It’s a commonly accepted and often repeated concept.
It’s illustrated by powerful examples from Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg to Frank Lloyd Wright and Buckminster Fuller to James Cameron and Tom Hanks (every one of them is a college dropout).
It’s the sub-headline and positioning of a recent “Billionaire University” story in the Forbes 30 Under 30 issue: “Some of the Forbes 400 have Ph.D.s; far more never finished college.”
The Concept: College is unnecessary if you want to get rich. The best school is the school of hard knocks. The lecture hall pales in value to life experience. Learning means doing.
The concept is true. College is not absolutely necessary. High school grads and college dropouts do populate the Forbes 400 (the 400 richest Americans).
While I concede that it’s true, it’s also misleading, as is the positioning of the Billionaire University piece (comparison of college dropouts to a narrow segment of advanced degree holders).
The Chart: Using data published in the Forbes story and adding a couple observations, I produced this chart …
Education Levels of the Forbes 400 - the Richest People in the United States
Observations:
Yes, there are high school grads and college dropouts among the 400. They represent 15.8% of the group.
Yes, there are many more college dropouts than PhDs – by a ratio just shy of 2:1.
But, there are 341 total advanced degrees. If each person only had one, that would represent more than 85% of the 400.
Even assuming that each person with an advanced degree held two of those 341, that leaves 170 of them with advanced degrees. That’s more than 42% of the 400 and nearly five times more than college dropouts.
There are more than twice as many MBAs in the Forbes 400 than there are college dropouts.
I’ve invested significant time and money in these programs. I’ve learned a ton. I’ve met many interesting people and built some valuable relationships.
Still, I often find myself in a defensive position about this investment.
In addition, I’m skeptical and cynical by nature, so I quickly attached to the idea that the real numbers belie the popular concept.
Final Thoughts:
The Forbes 400 does not represent the U.S. population at large. The numbers, percentages, and ratios are likely very different at different levels of wealth.
I think the misleading positioning of Billionaire University is used to advance a romantic notion of the American entrepreneur. I do like that notion; I recognize its truth and cultural value. My point in this post is that it’s overstated.
From the perspective of the college-is-worthless/life-experience-is-the-best-teacher concept, Josh Kaufman produces an excellent content stream called The Personal MBA. I highly recommend it.
There’s a significant difference between college is unnecessary and college is worthless.
I don’t have any specific reason to complete my MBA. It’s just fun, interesting, challenging, and productive.
I recognize that all my graduate school costs are sunk costs at this point.
I also recognize the opportunity costs of the time and money invested in graduate school.
Wealth is nice, but it has absolutely nothing to do with being a good human.
The start of the NBA season on Christmas day, as well as loads of new advertising campaigns, somehow spurred my curiosity about the Facebook fanbase and Twitter followers of the professional sports leagues. So, I went and tracked down some counts.
To be clear on my philosophy, more is not inherently better – it’s just more. 100 passionate fans are far more desirable than 1,000 relatively indifferent ones.
Setting the Scene
While Major League Baseball (MLB) is still considered by some to be “America’s game,” the television ratings for the National Football League (NFL) make that notion seem quaint; the NFL is a juggernaut.
The National Basketball Association (NBA), just starting a strike-ish-shortened season and repairing its slightly tarnished rep, is about as strong as it’s been in the past several years and looks very good in these charts.
The National Hockey League (NHL) and Major League Soccer (MLS) are both quite niche in their followings, the former being far more historic, mainstream, and powerful than the latter.
A Note Off the Top
I don’t provide much analysis here. Even the observations in this post are limited. I’ve simply gathered this info, added some color, and shared it. Please let me know your thoughts as a comment on this post, on Facebook (if we’re friends), or on Twitter (everyone’s welcome!).
Now to the Charts
To get started, an overview image of the information I collected:
Facebook Likes and Twitter Followers/Following for Professional Sports Leagues (Dec 2011)
Next up, the same Facebook fans, Twitter followers, and Twitter following information in simple bar charts:
Total Facebook Likes for the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and MLS (Dec 2011)
Though I ordered these alphabetically, the curve from NBA to MLS is obvious and steady.
The NBA has nearly triple the Facebook likes as the second-place NFL. This is likely due to a younger, more global presence and following for the NBA.
Total Twitter Followers for the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and MLS (Dec 2011)
Though the NBA still leads the way here, the NFL and MLB show up a bit better.
Again, I did not take a look at the quality, quantity, or nature of their Tweets – including such things as ratio of personal @mentions to marketing blast tweets – this is just the number of people who’ve clicked “Follow” without subsequently clicking to “Unfollow.”
Total Twitter Followings by the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and MLS (Dec 2011)
Here is where it starts to get interesting. The NHL just jumps right off this chart (and the MLS pops up nicely).
I expect it’s because the NHL’s social media is (or was) being handled by Vaynermedia, which obviously subscribes to and lives out the giveback, thank you philosophy of Gary Vaynerchuk. They’re obviously following back; I expect they’re also listening, responding, and engaging more than any other league on Twitter (again, MLS is probably with them on this).
Meanwhile, the NFL barely gets a stripe to represent the number of people they’re following on Twitter (just 150!).
Ratio of Twitter Following to Twitter Followers for the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and MLS (Dec 2011)
The previous chart sets up this one. This is Twitter Following (number of people each league is following) divided by Twitter Followers. Again, the NHL and MLS own this chart.
The MLS bar is largely a function of their relatively few Twitter followers. The NHL is following more than 4x as many people as the MLS. Still, both of these leagues – far smaller than the NBA, NFL, and MLB by most measures – are obviously employing a participatory strategy on Twitter.
As a function of their strong Twitter following and limited (or absent) follows back, the NFL does not even register. The NBA and MLB are just slivers. They’re broadcasters – just blasting out information.
Final Thoughts
It would obviously be interesting to go deeper in at least three ways:
putting this information into the context of revenue, attendance, and viewership of each league
evaluating the character, quality, quantity, and frequency of posts in the context of this information
looking at the social media approach of the individual franchises relative to those of the leagues
As a husband, father, full-time marketer, part-time MBA candidate, and very occasional blogger, I’ll leave that to you! Let me know what you dig up and process.
In the meantime, let me know your thoughts about what I’ve gathered and shared here as a comment on this post, on Facebook, or on Twitter.
Note off the top: this post is one of only two that ties together the themes of this blog – marketing, environment, and culture (only other one was about Lisa Gansky’s The Mesh). Now, on to the post …
Dow Chemical Company. Do you associate the name with nature, harmony, connectedness, or humanity?
No? Then you need to see this absolutely beautiful production from 2006 (posted to YouTube by DowChemicalCompany):
When I encountered this gorgeous production and its sweeping message, I was instantly fascinated with the idea of a global chemical company issuing this message.
Some of the intended takeaways:
Chemistry is natural
Nature is beautiful
Nature is clean and safe
Chemistry is clean and safe
Humans are nature
We’re all connected
Dow is human
Dow cares about people
In summary: trust Dow Chemical because they care about you and what they’re doing is healthy, safe, and consistent with nature.
Clearly, Dow, whose vision is “To be the most profitable and respected science-driven chemical company in the world,” obviously hopes viewers get swept up in the glossiness – and they do. The comments below the video are incredibly and overwhelmingly positive.
So What?
More voices, more publication, more sharing – this is a great time to be alive!
This corporate vs community contrast must always be kept in mind. Corporate happy talk doesn’t fly like it used to. I tend to believe my friends and neighbors more than I believe a global operation whose incentives tend to be short term and whose moral obligations are to shareholders above stakeholders.
Wishing I’d used KeepVid a week ago, I searched for it elsewhere online.
I didn’t find the Live It Up video, but I did learn that Colorado Springs is “the natural fit” for my family vacation, sporting event, or business conference!
Give a look to this video posted to YouTube in January 2011 by VisitCOS (the same folks who brought you (then took away) Live It Up):
Well, OK! Nature moves to the fore and extends into lifestyle.
Let’s give a quick evaluation, primarily in terms relative to the Live It Up video you can no longer see.
A few positives:
shows off the natural beauty better than Live It Up
includes aerial shots and jib shots that immediately provide more production value than Live It Up
includes active shots that make the place feel far more alive than Live It Up
hits several major local institutions and phenomena missed by Live It Up (Pikes Peak, Garden of the Gods, Red Rock Open Space, Paint Mines Interpretive Park, USOC, AFA, Broadmoor, Hill Climb, Balloon Classic, Fine Arts Center, Colorado Springs Pioneers Museum, etc.)
gives Colorado Springs a one-of-a-kind feeling by definition
touches on regional history and connects it to present
A few negatives:
the music and voice are a bit too slow (don’t convey enough energy)
tries to do too much, selling to families, sporting events, business conventions (should be three separate 1:20 videos)
frequent discrepancies between the words being said and the video being shown (need to SWAP – sync words and pictures)
awkwardly abrupt ending (especially in comparison to the long :30 fade out on Live It Up)
The Bottom Line
As a slogan, The Natural Fit isn’t any more the answer than Live It Up; either would work fine and neither would work distinctively.
As a video, The Natural Fit feels more alive, rugged, vibrant, and exceptional than Live It Up. It does a much better job of showing that living means doing – rather than simply saying it repeatedly and in different ways.
Live It Up would certainly have benefited from extensive re-use of shots seen in The Natural Fit. Related: The Natural Fit could benefit from the skate park shots from Live It Up.
Both videos would convey more life and energy through quicker, more contemporary music, snappier sound from the voiceover artist and other speakers, and a higher cadence overall.
In Colorado Springs, a place I’ve called home for more than 5 years now, community leaders recently gathered and consultants were hired to create a branding campaign for the city. The targets: “residents, tourists, and the business community.”
I love a good internal branding effort – one that gathers stakeholders, is facilitated by an outside party, and results in self-discovered essence and difference. I didn’t balk at the $110,000 price tag, as many have. The fruit:
Brand Essence: Alive
Brand Truth: Living Means Doing
Brand Character: Rugged, Vibrant, and Exceptional
Great! I’m with ‘em so far. I can’t say it’s all that unique, but it does fit.
The key deliverables were unveiled on Tuesday afternoon – a logo, slogan, and video. The language from the head of the CVB at the press conference was a bit stiff, including the idea that it had to “differentiate us from the competition.” Ready? Live It Up, Colorado Springs!
Beyond the self-congratulatory whooping of those directly involved, reception of the logo, slogan, and video was not especially favorable.
The Denver Egoist immediately jumped on it, noting that 7 other cities are using the same slogan (NOTE: Battle Creek, Michigan is among them)
The Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau posted the video on its Facebook page and asked for comments. 22 comments later, the video was removed because the feedback turned ugly (NOTE: I strongly discourage this move – if negative things are being said, you should be hosting that conversation!)
Within 24 hours, a new Facebook page, Rebrand The Springs, was created and calling for another go at the campaign by local artists (NOTE: if local people were not used to create the logo and video, as has been suggested, shame on the CVB!)
If you Google “Colorado Springs” and “Live It Up” – or just ask a handful of random locals – I expect that you’ll find plenty of other mixed and negative reviews.
THE LOGO(S):
Bad idea (above): two logos instead of one. Inspiration (below): better than Battle Creek Utilities.
THE VIDEO:
QUICK TAKE:
Again, I’m fine with brand process and the resulting essence, truth, and character, but the creative execution needs help.
For the slogan and logo, a visual reference to elevation (either 6,035ft for the city or 14,115ft for Pikes Peak) would help draw a necessary connection. Abandoning a phrase that feels extremely dated (who’s “living it up” in 2011?) by abandoning a slogan or tagline completely would have been perfectly acceptable to me. The mountain should have a much stronger resemblance to the iconic east face of Pikes Peak.
On the upside, the green and purple work for me. The colors fit and are one of the most unique features of the entire effort. They roughed up the peak a little, which implies rugged. The font choice is fine; it’s not especially common and has a little style to it.
As noted in the caption above, I abhor the idea of two logos; a logo is a logo is a logo. It can change and evolve over time, but two logos in use simultaneously is a basic branding no-no. It feels especially disjointed when both appear at the end of the video.
In the video, I see several problems, including:
excessive length (the ending – a long, slow fade of music and logos – reinforces this by lacking any punch)
limited style, dated style (as a radio station might say, it’s “80′s 90′s and Now!”)
poor lighting, inconsistent lighting (dark dog park, overexposed slouching gentleman, blown out Garden of the Gods background, etc)
a too-old-too-often cast, bad makeup (fairly or unfairly referred to by many as a “retirement community” video)
a minority service worker toiling away in the background as two lovely ladies chat about achieving the Peak (really! happens at :45)
an insider and moneyed vibe, as if we’re supposed to know who the people are (I do recognize about a half dozen of them)
the city and landscape do not do enough of their own talking
To that last bullet point: a basic fault of the structure is that there’s too much saying and not enough showing and proving. The worst case is the poor kid forced to call his city “radical.” Though they used to be sufficient, boastful, superlative claims (awesome! exceptional! vibrant!) without clear support are unconvincing (especially when uncomfortably delivered). Despite several good shots and fantastic photos, this too-much-saying problem could not be overcome in the nearly 4 minute presentation.
There are many other subjective issues I have with it, but those are basics.
Stepping back, though, there’s a bigger issue. This video serves no constituency in particular. The desired takeaway is completely unclear. It seems obvious to me that if you have 3 different targets – locals, tourists, and businesses – that you need 3 different videos. Why? Because they each have unique sets of needs! One video will not serve them all and, as a result, will serve no one.
People who live here: great things to know and share, a little lofty – interesting and impressive facts about our landscape, history, and institutions; places to visit and things to do – both ordinary and off the beaten path; specific hiking and biking trails; stuff to brag to your family and friends about
People considering a visit: less lofty and more practical – exactly what a 3 day visit might look like in Colorado Springs; top tourist spots for kids and families; restaurants, shops, and galleries in downtown, Old Colorado City, Manitou Springs; Pikes Peak by road and rail; hiking and biking trails; museums; spots off the beaten path; proximity to Denver; DIA and COS
People and businesses thinking about moving here: very practical, balancing lifestyle with dollars and cents – start the outline with all the top 10 types of awards received from publications like Forbes, Money, Men’s Health, and others; top institutions like the United States Olympic Committee and Olympic Training Center, the United States Air Force Academy, and The Broadmoor; Pikes Peak by road, rail, and trail; top employers like USAA, Memorial Health Systems, Compassion International, and others; a look into neighborhoods and local parks
That’s just a quick, one-pass effort at outlining videos to address the three segments’ specific needs and interests. Obviously, a ton of video would be used in all 3; it’s not a significant, multiplied effort.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Colorado Springs has lots to love. It’s a beautiful place with a great climate, rich history, and good people. I appreciate the effort and agree with the foundational brand concepts generated.
A truly collaborative effort would have been more authentic and better received. Take the brand concepts, share them with locals, then turn them loose on logos, slogans, and videos.
What great content for a stand alone website that body of locally produced work would make!
Of course, a process that open is just as scary as negative Facebook comments.
I just ended a 14 year run in local television marketing and promotion that took me from Grand Rapids to Chicago back to Grand Rapids to Colorado Springs. My short description of the work: running an in-house agency to build brands, drive viewership, and increase our overall standing with all stakeholders. So, my side was the business-to-consumer marketing that results in business-to-business selling of audiences (basic content around advertising model).
I’ve greatly enjoyed the first decade and a half of my career. I’ve worked for some great companies and done excellent work with wonderful people.
Here are some thoughts and observations from my experience in the local media industry. They’re focused primarily on traditional television broadcasting, rather than multi-platform content distribution and marketing.
These thoughts and observations are simplified and bullet-pointed. I’m happy to elaborate upon or talk through any of this in more detail. Use the Connect with Ethan page to find me – or just leave a comment on this post.
What a TV looked like when my career began. (Image from Photobucket user alex54j )
Working in Local TV Marketing and Promotion is Fun
It’s a nice combination of creativity and strategy.
You get to work extensively with words and ideas.
You get to create and manipulate images, both still and moving.
You get to work with music, sound effects, and natural/ambient sound.
Promos are always more exciting than the news packages – you get to pack all the best video and sound into :30!
The Work Itself is There, Then Gone
This is a basic function of linear broadcasting.
The display of your work is immediately fleeting and the work itself is highly perishable.
You get plenty of immediate gratification; what you just made can be put on TV within minutes.
Marketing to Anonymous Masses Provides Limited Satisfaction
The ability to track and measure, to connect directly efforts to results, is weak. Research budgets are limited. Nielsen’s measurements of viewing behavior are (insert adjective with negative connotation here).
In short, it’s more art than science.
Very few people like advertising. It’s an interruption of what they’ve come to see or experience.
Nearly everyone wants and expects content and marketing to be increasingly personalized and customized (rightfully).
Television broadcasting is linear and monolithic, not personalized or customized.
It’s impossible to be consistently relevant, and therefore satisfying, to a mass of people.
That’s because they’re not a monolith; they are individuals who happen to be consuming the same media at the same time.
Tools like Facebook have taken phone call and email feedback to a new level that approaches direct relationships. Even those individuals, though, tend to be treated as a mass.
Local News is Very Static and Homogenous
Every station has pretty much the same stories as one another and the same kinds of stories every night.
Every newscast provides pretty much the same experience it did a decade ago … but shinier. It’s predictable.
Locally, this is in part due to stations all watching each other.
Nationally, this is in part due to all stations being consulted by the same handful of consultants.
Overall, this is because “news” is defined rigidly by the journalistic institution.
This is why ubiquitous, generic “area man” headlines from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source, work so well.
This is why we all immediately recognize the visual and verbal patterns in the videos that close this post.
The formula from which newscasts are made seems to work well enough that there’s no compelling reason to make anything more than minor tweaks and conservative decisions. Related: newspapers have only just found their savior and his ideas don’t seem especially radical.
Financially, Local TV Broadcasting is Challenged
As with most businesses, costs are constantly increasing.
This effect is mitigated slightly by technology and automation. The hubbing of core operations, for example, is a fundamental operating strategy for Lin Media (22 broadcast signals originating from just 2 master control centers; 100% of traffic operations run from just 1 location (see 2010 annual report, page 4).
Revenue is flat/declining and dominated by TV revenue. Though it varies by station and company, I’d guess that 90-95% of revenue is still generated by television ad sales.
Profit margins, naturally, are tighter than ever. A broadcast license was once a license to print money; stations enjoyed profit margins above 50%. Though it varies by station and company, I’d guess that they’re more in the 15-20% range in a good year.
For a stronger future, some local news operations will have to be shut down (see above – Static and Homogenous). This is a natural result of competition.
As fragmented as the media landscape is (that fragmentation fundamentally threatening the TV business), television is still the only place to find mass. This is why network prime time shows command higher ad rates, despite smaller audiences.
Among the younger set, it’s cool to hate TV and its advertising. However, Apple loves it! Go figure.
Is it cost effective? By migrating dollars into other channels, the large-scale, sophisticated television advertisers say no.
I just finished Joseph Jaffe’s Life after the 30 Second Spot, published in 2005. At the time, DVRs were the threat to effectiveness. Forms of digital capture and distribution have increased dramatically in the past 6 years.
Digital pureplay companies offer relatively inexpensive marketing and advertising options … and they’re 100% trackable.
With inexpensive tools to create and publish yourself, “every company is a media company.” There’s less need to pay for exposure.
Local television stations have incredibly strong brands. They’re local instituions.
They inform, prepare, and connect people; they provide a sense of local identity and community.
People take your calls when you tell them you’re calling from a local TV station.
The role and responsibility of the best local news and weather teams will continue to be important, no matter how distribution changes. The challenge there is to stay relevant day-to-day, rather than simply being a go-to place in times of crisis.
High definition television signals are free for the taking – and they’re the cleanest form of television signal.
In Summary
I’m grateful for all the opportunities this industry has presented me and the dozens of excellent humans who helped me along the way. I hope for the best for the individuals who make the industry.
As you might expect, I’ve got many more thoughts, feelings, and ideas. I’m happy to have a threaded comment conversation, a real conversation, or an email exchange about any of this.
Bonus Videos
Both employ coarse language. The first is more slowly paced. The second is more direct and more coarse. Both employ the immediately recognizable patterns to which I referred earlier in this post.
You can build the stadium, field a team, schedule the game, arrange concessions, and sell corporate sponsorships, but if you can’t keep fans in the seats all season, season after season, what good is the game?
Answer: if it doesn’t work for the audience, it doesn’t work for anyone.
If you can't keep people in the seats, what good is the game? (Image from: theemptystadium.blogspot.com)
I received an email from a colleague at the office alerting me to a new offering from a competitor. The offering’s a new website; its url alone was enough to inspire this post. I’ll go straight to my take.
There are three primary stakeholders here: the website users, the advertisers on the site, and the company building, running, promoting, and selling the site.
This is the list stakeholders who were considered in rank order: the company themselves, their advertisers. It’s a basic selling orientation, rather than a proper customer orientation.
The website, KRDO.biz, is a combination directory, deals, and portal site from a local television station. Established competitors in this space include Google, Groupon, Craigslist, Dex, YellowPages, SuperPages, and dozens of others. And that’s to say nothing of all the local and regional competitors with similar offerings, especially in the deals space. The market’s saturated - both for audience and for advertisers.
It immediately reminded me of a site they offered up and backed with tens of thousands of dollars in local television advertising inventory a couple years ago, GColorado.com, a local classifieds site. A visit to that site today is similar to, but far less interesting than visiting a ghost town. There’s absolutely nothing on offer in most of the categories. In the common “Cars for Sale,” there are three cars. More importantly, there’s nothing the site offers that Craigslist didn’t bring to this market nearly a decade ago.
The problem: neither of these sites meets an unserved or underserved market need, solves a problem, makes something easier, delights or entertains, or provides anything unique or new. A television ad may motivate you to visit (that’s a stretch, I know), but a tired initial experience won’t bring you back. I would also add that the other audience – the advertisers – does not really have anything new in this offering, either.
Instead, the sites fit these criteria: we can definitely build it and we’re pretty sure we can sell it to advertisers.
The website users, of course, are absolutely critical to long term success. Even in the short term, though, their interests supersede those of the two other stakeholders. Yet they feel ignored in both of these offerings.
If there’s no sustained traffic, the sites will slowly die, as advertising contracts fail to get renewed. I don’t know what the fate of the directory/deals/portal will be, but the classifieds site was DOA and never found its pulse.
Entirely Different Angle
Would the same people who are building, selling, and marketing this site invest in it the project with their own money? Would they sacrifice their employment within the television operation to dedicate themselves to it exclusively? If so, there’s more at play here than I’ve observed. If not, then to whom does the offering seem viable?
Qualifier
My purpose here is not to denigrate a competitor. They’re not alone in their approach; this is certainly happening everywhere all the time. Bonus points do go to them for trying to open up new streams of revenue from non-television sources. And it’s not like I or the local television operation in whose employ I remain for a few weeks is aggressively and insightfully innovating online (on the upside, we remain focused on continuing to be the top-billing station and most-watched news product in the market).
Admittedly – and finally – there may be more at play than I’ve observed (I hope there is). It’s not like I’m on a “explain your underlying strategy to me” or “describe for me the finer points and assumptions of your business model” basis with these people. If the site finds success, I’ll stand corrected and be served my own foot.
The Bottom Line
For whom did you build your product or design your offering? If it’s not for a stakeholder necessary for long term success, it’s time to double back, review, and take another go at it. Or … what good is the game if you can’t keep people in the seats?
It worked. Link bait positioning drew me in to a series of posts from Dan Zarrella, “The Social Media Scientist,” who uses data to punch holes in “unicorns and rainbows” myths about social media.
A trio of posts (two relatively new, another a few months old) all attempt to shoot down the idea that marketers should “engage in the conversation.” Those three are summarized nicely (here) by Justin Wise.
In looking at Facebook, Twitter and blog conversations, Zarrella observes that likes, @replies and comments are insignificantly or negatively correlated with some desirable outcomes (more links, views, followers).
Here’s a grab from his post on Twitter conversations:
Zarrella lays out some data about "engaging in the conversation" on Twitter, comparing percentage of @replies to followers.
I’ll leave the specifics to Zarrella’s original posts (Facebook, Twitter and blog conversations) and Wise’s overview.
I simply want to observe that there’s good, interesting and potentially useful data there, but it’s obscured by link bait positioning – that “engaging in the conversation” does not work. All three posts attempt to destroy unmeasured, touchy feely notions that marketers must “engage in the conversation” to succeed with social media. The positioning is great for posting headlines and links to generate clicks through, but it’s not especially fair or accurate. Because the headlines are more specific and fair than the data positioning, link bait may be too pejorative a word for someone whose work I respect very much. Still, the work doesn’t support directly the notion that “engaging in the conversation” is fruitless and, perhaps, even counterproductive.
A few quick supports:
1 The measures in the Facebook and blog conversation posts have nothing to do with a page admin or blogger “engaging in the conversation.” Instead, Zarrella observes interactions as a whole. So, it’s interesting that higher numbers of comments are negatively correlated with higher numbers of views and links, but it says absolutely nothing about the value of marketers engaging conversations.
2 His correlations of Facebook likes and comments to total views are based on just two pages – HubSpot and OnStartups (note: I “like” both pages). Those two pages have a combined total of 50,000 fans. Those two pages are also remarkably similar in topic area (online/inbound/content marketing, entrepreneurship, SMB), so the behavior – if not identities – of both pages’ fans is likely very similar. To make statements about how effective conversation is for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of fan pages among the hundreds of millions of Facebook users from this narrow sample is a stretch at best.
3 The Twitter piece is the most interesting, but even the graphic (included here, above) provides contradictory takeaways. Don’t bother replying, because those with more followers don’t reply much, if at all … or reply a lot, because those who do also tend to have more followers. It also ignores strategy outright. For example, @replies are the foundation for anyone using Twitter for customer service.
So what’s the use of the collective wisdom conveyed in Zarrella’s three posts? Read ‘em for yourself! I only observe that it’s far more nuanced than their “engaging in the conversation may be a waste of your time and resources” positioning.
The Bottom Line
The single best takeaway from all three posts is more a reminder than anything else: your most successful tactic is providing great content … or links to great content.
These kinds of posts are plentiful. Many of these posts are very interesting and potentially useful. Most importantly, many provoke thought and, somewhat ironically in this case, stimulate conversation. They should not, however, be the basis for calling into question your entire strategy and reacting in immediate or dramatic fashion. It’s content marketing, hence the tendency toward link bait positioning.
Have a strategy for how you’re using social media. Established desired outcomes. Measure actual outcomes. Learn, optimize and iterate.
Also, stay informed about others’ outcomes, like those observed by Zarrella. Then, converse!
(Thanks to Michael Worley Jr for bringing this to my attention by tweeting a link to great content)
This blog has been woefully neglected over the past couple months. It’s not for a lack of ideas or opinions; I’ve got plenty. Instead, it’s more an issue of habit and focus. The former’s insufficiently formed as it relates to punching out short pieces here. The latter’s been divided over other projects.
So: a quick rundown of things I’ve been doing instead of blogging and in addition to working full time (in a plenty demanding position) and being a very highly rated husband and father (really, just ask ‘em).
La Jolla, California: One of the places I've been instead of sitting down and blogging.
A family vacation to San Diego that inspired 11 photo sets, including visits to the Pacific Ocean (several), Joshua Tree National Park, Cabrillo National Monument, Torrey Pines State Park, Legoland, Los Angeles and more. The photo above comes compliments of and merits compliments to my wonderful wife.
Landing an MBA scholarship from the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, an award for which I was pleased, excited, honored and appreciative. Sure, it just involved completing their scholarship application, tightening up ye olde resume and constructing a couple short essays, but it still required dedicating an entire Saturday morning to the effort. It all adds up.
Theme-building, copy writing and copy editing for Seeds Children’s Home. For a decade, they’ve been providing food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care and discipleship to orphans and other children in need from the Kipsongo slum in Kitale, Kenya. They’re launching an emergency fundraising campaign to get an orphanage built after the home they were renting was sold, displacing the orphans and their full time care providers. This one’s just getting started; there’s plenty of work to be done. I was invited into the project by a friend whose sales and marketing consultancy website I reworked earlier this year.
Messaging strategy and copy editing for Roundhouse Support, which specializes in technically supporting apps and app developers. Little of my work is yet live, but the site’s getting a nice upgrade from Infront, a leading web design, development and SEO company here in Colorado Springs.
Photo and video editing for Powell Custom Homes and Renovations. This effort’s in support of broader online marketing efforts of TMR Direct, a direct marketing company and Hubspot reseller here in Colorado Springs.
Learning about myself with the Culture Index, an assessment tool recommended highly by an esteemed colleague who specializes in true, internal branding. I completed the online portion and await my initial and foll0w-up meetings to interpret the results and to turn them into practical action.
Ongoing miscellany with BombBomb, a video email marketing startup here in Colorado Springs. Great idea (seriously, try it free!). Great team. Great fun.
Meanwhile, summer’s here! Though I’ve enjoyed some quality outdoor time, I’ve only made it to one summit so far this season.
I do love this blog. I also love helping people, learning things and going outside. Everything in moderation, I guess!
Naming your business can be challenging. Do you use your name? Do you include explicitly the kind of business it is? Is it more abstract and evocative?
For your next cemetery, golf course, apartment complex, condo development, housing subdivision, retirement home (err … senior living center) or any of a handful of other business ventures, just mix and match the words below into pairs.
Obviously, I’m devoting insufficient time to this blog. Not only should there be more posts more often, this list should have been produced as an infographic or – better yet – a little interactive program. Regardless, your generic name awaits!
Your generic business name does not belong in such a beautiful place.
ALL-PURPOSE (can be used as first or second word in your name)
Hill(s)
Meadow(s)
Willow(s)
Pine(s)
Forest
Park
Glen
Aspen
Grove
Hollow
Valley
Wood(s)
Pebble
Boulder
Canyon
Farm(s)
Gable(s)
Garden(s)
Cove
Creek
Stream
Lake(s)
Spring(s)
Spring (season)
Winter
ONLY TO START (can only be used as first word your name)
Whispering
Rolling
Running
Flying
Thundering (use with caution)
Bear, Fox, Deer or other animal (bonus: need not be regionally appropriate!)
ONLY TO END (should only be used as the second of the two words in your name)
Crossing(s)
Run
Manor
Estate(s)
Terrace
Plural of any of the all-purpose words
Have you been to that new golf course Boulder Terrace!? Have you visited my new apartment at Whispering Pines!? Did she just buy the last home in Fox Valley!? Is your grandfather buried at Forest Glen!?
Again, you’re welcome.
I have certainly missed some of the wonderfully generic words available. Please use the comment section to:
a) add more words (and qualify them if necessary) and/or
b) add more business ventures for which this mix+match is appropriate
As always, thanks for visiting and for reading. Disclaimer: I do not advocate for generic naming of businesses.
