Pink Slime. This foul concoction has all the ingredients, food groups, if you will, for a media and attentional firestorm; it has a catchy name, a manufacturing process that makes ""like watching sausage being made" sound wholesome, is an apparent threat to our children, and illustrates bureaucratic indifference or stupidity.
We have a small school and it does not serve hot lunches, so there is less of a concern in my town - but it does seem scary, the stuff that schools consider good menu items for growing minds and bodies.
Reading these news reports made me think about the types of things that some marketers try to pass off as nourishing content for unsuspecting customers and prospects.
We know the type when we see it:
White papers that are thinly veiled sell sheets
Case studies that flog features using cryptic jargon, and are less about benefits, in language that is easy for customers to understand
Press releases that are jargon-laden and all about chest beating
OK, it is maybe a too cute and convenient analogy but I could not resist it, and urge marketers to take the time to ensure quality materials, that are educational, have real information value, are easy-to-read and understand, and are not just marketing slime.
Google recently announced that they will be adding semantic search capabilities. The SpinSucks blog wrote about this, and what the changes mean for B2B marketers. Here is an excerpt:
Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported Google will be changing its search engine (“The changes to search are among the biggest in the company’s history…”) to include semantic search. Semantic search will help the search engine to better understand meanings of words to provide more relevant search results. Not long after that article, CNET published a story about how Google plans to penalize “over-optimized” sites to make it fair for sites that produce high quality content which may not be optimized for search.
I shared the post with Tony Grass of E-Market Intelligence and asked him for his thoughts. Tony is an expert in this area. His firm is a consultancy that generates leads and sales by identifying the best prospect groups for each client, projecting ROI, and pulling them in by what they want. He said:
Do not try to optimize for traffic where you cannot deliver targeted value. Be about what you are about. Provide decisive value to the prospect traffic you most want, and can best sell to.
When choosing the keywords to optimize with, remember “It’s not what you want to sell, it’s what they want to buy.” Your website is for your customers, not you, and the keywords are the voices of your customers telling you what they want.
All search optimization is competitive. For example, an industrial manufacturer is not competing with Victoria’s Secret, or even Home Depot. You only have to be optimized better than your competition, and once you’ve decided on your keywords the top websites listed when you search with those keywords are your competition
Don’t use gimmicky shortcuts. If they work, they get eliminated by the next algorithm change. Invest in ‘white hat’ methods and you will have a quality investment that keeps its top positions and gets stronger every year. The above 4 points outlines your strategy. Use a full service SEO expert (includes writing) with good business thinking – it’s a game won by experts.
There's been a number of topics related to content curation this week, and I thought I'd write this post that summarizes them and looks at the bigger picture.
My monthly column on Neal Schaffer's Windmill Networking blog explained what content curation is, and how it can be used to lead social conversations and boost marketing efforts. Curation does this by opening the floodgates of great content, making it easier to keep your social media channels brimming with timely and relevant info.
One thing that I did not mention in my post is that there are some concerns and misunderstanding about content curation.
Much of the concern centers around the fact that it necessarily involves the use of third party content to achieve your goals. There are potential legal and copyright issues, and some just think it is wrong to do this regardless of the legalities.
This type of concern was thrust into the limelight recenlty when some pointed out that there are copyright issues related to how people use Pinterest, whiich is essentially a curation platform.. These stories have started to take some of the air out of all the buzz that the service has been getting.
While Pinterest is all about images, much of the controversy over curation relates to news articles. E.g. the cleverly titled post Aggregator's Dilemma on Poynter starts off by asking:
When you aggregate content, what obligation do you have to the original source — and to readers?
It goes on to explore the question in detail, and shares best practices and answers from a range of editors of websites that employ aggregation.
So where is the line between promoting the good work of others and simply lifting it? Naughty aggregation is analogous to pornography: You know it when you see it.
Some might conclude that curation is the last bastion of the unoriginal and lazy social media striver. As the referenced articles above point out, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about curation; the lines may not always be clear when good curation crosses over and becomes poaching. But standards and best practices are now emerging.
Further, effective curation is a skill; there's no question it can boost your content output, but doing this in a way that is effective requires time, effort, and knowledge (see Curation ain't No Cure for the Lazy Blogger Blues).
Note: It may seem like I strayed from the original topic in discussing issues related to journalism and aggregation, rather than curation and social media. The topic led me to wonder about the difference between the two: aggregation vs. curation, that is, as they seem to be almost interchangeable. I did a search and found out that there is a difference. Here is the best explanation I could find, via Idealog.
A little friendly Twitter banter, a shared link, and an article in the NY Times reminded me of the words "there's no such thing as bad PR" - and how much I disagree with them.
It started when I saw a tweet from Tom Bebbington, a likable PR guy who often shares some good finds on Twitter:
His Tweet said
@TomBebbington An interesting take on Rush Limbaugh’s current troubles (will annoy if you lean left): Don’t Kill the Crisis, Milk It!: http://bit.ly/yFNt9A
Blogger Skip Mahaffey, whoever he is, writes very well, but seems misguided. Acknowledging that what Rush said was wrong, and noting Rush's apology, Skip goes on to say:
Didn’t satisfy your personal sense of outrage, did it? If you were hoping that this will be what finally puts an end to Rush Limbaugh, I have some very disappointing news for you: It ain’t happening. (Isn’t this the same guy who skated through a drug scandal? Was his rehab covered by his insurance? “Irony, table for one.”)
Let me hip you to something: The outrage, the ongoing conversation, the endless media focus, is nothing but Manna to Rush. In truth, he doesn’t want it to end, sort of. Rush has gone from cash cow to milkman. Keep talking about me, milk those babies dry! A great radio man I worked for many years ago always said: Publicity is publicity. Good or bad, just make sure they spell your name right
Regarding the departing advertisers, Skip says:
But in truth, for Rush everything IS fine. Don’t worry Ditto-heads, Rush is still collecting his paycheck and will continue to until he decides it’s time to hang up the headphones. Rush Buddy, I’m right there with you. Apologies and damage control are a pain in the ass and seemingly do nothing but appease people that you don’t want to (but must) deal with in order to keep the peace and more importantly, KEEP THE MONEY COMING.
If you tilt to the left (or are a right-leaning but reasonable person), and just read the above, your blood is probably boiling (as mine was when I first read this).
But I put this aside - in the interests of continuing a civil debate with a Twitter friendlie - and defending my assertion that there is in fact such a thing as bad PR, I responded to Tom, and he replied.
Here is the exchange:
@rgeller Yes annoys RT @tombebbington: Interesting take on Limbaugh troubles (will annoy if lean left) Don’t Kill Crisis Milk It vsb.li/ePeePs
@rgeller There is such a thing as bad PR IMO RT @tombebbington: An interesting take on Rush Limbaugh’s current troubles... vsb.li/H9C3pM
@TomBebbington @rgeller For most of us, yes. But when your image is based on calculated outrage, something like this is a win.
@rgeller D TomBebbington Could see ur point but when advertisers leave & he's increasingly marginalized even by right, is that a win? Getting radioactive, fine by me
One thing I won't dispute is the fact that this episode will not likely end Rush's radio career (as Skip so eloquently put it in his statement above). But it is a long stretch from "Rush isn't going anywhere" to "this PR is great for him."
Despite the fact that Rush apparently thrives on caluclated outrage, there is such as thing as going over the edge into isolated, extremist nut job territory, and I think that is right where Rush has landed.
...the boycott has been a headache for the advertisers and the local radio stations that have received complaints from Mr. Limbaugh’s critics. There have been “logistical difficulties” in moving ads away from Mr. Limbaugh’s program, Lewis Dickey, the chief executive of Cumulus Media, said Monday in a conference call with investors. Last week, some local listeners even noticed silence — “dead air,” in industry parlance — instead of ads
You know you have jumped the image shark when you are the subject of an SNL skit - and last Saturday they led off with one that parodied Rush (see above).
Call me crazy but I do think there is such a thing as bad PR. In tennis, there was a term and book of the same name by the famous coach Brad Gilbert called Winning Ugly. He says "it is always better to win ugly than lose pretty." No question, Rush's words were ugly, and I do not think he is winning in this case.
I have been active for a number of years on social media.
This blog has been in existence since 2007. I am not a young guy anymore, and let's face it, just don't have the energy that I once had. It is not easy to crank out posts, day after day and week after week.
These days, after writing, it sometimes takes me more time to recover and be ready to write again. Also, I have found that my engagement is not what it once was. Meeting people on social media, sharing content, and atracting comments on my blog - these activities made me long for the stamina that I once had.
It is a delicate topic and a bit embarrassing, but my performance was becoming an issue.
These thoughts went through my mind recently and prompted the question: Was it time for a social media performance enhancer?
And so I signed up for Visibli, a seemingly miraculous widget that that identifies the user as the source of content and facilitates sharing. It seemed to be a great way to build and reinforce my personal brand, by identifying me as someone who discovers and shares great content.
Things seemed to go swimmingly until I got an email expressing confusion from Anne Giles Clelland of Handshake 2.0, whom I respect tremendously (we have collaborated on content and exchanged guest posts) with the subject line "Mr. T." I had just tweeted a link to her blog. She said:
When I click the Visibli link, I get the attached screenshot linking to Mr. T's account. When I click on the Twitter icon, for example, it goes here, not to @rgeller…
She asked if my account had somehow gotten hijacked. When I explained to her what Visibli is, and why I was using it, Anne replied, eloquently:
I've wandered far and wide in social media but almost 4 years in, I've come back to what seems to have the most power over which I have control directly to name, to identify, to brand - the blog. Visibli may have meant well but it seems to have security issues. Looks like your profile now has your name, but the Facebook and Twitter icon still go to Mr. T and the LinkedIn icon goes to Barack Obama. I'm scared to click the other icons.
Anything that comes between me and my message or my client and my client's message is something I've come to want to delete, not add. I haven't used sharing tools with frames because I felt like I was doing what I said a link does - transferring some of my good brand or my client's good brand to the tool's brand. I do the same with Facebook and Twitter - give them some credence by using them. They're good tools used by a lot of good people and companies so I'm okay with it. But I spend so much less time with them than I used to. Content is my best gift to the world and it, currently, is being rewarded online so I feel so lucky that time spent on content is time well-spent.
It sounds like great advice. In fairness to Visibli, I probably would have not caused the same degree of confusion and concern in a close social media confidant if I had at least set it up with the right links to my social profiles (Doh!).
I have not removed the service yet but am seriously considering it - I will keep Visibli on a short leash for now (I have corrected the links) and reevaluate my usage of it in light of Anne's words.
