September, 2009 | The MarketFarm

Playing the Twitter shellgame

I’m not giving up on Twitter. Yet. There are still a handful of people whose Tweets are interesting and useful to me.

But it’s a stupid game.

It has nothing to do with how much you have to say or how often you say it. It has everything to do with how many people you follow. I recently attended a webcast on how to build a social network on Twitter. The basic advice: follow a lot of people and they’ll follow you back. And if they don’t follow you back, unfollow them.

The rest of the session was inside ball: what rules Twitter uses to prevent such inanity and how to get around them (wait 24 hours before unfollowing anyone); how to identify non-followers quickly using Twitter’s minimalist interface (if you don’t have a direct-message option next to their name, they aren’t following you); and which tools you can use (Hummingbird, $197.00) to automatically follow people and then unfollow them if they fail to reciprocate.

By using this advice (not the software; just the advice) I tripled the number of people following me (from about 100 people after 4 months of thoughtful tweeting to 300 people after another day and just one tweet). Time spent in the effort: 15 minutes.

The etiquette at Twitter is simple: Someone follows you, you follow them back. And vice versa.

How this does anyone any good is beyond me; it assures that you have an audience of people who don’t give a wit about anything you have to say. And vice versa.

To prove the point, I just got a follow from someone whose list of followers and followees at this moment is in the range of 34,000. She has 14 tweets since May (4 months).

Fourteen? Really? That’s 1,960 characters, which isn’t even a respectable dependent clause to William Faulkner. That’s like 17 followers per word. If Jesus had a ratio like that, would Islam even exist?

When in history have so many people lined up to listen to so many people with so little to say?

Trouble with democracy: It doesn’t pay well

If there’s anything I write about or comment on that is sure to draw a hot and negative response, it’s the insistence that journalists start to get in tune with their true market value. It’s not that I don’t see a huge social value to the work they do. I credit journalists with keeping our democracy alive. But they’ve never been paid by democracy; they get paid by a business model.

My point is twofold:

Journalists have always been part of someone else’s business model. But it’s generally only in times like this, when the business models are under fire, that journalists are compelled to recognize it.
While traditional media models are under siege, journalists themselves are becoming part of the solution — developing new models and new approaches to paying the true cost for news. (For example, check out Spot.us and MedCityNews.)

Today’s e-mail brought an item from one of my favorite blogs, Seth Godin’s Blog. He usually has something insightful to say about the way the world works. But this is the first time I’ve ever seen his blog address the media world directly.

His message (you should read it yourself; it’s short) is simply this: Journalists can be measured for the interest their stories generate — as evidenced by a Washington Post columnist who was let go because his blog posts didn’t generate enough traffic. In every other industry, people’s performance is measured against specific objectives.

It’s happening now with journalists — bringing them into intimate business contact for whatever business model employs them.

Coming face to face with reality can be a painful experience, but in the working world there is really nothing more important.

In a world of SEO, does content matter?

Well, yes. If you have bad content then it doesn’t matter how many people come to see it. Consider this visual from Mark Smiciklas.

Wait, it’s worse than that. If you have bad content, then the more people who see it, the worse off you are. Because now you’re simply broadcasting the fact that you suck.

I would argue you’re better off with great content that only a few people see — because at least those few people will have good things to say about you.

About 10 years ago, I was involved in a magazine that was all about business-to-business commerce. Our readers were intently trying to build e-commerce platforms that would increase the velocity of their business; our advertisers were trying to sell them 7-figure solutions to do so. But the discipline was in its frontier days, and much of what they were doing was first-generation inadequate.

The problem wasn’t that the e-commerce systems failed. It’s that everything else was built for a slower world. Warehouses weren’t organized well enough to handle the high-speed demands of e-commerce. Inventory wasn’t well-enough planned to keep fast-moving items in stock. Shipping contracts didn’t include the kind of pick-up and delivery guarantees that e-commerce requires.

Companies could take the orders with lightning speed, but then the old, slow processes took over.

Which resulted in what became known (at least in my own head) as Rosenbaum’s Law: Enabling e-commerce at a company with bad processes merely makes those bad processes apparent at a much higher speed to a much larger number of people.

The point: Make sure you have something intelligent and/or compelling to say.

Then communicate it.

Then — and only then — promote the heck out of it.

Even low-cost social media campaigns need to be measured

There is an entire industry of consultants that didn’t exist three years ago, telling people how to collect thousands of followers on Twitter; how to gain friends and fans on Facebook; and how to leverage large networks on LinkedIn. These consultants are writing books, conducting web-seminars and selling services.

The thing that gets too little attention is what all this is worth? Sure, you can grab a small nation’s worth of Twitter followers, but will it make you any money if they aren’t paying attention to your Tweets?

So it was refreshing to stumble across a new series or articles in Computerworld on How to measure the ROI of social media.

It would be nice if there were a few key metrics and some nice neat formulas you could follow, but social media is evolving too quickly and the measurements aren’t that simple.

In the end, if you want to know whether your time with social media is well spent, you need to do the following:

Set a meaningful goal. Is the purpose of your social media outreach simply to gain followers? Then you’ll have an easy time measuring, and a hard time proving that the effort was worthwhile. Instead, set a more specific goal, like this: To generate sales of $XXX (or X number of sales transactions) from members of our social media network.

That way, you’ll not only have a pass/fail measurement, you’ll learn something important along the way: i.e., how many new connections it takes to achieve a sale.

Assign specific tasks. If more than one person is going to be involved in the social media effort, make sure that each person knows his or her specific role. For instance, one person might conduct the outbound communications while another works to convert inbound communications into leads, and still another works to close sales.

This way, the entire job will get done — not just the fun part of blogging and tweeting. Further, when things don’t go perfectly (they won’t), you’ll have a team of experts who can figure out what adjustments to make.

Track everything. Time is money. So while social media programs are astonishingly inexpensive in terms of hard cost, you’ll want to know how much of each day your team members are spending on social media vs. their other responsibilities.

If you do these three things, then measuring gets easy. If you have goals, an organized work effort and good data, determining whether your resources are well-spent will be easy. Just like the example of Reality Digital, also from Computerworld.

Wal-Mart redesign cuts magazine aisle in half

Last week I wrote about Wal-Mart’s next-generation store design (Magazines: kick ’em when they’re down), which moves the magazine rack to the back of the store near music, electronic games, DVD’s and books.

Wal-Mart’s pretty good at figuring out how to maximize the sales of every square foot of space, so while the move is a symbolic kick in the pants to an industry that is suffering from all sorts of afflictions — not the least of which is a big drop in newsstand sales — it was hard to know if the move would really have an impact on the media business.

Well, apparently it does. According to AudienceDevelopment.com, the new store layout will also reduce the length of the magazine rack by 20 feet — approximately 50 percent. That means something on the order of half the magazines you can buy at Wal-Mart today will be unavailable there after each store is remodeled.

Wal-Mart isn’t saying which magazines will get the boot, and according to AudienceDevelopment.com, that decision hasn’t yet been addressed. But, consistent with all of its in-store activities, Wal-Mart officials (not a talkative bunch in the first place) are blunt in saying they’ll keep only the magazines that sell the fastest. Because that’s what Wal-Mart is all about.

It’s good for earnings and it’s good for the publishers that make the cut. But shoppers looking for titles with slightly narrower focus will simply have to go elsewhere.

Because that’s the downside of Wal-Mart and the Big Boxification of retail: Only the most mainstream items in any category – from lumber to breakfast cereal to music to magazines – get shelf space. Wal-Mart is bad for variety.

And in this case, it’s bad for the magazine business. The likely in-store survivors — usual suspects like Cosmo, Maxim, Better Homes & Garden and, (going out on a limb) Guns & Ammo — may see an increase in sales due to the new location, improved merchandising and reduced category competition. But I can’t imagine that the bump will be enough to offset the 20 feet of shelf-space that’s being given to some other retail category.

Face the fact: At the world’s largest store, magazines have just been put within site of the back door.

So the QB will give the snap-count just a little bit slower.

The following item is reprinted in its entirety from The Plain Dealer, Tuesday, Sept. 15:

3 current players to donate brains for study of injuries

Three NFL players announced Monday they will donate their brains and spinal cord tissues to a Boston University medical school program that studies sports brain injuries.

Even though dozens of former NFL players have agreed to donate their brains after death, center Matt Birk of the Baltimore Ravens, linebacker Lofa Tatupu of the Seattle Seahawks and receiver Sean Morey of the Arizona Cardinals are the first active players to do so.

Newspapers getting closer to a paid-content consensus

In his blog, Reflections of a Newsosaur, Alan Mutter — a Silicon Valley CEO and a former newspaper reporter, columnist and executive — says nearly half of newspaper publishers don’t believe they can succeed at charging consumers for content.

I think Mutter sounds like a smart guy, and his blog is great; just having stumbled across it I’ve put it on my blogroll. However, what he sees as the glass half-empty looks to me like it’s half-full. I’m pleased and impressed that just over half of newspaper publishers think they can charge for content.

As Seth Godin, another of my blogroll favorites, says: Success is mostly about your attitude. Which means the newspaper business is half-way home to figuring out how and why people are going to pay for their content. I’m not saying it’s an easy task, or that the tradeoff in revenue — advertising and classified for reader payments — is a neat-and-clean one-to-one swap. (It really doesn’t have to be; online content doesn’t come with huge printing and distribution costst, but that’s a digression). Like I said, I’m pleased to hear that half of the U.S. newspaper industry is giving itself a fighting chance at success.

As for the rest of Mutter’s blog, he’s smarter than I am, so you should just take a look at his more detailed analysis, and at the report that directed me to his blog in the first place.

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/45119/half-of-newspaper-publishers-believe-online-pay-walls-will-work/?utm_source=mbp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=newsletter

Not-for-profit news is no panacea

In the effort to save newspapers, one idea that’s been passed around is that of the newspaper as a not-for-profit institution. The argument is that its role is so central to the public good that it can be protected as a non-taxed, not-for-profit entity.

While the argument may be compelling, I don’t think you can call it mainstream. Well-known newspaper analyst Lauren Rich Fine says for-profit newspapers haven’t done all they can to adapt to new market realities. I agree; Newspapers in the United States have been for-profit ventures for their entire existence, and just because their business model is being challenged today doesn’t mean their industry is obsolete.

But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with a news organization that does figure out how to succeed as a non-profit.

An increasing number of non-profit news organizations exist, such as MinnPost and the hyperlocal, hypermodest Heights Observer, for which I’m an active volunteer — and which is part of a growing list of other loosely affiliated Observer projects in and around Greater Cleveland. (Not all of them are not-for-profit; they have in common technology platform — Ninth Estate Software — and a singular evangelist, Jim O’Bryan, founder of the for-profit Lakewood Observer).

A not-for-profit trial balloon has been floated (and seems to be losting altitude) for the troubled Boston Globe.

Now, one of the existing not-for-profits is going the other way; Geoff Dougherty, editor of the 4-year-old Chi-Town Daily News (Chicago) writes in his blog that the non-profit experiment is over. He says the online citizen journalism news organization needs $1-2 million a year in donations to fulfill its mission. With grants running out and grant-sources ready to move on to other projects, Dougherty indicates private donations peaked at only $300,000 — and even that amount is doubtful this year.

“We are talking with local nonprofits that have expressed an interest in acquiring the [Chi-Town Daily News] website and neighborhood reporting program,” Dougherty writes.

“Ultimately,” he continued, “we believe we will be able to fulfill the same mission we set out to accomplish with the Daily News, though with a new name, a new company, and a different business structure.”

Where were you on 9/11?

I don’t necessarily make a conscious effort to note the anniversary of the moment the 9/11 nightmare began. But every year, within a couple minutes of 8:52 a.m., I seem to look at my watch and then I remember.

I was in a hotel in the Rosemont area near Chicago O’Hare aiport. I was beginning a sales trip and was ironing my shirt while watching the Today Show.

I remember the first sketchy report that a plane hit one of the World Trade Center towers. Within minutes, NBC News hunted down a woman on the street who had witnessed the event; Katie Couric interviewed her by phone.

I remember Katie insisting that it was some kind of small plane with propellers, right? The woman was adamant. She said, to the best my memory serves: I think it was a jet.

Katie pushed, obviously hoping for the least-worst-case scenario: Yes, but like a small corporate jet, right?

The woman replied to the effect of: It seemed pretty big to me. Like the kind of jet you get on at the airport when you’re going somewhere.

In my mind’s eye, while this interview was going on, the visual was a live shot of the burning tower. But I could be wrong.

And then it was 8:03 (central time) and the second plane hit and it was immediately obvious that whatever had happened was no accident.

My insides did a flip-flop. I tried to call my wife, but she had taken the kids to school and wasn’t around. I called my mother and suggested she turn on the TV.

I had to go down to the lobby to wait for the salesman I was working with; we were scheduled to make our first call by phone from my room. He arrived; he had heard the news but apparently didn’t think much of it yet.

The phone-call meeting was short. I don’t remember a bit of it. Before moving to the car for a trip to our first in-person appointment, I suggested to the salesman that we call to see if they were still interested in meeting.

“Nonsense,” the salesman said. “They’re waiting for us.”

I went along. Passive. Happy to be told what to do. But as we listened to radio reports in the car, more information was becoming available. We called the first appointment from the car; the company had sent everyone home. We stopped at a gas station as the salesman called all of our appointments in an effort to salvage the day.

“Jim,” I told him. “The trip is over. Take me back to the hotel.”

“Nonsense,” he said. “You flew all the way here; we’re going to get some work done.”
“Nobody wants to see us,” I said. By this time, the Pentagon had been hit and Flight 93 had crashed in a field. But I don’t remember if we’d heard about it yet. “The radio just said downtown Chicago is being evacuated. I’m not going up in any skyscrapers today. I don’t feel like selling. Just take me back to the hotel.”

“I think you’re being a little dramatic, Bob,” he sad.

The salesman wasn’t insensitive, though he was making me crazy. It was just his way of dealing with it. I was in the acceptance stage and ready to move on to mourning. Jim was simply still in denial, perhaps his higher thinking processes being hijacked by the immediate tension of having his boss in town and nobody to call on.

I eventually succeeded in getting dropped off at the hotel. Jim didn’t want me to be alone, but I told him to go home and be with his family. It was a relief when he left me. I called the office to send my staff home; I needn’t have — the corporate staff had already shut the office. I spent the day in my room, sitting at the end of my bed, still dressed for sales calls, staring at the TV. I talked with my wife somewhere in there and let her know I didn’t know how or when I’d be home.

At about 4 p.m. I went to the hotel bar and got very very drunk on the expense account, enjoying the simple companionship of strangers like me; stranded away from home, refusing to feel alone.

Magazines: Kick ’em when they’re down

A report at the end of August indicated that newsstand sales of magazines were down more than 12% in the first six months of 2009 compared to 2008.

I can only guess why that might be:

A sudden lack of spending money by the nearly 10 percent of people who are now unemployed;
A general feeling that, with so much news about magazines shutting down and facing financial ruin, they aren’t the attractive impulse buy they once were;
Have you seen the cover prices on magazines these days? With ad revenues down, many top-tier magazines now cost $7 or $8 at the newsstand.
I don’t have the foggiest idea what percentage of magazines are purchased at airports. It’s probably not that significant. But if air travel was down in the first half (it was) I suppose fewer people were buying magazines at airports.

With all that said, I’m not reading any more into this than it being one more bad metric for publishers in a year filled with bad metrics. I’m sure newsstand sales will rebound when the time is right.

But in the spirit of kicking them when they’re down, Wal-Mart has just announced that it’s implementing a new floor-plan that will put magazines in the back of the store, alongside music, video games and electronics.

At a level, it makes sense; consumer electronics aren’t near the back of the store because they don’t sell well. That department is usually one of the most crowded; it’s where all the wish-list shoppers loiter while the serious shoppers are boring us to tears in the throw-pillows and laundry-detergent aisles.

Further, the current newsstand location at Wal-Mart, wherever it is, can’t possibly be a great position, sandwiched in there somewhere between diet remedies and pet toys.

And finally, say what you will about the people who run Wal-Mart; they aren’t stupid when it comes to maximizing sales-per-square-foot. If they’ve done their research and they think magazines are going to sell better in the vicinity of music CDs and other entertainment goods, I can’t argue.

But I can say that, symbolically, for magazine publishers, it feels like just one more kick in the front of the pants.