
- Do you own all available comparison URLs of your name ("YOU dot net, YOU dot tv, etc.)?

If you don't, or if you believe you're "not important enough" to need to, let me ask you this: what happens when you ARE "important enough" to become a household name, even in a very small circle?

Chances are, you'll BECOME popular because other people are talking about you... and other people may realize the value of your name before you do.

The savvy people are out there right now, buying up every URL associated with their own names, "just in case."

The savvier people are out there buying up every URL associated with OTHER PEOPLE'S names...

HappyBaptism.com

- Do you own the URLs for your children's names?

Let's presume that the web, as we know it, is here to stay, and that URLs will still be a valid way around the information superhighway in another 20-30 years.

How many of us have children who -- like ourselves -- may someday grow up to "be someone"?

Imagine how grateful you'd be, as a kid, knowing that your online identity was safely registered by your parents before you could even clutch a mouse. It certainly beats the alternative: knowing that you'll someday need to buy that URL back from some black market identities dealer who's currently using it as an affiliate site.

All Websites Are Actually Real Estate Agencies

- Is your profile registered on MySpace? Facebook? Digg? Twitter? Technorati?...

I recently joined Virb, a new social networking site... or, rather, STBD did.

I initially saw Virb as a new networking / marketing tool -- a cleaner version of MySpace -- so I registered a profile for Something to Be Desired. As I'm writing this post, I realize I haven't yet signed up as myself yet... so I just did.

I could (and should) do the same for every other social networking site on the planet... and every other web app that could be used for marketing, communication and brand imaging. So should you.

EVERY WEBSITE is a potential link into your world -- or your brand / product / business -- for someone else.

Think I'm joking? Google me. What do you see?

As of today, the top search results are:

- Something to Be Desired (the web sitcom I produce)
- The STBD blog
- This blog
- My Technorati tag
- My Blogger profile (including my AIM handle)
- A Jeff Pulver blog post referencing me
- Bryan Person's audio interview with me from PodCamp Boston
- STBD's Network2 show page
- A Chris Brogan interview with me from April of last year
- My MyFeedz tag

Observations?

- The easiest way for people to find me is through my work.
- Blogger and Network2 are ways to find me that I have AT LEAST SOME CONTROL OVER.
- Technorati and MyFeedz tags are ways to find me that I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.
- Pulver, Person and Brogan's blog posts are also inbound links to my life that I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.

Two other interesting notes:

- The Brogan interview was several pages down on my personal Google search results in April of last year. (Yes, I ego-surf.) Since then, Brogan and I have each seen our profiles rise, to the point that this same once-buried interview is now hot stuff.

- My MyFeedz tag actually produces no results. I've never even heard of MyFeedz until just now. But evidently other people have, and whatever is said about me there will have a much better chance of being heard by others than what I might say myself on, say, the PodCamp Pittsburgh Feedback page, which doesn't appear until the fourth page of Google search results.

What Does This Mean?

- You'll never have 100% control of how you're viewed by other people -- especially online.
- You DO have SOME control over how you're viewed -- and you should take those opportunities to stake your claim (and "defend your brand").
- You never know when your profile on an arbitrary website, a comment you've left on a blog or something you say in an interview will be stumbled upon by someone else, and THAT WILL BE SOMEONE'S FIRST IMPRESSION OF YOU.

Each of us needs to decide exactly how much of a "public persona" we're interested in cultivating online, and how much of a "private persona" we're willing to live without.

Think Michael Jackson had it bad walking down the street in the '80s without being recognized? That's nothing compared to what Britney Spears contends with from Perez Hilton on a daily basis -- or what you face thanks to Google, MySpace, WordPress, Twitter...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 26, 2007

Get to the Point

How many blogs do you read every day?

I read about 12 blogs on a daily basis. (None of them via RSS.)

If a blog I regularly read hasn't been updated in a day -- unless it's the weekend -- I'm irritated. I miss that daily dose of wisdom or humor.

Conversely, if one of those blogs has been updated 5 times since I last checked in (BuzzMachine and Seth Godin are notorious for that), I'm also irritated.

Why?

Because now I have to catch up!

And now I can't spend 100% of my time on that blog processing their key issue of the day.

Length Matters

Some blog posts are meant to be digested over a period of time. They cover a lot of ground to make their point, and abbreviating them wouldn't do the concept justice.

Other posts are short by necessity. Here's a link. Here's a news item. Here's a three sentence observation.

I wouldn't want to be robbed of lengthy posts because they're fulfilling (when well-written). I also wouldn't want to be burdened with nonstop encyclicals because life -- and my day -- is short and I need my time for action.

So what's the appropriate updating procedure?

- One long post per day?
- One short post per day?
- A mix of long and short posts as required?

What do you, as a reader -- or a blogger -- prefer?

Labels: , , ,