CopyDiva

Image via CrunchBase

Last week’s survey and “award” of the Top 50 Tweeples to follow of 2008 strikes me as ridiculous. Other than being another opportunity for egos to promote themselves (similar to the “vote for my SXSW session” of a few months ago), why is there any inherent value in following these people? If I don’t care about Web 2.0 technologies, why do I care to follow people who tweet about that? Why is the twitterverse getting so full of itself?

Don’t get me wrong. I like Twitter, I use Twitter, I teach others about Twitter — heck, I write about Twitter. I think its fun and useful.

This is just some kind of weird popularity contest, along the lines of People Magazine, some kind of microcosm Hot-or-Not for the inside twitter crowd. Ick.

After presenting two workshops this month on Social Media 101 to marketers, it occurs to me that the rules of engagement for business people might need some definition. This discussion reminds me of when forums and message boards first became popular (oh remember the days of boulder.general or StarTrek.PrimeDirective.CaptainKirkSexLife). Initial discussions on these boards were fun and informative, but after awhile, the spam level from multilevel marketers were enough to make me run from these groups. On top of that, the vitriol that surfaced could be really off-putting.

Already, with Twitter entering the mainstream consciousness, thanks to CNN and the New York Times, I am experiencing spam on Twitter — that’s a first. Fortunately, Twitter makes it pretty simple to deal with spammers, but again, I think there’s more to it than that. Are there basic rules of engagement for business users that we ought to follow? I think so, but I know that some Tweeters will disagree. Why? Because they feel like what they say is so damn important and compelling, that the rules don’t apply to them.
For example, there are people I call the shameless self-promoters. You know who you are. There are some in the “social media guru/expert” space, always promoting just their own stuff (blog posts, conferences, etc. In my mind, this highly transparent self-promotion is nothing but spam. Remember people, this is supposed to be a conversation. It’s not all about you. What that means is, you talk, then I talk.

In Twitter-ville, I personally translate that idea this way: sure, promote your own stuff, but give back too — retweet someone else’s great blog post, tell me about someone else’s photos, podcasts, blog post, conferences, or other words of wisdom. Surely, you aren’t getting all your ideas just from your own genius brain?

But, again, as I write this, I think of a few that I follow where shameless self-promotion might makes sense. Like a business that’s tweeting updates about a sale, or a theme to those customers who want it — an example locally is for one of the few independent video/DVD stores around, The Video Station.

The Video Station promotes, through Twitter, themed movie watching - last week, they posted a link to a top list of Paul Newman movies as a tribute. If you are a regular renter from this store, you will know that they have theme weeks often, and so they are using this as an extension of that theme.

So what’s the difference between The Video Station and a shameless self-promoter?

The difference is that I don’t get 8-10 tweets a day from The Video Station, so I don’t mind it at all. I get one a week. A bad example of I stopped following Whole Foods for exactly that reason — I wasn’t interested in getting multiple tweets a day promoting the store.

Based on my experience using Twitter for business and promotion purposes, here are my rules of engagement on Twitter for business people:

1. Promote your blog posts — but not every one: Sure, go ahead and use it to promote a blog post to those who follow you. But remember that you aren’t the only person who has something compelling to offer. Have you read something today that you liked? Hated? Tweet that. Or, tweet a post from one of your cohorts.
2. Use Twitter to get instant feedback: Interested in what others have to say about what you think? Who agrees? Who has another point of view? Tweet your blog post to get comments from others. I’ve asked for specific Tweeters to comment, people I know that care about the same issue. It’s a great way to start a discussion about something. Again, not for every post. Use sparingly.
3. Use Twitter to inspire discussion: @jasonfalls asked the twitterverse to get in touch regarding small business social media case studies, because he’s interested in writing about them. Others will retweet his request, and I am certain he’ll get some good responses.
4. Airport acronym tweets are boring: Glad to know you are busy, but really I don’t want to know your travel schedule is. EXCEPT. If you are trying to arrange a tweetup or meeting with folks locally, by all means, use Twitter as a good way to possibly connect. EXCEPT. If you are going on a vacation and want to make me jealous.
5. How many posts per day? No right answer here, but this goes back to my first recommendation. If you are using Twitter to only promote yourself and your ideas, I suggest you limit those.
6. Be nice: This probably ought to be the #1 rule. If you want Twitter love, then give it out. If you’re confronted by a mean tweeter, block them (thanks @leahjones for refreshing my memory on how to do that). Remember that the lines between personal and professional twitter usage are very blurry, so forgive people’s excitement about the Red Sox, or the Broncos or World Cup soccer, or the election (as long as they are nice and not mean).

What do you think? What rules of engagement do you follow with Twitter? I want to know. Hey, I know, I will tweet this post and maybe get some feedback…

The other day my friend Barry called me. This is a very talented and smart guy in the events production business — he’s the guy you want to call to create fantastic corporate events — sales meetings, large trade shows, etc. He had questions about social media, because he still wasn’t getting how social computing tools might be important to him. To quote him as directly as possible: “Why do I want to Twitter? It just seems like a distraction.” Indeed, it can certainly be that. But, when put in the right context, even Barry understands how he can use social media and social computing tools (more on that after this upcoming related thought).

One of the biggest issues I have right now with all the PR and marketing folks who are talking about how to use social media for business and communications is that the advice and ideas are so general, it’s really difficult for your average business owner or corporate marketer to get a handle on how the advice applies to them. For example, this from last week’s NYTimes, or even this from Chris Brogan’s blog, which both discuss Twitter. These are very general strategies that may or may not be appropriate or helpful to the vast majority of people in business.

The key to remember about all things social media, particularly as they apply to marketing and PR, is this: they are tools. Not all tools are going to work for every company. Social media tools — communities, blogs, forums, update platforms like Twitter and Friendfeed — are also for selective use. If you get out of the “I must jump on board now with social media!” bandwagon, then you will give yourself the opportunity to explore HOW these tools could help you in business.

For Barry, I suggested he could find certain tools helpful for organizing around events, such as setting up a Friendfeed group around a particular conference to generate discussion for those attending or presenting. Or, setting up a short-term Twitter account to broadcast announcements to those who are attending, update room changes and speaker changes, etc during the conference as a better and quicker method of online updating than email.

Putting the tools in context helped him relate to these tools from the mindset of his business — not just from a business promotion perspective, but more importantly, how social computing could enhance the service he provides to his customers. 

Recently, David Alston of Radian6 posted a picture, using Twitpic, of a current magazine ad for FruitLoops that freaked him out. I got the idea that he wants his kids to have healthy eating habits.

He was incredulous - is FruitLoops really trying to pass off their cereal as a good snack — a good breakfast? It tells moms that they can “feel good giving their kids a nutritious snack that won’t come back in their lunch box.” Here’s the offending ad (sideways, unfortunately, can’t figure out why it doesn’t orient properly):

A nutritious snack? FruitLoops? Last I checked, something that had a first ingredient of sugar was considered junk food. But, lets just check the nutrition label from a box of FruitLoops:

Yup, just as I suspected. High sugar, no fiber, a micron of protein - which certainly means energy, but a short burst, instead of a real satisfying snack that would keep you going.
Have advertisers really come that far from these ads, circa the 1950’s and 1960’s?

Doesn’t seem so to me. Here’s an ad from the 1950’s I’ve lovingly titled “7Up Baby.” Though its hard to read (but is easily found online), the gist of the ad is that 7Up is so natural, that its ok for even a baby to drink it. So go ahead, give that 7 month old a good chug-a-lug of 7Up and build up that lifelong craving and desire for white sugar.
How about this one, which came out as a response to artificial sweeteners being added to make low-calorie soda:

Seems like if you’re a good mom, you’ll give your teen (girl) sugar so that she will have the energy to get through her day — and its low calorie, at just 18 calories a teaspoon. ‘Cuz you wouldn’t want Mary to get fat.

My point is, advertising to moms hasn’t changed much. Now, instead of appealing to wholesome American-dream type values, its positioned around the convenient packaging of a ready-to-eat plastic bag of sugary-ness, so that you can spend one less minute making your kids lunch — since we’re all too busy to spend 5 minutes making a healthy lunch. That’s right, kids, a sugary snack is a nutritious snack.

Seeing these ads - and as many on TV that make moms/wives look like stupid dolts who get supreme life satisfaction out of: getting their husbands to eat oats, or a clean toilet bowl, or a really good dustrag - makes me downright depressed about how wives and mothers are still portrayed in media and advertising.

I guess my point is I am not surprised at the FruitLoops ad. Apparently, the market research shows that parents think cereal is a healthy snack (though this and other stories tend to refute that), so, as an extrapolation, FruitLoops must be too. But really, how many parents really believe that? And, have advertisers, who’ve been criticized for targeting children with ads for unhealthy food, really done much to change?

Oh, and don’t think I have it in for just FruitLoops and Kellogg’s. Plenty of the high-end brands sold as “natural and healthy” have as much or more sugar in their cereals, too. Organic sugar isn’t any better than plain old sugar, when it comes to sugar cereal. It’s just more expensive.

Yesterday, I coined a new term that I hope will make it into Webster’s . As is the case whenever you’ve got a technology, new terms come into play.

Twitterspam doesn’t quite cover what I mean, so, my new term is:

Micro-verbose: (adjective): 1. Tweeting repeatedly over a short period of time. 2. Tweeting sentence after sentence to complete a thought that’s much better suited for a blog post, Facebook note, or other social updating service that has no character limit; 3. Tweeting play-by-plays of sports matches, particularly soccer and hockey matches, to the sheer annoyance of the people who follow you.