For the past 20 years, Metzger Associates has been a leader in the art + science of communications. We appreciate your readership, and hope you enjoy our new blog format!

Share on Facebook

I hear of lots of businesses that want to build “an app.” They don’t really have an idea for what the app will accomplish for their business, they just think they want “an app” because it seems like a neat thing to do.

Let me be direct: having an app just for the sake of having an app isn’t going to move your needle.

Enter Chipotle.

I’ve always enjoyed Chipotle, but I’ve never seen one without a long line at lunchtime. That’s still true, but now I have the “license to cut in” app from Chipotle. Of course, that’s not what they call it, but that’s how it works out!

Why does the app make so much sense — and why has it increased my spend at Chipotle by at least three or four times?

• It’s easy. I eat the same two or three menue items, and I can pre-load them. I click about three times total in the whole process, and my order is waiting.
• It’s convenient. My debit card is pre-loaded, so I don’t even have to pay when I get there.
• It’s fast. I walk in, walk right by the line (which is usually to the door when I get there) and stroll up to the cash register. “Online order for Doyle,” I say and they hand me my bag. I’m usually in and out in less than one minute. I often get dirty looks. I don’t care.

Because it’s easy, convenient and fast, I now go to Chipotle a couple of times a week rather than a couple of times a month, and I tell others. An added benefit: I didn’t talk about Chipotle much before, if at all!

There are many outstanding apps that help me do business with a company. A few that come to mind include TripIt (the app is so helpful I buy the premium membership every year), Zinio (magazines on the iPhone or iPad at a reasonable price) and even the New York Times (yeah, I’m happy to pay for that level of reporting).

While some apps are just for fun and get your business in front potentially millions of users, too many make me scratch my head and wonder why.

When your client or your boss says, “we need an app!” think of Chipotle. Will it delight your customers, or is it an exercise in ego so you can say “we have an app?”

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

Had a great time doing the OS Perspectives podcast with Esbjorn Larsen this week. We had a great discussion on the latest from both Microsoft and Apple. Check it out here.

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

I still encounter many folks who believe social media is mostly a waste of time. “Why should I be on Twitter? I don’t care what you’re eating for lunch!”

They’re right. And they’re wrong.

Like any medium, there is good and bad, quality and junk. “Mad Men” is a well-written, engaging drama, despite the fact it’s on “TV.” On the same medium, there’s the endless stream of celebrity reality shows–a waste of time, like a worthless tweet. Good use of the medium vs. bad.

Social media is no different.

A good friend of mine, Fred Hobbs, is director of public relations for an organization here in Colorado called Imagine! The mission of Imagine! is to create and offer innovative support to people of all ages with cognitive, developmental, physical and health related needs so they may live fulfilling lives of independence and quality in their homes and communities. The work this organization does is outstanding, touching many people and helping them to lead full lives, despite their challenges.

Fred sent me a link to the video I included above, showing how some Imagine! clients are taking advantage of various technologies, like voice recognition and other special input devices, in order to keep in touch with friends and family via social media. For people that, in some cases, need assistance just to leave their homes, new accessibility options and online communities are opening a new world of friendship and communication that many of us simply take for granted.

And heck, if they want to, they can even tweet about what they had for lunch!

Like any medium, social media can be worthwhile or wasteful. Creative applications like this, however, show the amazing potential these communities can offer when coupled with thoughtful implementation, adaptive technology and, above all, creative thinking.

For more information on Imagine!, please visit their website.

Share on Facebook

Frito-Lay announced today that “The Loud Sun Chips Bag is Dead” thanks, in part, to a crack-team of investigative journalists at The Wall Street Journal who couldn’t ask a single question nine years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but dedicated 900 words and a two-minute video to a snack bag (that’s right, I said it). The other culprit in the death of the biobag appears to be a Facebook group called “SORRY BUT I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER THIS SUN CHIPS BAG” with 44,421 members.

Hungry people of the world, there is a lesson to be learned here. On second thought, no. However, if you are lucky enough to not be starving, and you don’t worry about tripping off IED explosions on your way to the market, then you probably have time to think about how loud your snacking is. And there is a marketing and PR lesson to be learned here:

All of the product development, expensive ad campaigns and custom-built websites will not do a thing for you if you don’t listen to your customers.

Frito-Lay made three mistakes here:

1. They assumed everyone cares about the environment.
2. They listened to the wrong people (those who aren’t willing to make any minor sacrifice for the sake of the environment).
3. They tried to make everyone happy.

Frito-Lay saw the negative response building over a month ago before the WSJ article initially ran and that Facebook group only had 20,000 or so fans. Realizing there was no escaping the noise, Frito-Lay featured it in some of their marketing. In stores, the company posted signs that read: “Yes, the bag is loud, that’s what change sounds like.”

Cute a clever though it may be, they weren’t responding to their market in any way that was engaging or meaningful. What they should have said was, “We believe there are more people that care about saving the planet than there are people that are inconvenienced by noise. We’re still working on making the bag better, but we think this is an amazing start.” No, it’s not a poster slogan, but it’s a conversation starter. (Maybe the poster should have read, “GET A BOWL.”) What they did was talk at their customers instead of listen to them. People were complaining. They responded with sarcasm. Sales started declining.

It took four years to develop the compostable bag for Sun Chips.

The key to being successful in social media is not attention or clever one-liners, or even a viral video. It’s engagement. It’s getting people to buy your product and then tell their friends about your product. It’s getting in front of the right people with the right message. They had a pretty good message. They just responded to the wrong people.

Instead of building a presence with the already established hundreds of eco-friendly bloggers who would happily become prophets of the blessing of the Sun Chips bag, Frito-Lay dumped a truckload of money into developing a website about Sun Chips’ compostable packaging and then developed a separate social media community on “Composting 101,” featuring videos from Sophie Uliano, a bestselling green author. This is a tactic that although features a social media method, is still old-school marketing that involves talking to your customers and expecting them to sit quietly and listen. Who did this site attract? I doubt the Sun Chips site got as much traffic as Sophie’s personal site. Apparently, it didn’t get as much traffic as the Facebook group.

Frito-Lay tried to force a conversation by talking at people. When the people responded with criticism, they shut it down because the narrative didn’t fit the construct of their opinion. You can never be everything to everyone and as soon as you try, you will fail, as apparent by today’s announcement. When you begin listening only to your critics, you make the dangerous mistake of making a minority opinion seem like the majority. People will always complain. You shouldn’t ignore them, but by focusing on the people that will actually buy your product, you make your detractors appear to be exactly what they are – the small minority.

When the narrative doesn’t fit, evaluate your narrative. Maybe you’re not saying the wrong things. Maybe you’re just not listening to the right people. Trying to make everyone happy just means wasting four years of product research and a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

Share on Facebook

One of my favorite television lines of all time is from the prime time comedy Scrubs (anyway, I think it was Scrubs). One of the characters explained that “if you took all the porn off the Internet, there would only be one site left, and it would be www.bring-back-the-porn.com!”

Not quite, but a funny line. What’s not so funny is that the Internet gets a worse rap than it’s offline counterparts when something goes awry.

Bottom line—you can find damn near anything with a few key strokes online. A search for the same thing in the real world may take hours and require some serious time, skill and maybe even a visit to a part of town you’re not too familiar with (or don’t want to be too familiar with).

During the last few month, a myriad of groups, including the United States Congress, started crawling all over online classified ad site Craigslist for it’s “adult services” section, which the site has now agreed to permanently remove.

Let me say now that I find human trafficking to be abhorrent, and “sex workers” face any number of dangers, including situations like the case that started the Craigslist hunt, the arrest of Boston University medical student Phil Markoff, dubbed the “Craigslist Killer.” I’m also not interested in debating here whether or not sex for money between consenting adults should or should not be legal.

I am, however, interested in the fact that Craigslist, founded in 1995, is being seemingly singled out. I’ve not picked up an entertainment weekly in another city for some time, but it sure looks like the print edition of Denver’s Westword weekly newspaper would be out of business if not for ads from bars and nightclubs, medical marijuana dispensaries and—yep—adult services.

I’ll agree with Huey Lewis here: sometimes bad is bad. Again, I’m not arguing for or against adult services ads either online or in print, but shouldn’t what’s good (or bad) for the goose is also good (or bad) for the gander? Certainly, Craigslist is a high-profile success that almost singlehandedly crippled the classified advertising business in daily newspapers, so they’re going to get attention—maybe more than their fair share. But is an ad for prostitution (no, wait, I’m sorry, a massage!) more harmful online than in print? If the various attorneys general and members of Congress feel this kind advertising needs to be stopped in the interest of public safety, why has the investigation pretty much stopped with Craigslist? I’m pretty sure something called the “world’s oldest profession” didn’t start in 1995.

Maybe the answer is simple: Craigslist is (or can be) in any connected American home with a couple of clicks of a mouse. As I noted above, if you’re looking for such advertising offline, it needs to be searched out. However, it’s not like it’s hard to find a copy of Westword—their website boasts nearly 3,000 distribution sites in “high-traffic” locations. A quick look at their website—which can also show up in any connected American home—shows more than 23,000 ads in “personals” and more than 13,000 in “services,” which includes a sub listing for “massage.” If you’re wondering where the Craigslist ads for those services went in Denver, I just found them!

Again, my point is not to condemn Westword or even launch a debate over these ads or the services they advertise. My point is simple: a high-profile website was forced to remove communications that could easily be considered speech protected by the First Amendment while other media outlets continue the very same practice. If others are being scrutinized to the same level, I missed it.

Maybe even more important, is this a first step on a dangerous slippery slope?

Why the targeting? Thoughts?

Share on Facebook

Each year for my birthday, I spend part of the day riding one mile for every year old I am that year. Yesterday was my annual birthday ride, and since I’m getting older (or, maybe just old!) I had to go a ways: forty-seven miles, to be exact, to hit my goal (yes, I made it!).

During my ride I found myself in the middle of a large charity ride, which included a longish (3-4 mile) climb to a small town near Boulder. Sadly, it was obvious many of the participants were not adequately prepared. I was reminded that cycling is not easy. I ride an average of 125 miles weekly in the summer to prepare for long rides.

Most things require work and preparation. It occurred to me that social media is no different. That is, there are no easy ways to build a community, no short-cuts, and it’s not something you can just dive into and be successful. It’s hard work and requires preparation in order to be successful and attention over the long term to grow what you’ve built.

I cringe whenever I see programs that will “get you followers while you sleep” or “double your Facebook friends tomorrow” or any other variation of snake oil. Can you get a bunch of new Twitter followers with some programs? Of course. But, much like many of the people I saw on Sunday trying to climb a hill with the wrong equipment and too little preparation, you won’t know what to do with this new-found “wealth.” You might even find yourself suffering a little. Or a lot.

Think about Community Access Television. Just about anyone could get time, but if the program was unwatchable drivel, it was like shouting in the wilderness. Social media gives us all easy access to a myriad of large networks, much like Community Access Television. Same idea here. Let’s say you get 10,000 Twitter followers through a short-cut of some kind… now what? What are you going to talk about? What does your “community” want to hear about and, better yet, have a conversation about? If you don’t know that first–and build a community based on that, not on auto-follows and other tricks–you’ll find yourself shouting in the wilderness, and your 10,000 followers will soon by 9,000, then 8,000, and so on.

The act of buying a bicycle alone does not prepare you for a four-mile climb, just as having 10,000 Twitter followers is not all it takes to build and maintain a community.

Every day I get a handful of follow requests from small businesses who simply seem to want followers. I’m sure your bakery in Cleveland is lovely (I made that up so as not to call anyone out!) I might really like it. But I don’t have any plans to be in Cleveland in the foreseeable future, so daily (or more) snippets of news from you doesn’t sound all that interesting. If you found me because I mentioned the Cleveland Browns when talking about football, you’re misusing a short cut and you’re wasting your time and mine.

Before you dive in to any social media network, ask yourself: what are my goals? What value will I try to provide? What can I offer to those who follow me? How can I find those who will appreciate what I have to say, and will want to have a conversation with me? And if you want to use a tool that helps you find people who might have an interest in a bakery in Cleveland, connect all the dots and use the tool correctly. The smart pilots only use the auto-pilot programs when it’s appropriate.

A username and a password does not mean you’re ready, just like buying a bike doesn’t mean the Tour de France is in your future. It just means you’ve taken the first step, and there are no shortcuts.

Share on Facebook

There’s lots of banter in tech circles and the media of late about net neutrality. I firmly believe this is one of the most important issues facing how we communicate today, yet it’s often misunderstood, even by by lawmakers who may be asked to determine how everything will finally shake out.

Why is net neutrality so important? Simple: the Internet is taking over much of the way we get information and entertainment and how we communicate with one another. Twenty-five years ago, the radio stations I listened to, the television stations I watched, the newspaper I subscribed to and the magazines I purchased all got to me in very different ways. Now, if the Internet goes down, I’m cut off from the bulk of my news, information, entertainment and even the ability to reach out to friends and colleagues.

Read/Write Web did a great graphic presenting both sides of the net neutrality discussion here. The point I’d like to make in this post is that net neutrality is not some “techie” thing that’s over most of our heads. Instead, it’s critical that we understand and take a stand on how we would like to see the flow of information regulated—or not. Your stand may be different from mine, but the public discourse is critical for this enabling and important technology. This is one critical business issue that must not be decided by lobbyists voicing the business interests of a handful of large corporations.

Neutrality Must Not Mean “Don’t Manage Your Network”

Potential legislation, in my opinion, must be well written in order to keep the Internet from slowing down for all of us. I’ve heard net neutrality advocates boil this issue down to “all bits, regardless of what they are, must be treated the same.”

I disagree.

There is a difference between network management and net neutrality. For example, if I’m making a call on Skype, I want my Internet provider to give a higher priority to a voice packet, even if that means a web page I’m loading or an email I’m sending is delayed a fraction of a second. That makes for a better Skype experience, and I really won’t notice a slight slowing of my email. That’s intelligent network management that makes the available tools work better for all of us. The slippery slope is introduced with an example like Internet Service Providers (ISPs) having the opportunity to take a potential next step and prioritize their own paid voice packets over my Skype call to encourage me to use their service. Worse, what if Skype was blocked completely by one or more of the ISPs that service my market?

Clearly, any potential regulation must not be written in such a way that prevents providers from managing and optimizing their networks, but, I believe, it should should ensure equal access to any public URL.

The End of the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet

Comcast got in some trouble, but eventually prevailed in court, for throttling BitTorrent streams. To me, the issue is not as simple as “to BitTorrent or not to BitTorrent,” and if network congestion is truly an issue, as it seems to be, we need to start paying for that second slice of pie.

In the case noted above, Comcast was wrong in my opinion because they violated their own contract with their customers. They offered unlimited access for one monthly fee, then played dirty tricks on customers that became bandwidth hogs. Sorry, but you don’t get to do both. Either you can offer all the time/data/pick your measure you like for one fee, or you can offer a pay as you go plan, and that needs to be up front in the agreement. After all, Xcel Energy doesn’t just hook up electricity at my house and let me pay one lump sum for all I can use, regardless of my consumption. But, if they did, it would be wrong of them to just cut my service when they thought I was using too much power. It’s “A” or it’s “B.” In the end, it’s OK for heavy users to be charged more than light users.

What I Believe About Net Neutrality

You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you’ll consider this issue as important is I do. Bad legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could severely stifle growth of one of the most important elements of our economy. Here are the points I believe to be true in this discussion:

• There is a difference between optimizing all traffic across a network and giving special service. The former should be encouraged and the latter, in general, forbidden.
• I recognize that these are networks that were, to a very large degree, built with private investment (that is, non-government money). But just as television stations, for example—non-government entities, to be sure—must follow certain guidelines and demonstrate work in the public interest to continue to receive a broadcast license, I believe the same holds true for those that carry the Internet to our homes and businesses. In fact, I think it’s more important because of the myriad of information the Internet provides.
• Just as I pay more for cable if I get more channels coming in to my home or business, I should pay more for Internet service if I wish to use more bandwidth than others. Conversely, my mother-in-law should pay less since she her Internet use pretty much consists of checking email once a day (but perhaps she should pay extra for some of the things she chooses to forward!).
• Just like me, content providers should pay ISPs based on their bandwidth consumption. If I sell widgets and my sales go up, I need to ship more widgets to more people, so I will pay more to my selected carrier to send out more widgets. Same idea here. If 1 million people each month want to download my podcast, I need to pay more than if only 10 people wish to.
• What is premium content and what is not premium content should be decided by the content provider, not by the carrier. If the Wall Street Journal, for example, wants to charge me to look at a story, that relationship should be between me and the Wall Street Journal and Qwest, my ISP, should stay out of it. And, per the point above, if my content is wildly successful, my ISP will share in my good fortune by making more money because I pay more in access/transfer fees.
• Special offers and relationships do not violate net neutrality per se, and legislation must be written to protect free enterprise. For example, if the Wall Street Journal (which seems to be my example of the day) choses to give a free 30-day subscription to the premium content to anyone that signs up with a certain ISP during the next two weeks, that’s great and should be allowed. That’s called a trial promotion, not a violation of net neutrality. I would consider it a problem, however, if the Wall Street Journal and an ISP cut a deal making the Journal available exclusively on that ISP, or if the Journal was delivered better/faster/more reliably on the network than the local newspaper because they paid that ISP more money.
• User agreements are contracts, and contracts need to be honored by all parties concerned. If I don’t pay my ISP, they will shut off my service. On the other hand, if they tell me I have unlimited bandwidth, they need to honor that even if I’m downloading high-definition movies 24/7 as long as I’m adhering to the contract. If they would like to alter the terms of the contract once it is expired, fine. Maybe promotions like “price for life” will go the way of the buggy whip.
• I believe that more and more of us will get more and more Internet access through mobile devices, and I believe that what I’ve outlined here holds true for those devices as well. The bandwidth issues are even more sensitive and tend to impact other users even more, so we need to establish the rules now.

I fully recognize this is a complicated issue, but just as not understanding the complicated U.S. tax code is not a defense for not paying your taxes properly, the Internet is changing the way we are entertained, the way we do business and the way we communicate. It is incumbent upon us to understand the issues and to insist those who are making policy understand our wishes.

I’m sure many of our readers have opinions about this, and I would welcome and encourage a robust conversation. Here’s my volley—please join in and leave a comment–pro or con.

Share on Facebook

One of the great aspects of social media is the ability for far more people than ever before to get involved in communications, but this represents a fundamental change for newspapers. Instead of printing a few letters to the editor each day, representing a tiny fraction of the readership, nearly every online story on most newspaper websites features the ability to comment. Individual stories often receive dozens or even hundreds of comments, even in smaller markets.

That’s usually a good thing–but it can be a bad thing. Sadly, it seems our own Boulder Daily Camera is an example of how this is becoming a bad thing. This problem isn’t limited to the Camera, but because the paper is in our town and I try to read it every day, I’m throwing down the gauntlet: I’m challenging you, Camera: clean up your comments.

Simply, you’ve lost control of your own living room. The comments are often more ridiculous than valuable. It’s time to kick the serial smartasses out of the party and see if your community is able to conduct itself in a better way.

I’m not talking about profanity, threats or other egregious violations. If those things are happening, they do seem to be getting shut down. And I’m certainly not talking about honest, open and respectful disagreement. That is the very best part of an open forum. It’s the myriad of feeble attempts at comedy coupled with mean-spirited comments that don’t further the conversation, but ruin it.

Here are some recent examples:

The Emich sisters, former owners of Boulder’s Trilogy Wine Bar, are looking at opening a new business combining wine, yoga and other elements. Comments like this (taken from the Camera website) are just plain ridiculous:

“There are already too many yuppie Yoga places, coffee shops, and health clubs for egocentric stay home moms. Boulder men need to put down their man purses and run these wenches out of town.”

Or:

“What about tofu, granola bars and bean sprouts? Got to get all that no-MSG, all natural, range-fed, no artificial coloring, all organic, unsalted, no sugar, no preservatives food in order to survive in a world that will soon be crowded with windmills and solar machines. Haight-Ashbury, 1968. Bleeeeeeech!”

This is just a sampling of the mostly critical comments following this story. Are these thoughtful or an extension of a good discussion? The story talks about three women (full disclosure, friends of mine) who ran a business in Boulder, paid rent, employed people and contributed to the local economy for nearly 10 years, and you’d think from the comment thread they were planning to open an Opium Stand outside of a local grade school.

The point? I certainly don’t get it. Disagree with the concept, comment on the service–good or bad–once it opens or ask an honest question. But to just jump on and tell the world you hate something–to be clear, something that doesn’t even exist yet!–is narcissism at its worst.

Comments following the coverage of how cancer recently claimed rock legend Ronnie James Dio were mostly respectful. But Xenu007 (who seems to think none of the rest of us in Boulder can enjoy any story without his pithy input) left this gem:

“Who?”

Perhaps if you would have read the story (which is from the Associated Press) you wouldn’t need to ask. But really, it’s a waste of electricity to even fire up the computer and type that.

A June 25 article on the mosquito problem at a city softball facility has attracted 27 comments so far. Twenty-seven comments on mosquitos! Most of them are nothing more than snarky remarks, some even criticizing the players and the sport they choose. Bottom line: not much worth reading. Certainly not the best our community has to offer.

So what do I recommend? Let me stress again: differing opinions should be encouraged, not squelched, but there’s a difference between differing opinions and random ridiculous remarks. Honestly, an occassional, very clever quip can further the conversation, but I see precious few of those. Here are a few thoughts:

Eliminate anonymous comments. Nearly every newspaper requires that letters to the editor be signed. Occasionally the identity of the writer will be withheld from print, but such a decision is made with the consent and consideration of an editor and typically only when there is some sort of serious issue (whistleblowers still working at the target or similar). Allowing people to completely hide their identity behind names like Xenu007 (his/her avatar is a photo of John Travolta) practically encourages bad behavior.

Moderate more strictly. Let’s not just wait for profanity or the report of another user. Let’s use your skills as editors and reporters. Comments like “let’s run these wenches out of town” simply don’t have a place on the Daily Camera’s website. To wait until something really bad happens is a bit like pulling over speeders in a school zone only after a child is injured.

Set up a system to alert you to users that comment constantly, and watch their content. Readers leaving several comments on several stories every day are certainly engaged in the community, but are they good comments or simply random snark? It’s easy to jump on and leave a derogatory remark for nearly any story, and that seems to be activity of many of your most active users. Five good, conversational comments are far better than 50 dumb remarks. Encourage people to engage with quality content, not simply quantity of content.

Engage your community to help. I realize you’re facing shrinking revenue and lower payrolls, and here I am recommending additional work. Perhaps volunteers from the community could serve as a frontline defense. Try putting something inappropriate on Wikipedia and an army of volunteers will have it down in minutes. Again, the goal is not to squash disagreements, but to allow discussions of all kind to flourish in a respectful environment. I’ll bet there are many members of the community that would volunteer to monitor the posts and remove the stupidity.

Shut down comments on stories that get out of hand. When a string runs amok on any given article, shut it down and remove the offending string. This will make it clear you’re serious and will help strings stay on focus. I remember one string about a domestic incident resulting in death in Boulder that started out thoughtful and interesting and devolved into a running commentary on the couple’s tattoos. Shut that stuff off when it happens and before long it won’t happen near as often.

Some stories simply shouldn’t have comments available. Do we really need to accommodate the potential for issues with every single story? Turning off comments on certain sections would eliminate the need to monitor them. Take Milestones, for example. Do we need to open up potential problems for the announcement of an engagement or, worse, a death? This would allow you to focus on areas that deserve comments but require moderation.

Spell out the rules, and stick to them. You’re inviting people to your house. Insist on respect in your terms of use and eliminate those who don’t follow the rules. Set forth your behavior parameters and, just like a bouncer at a bar, remove the patrons that want to ruin it for everyone else.

The comments are far enough out-of-hand now that I carefully consider recommending to a client that we contact the Camera for a story, and that’s pretty sad. Your reporters are good to work with, and the coverage itself is often beneficial. I’m more than happy to have a thoughtful discussion about my client’s story follow–even if the comments are not all favorable. I’m not willing, however, to subject my client to thoughtless, often stupid comments from the most obnoxious among us.

Your thoughts, Daily Camera? I’d love to get this discussion started. I just ask that we all treat each other with respect in the conversation.

Share on Facebook

We’ve all got ‘em—the things that make us crazy. Ever followed someone with their blinker on for 15 minutes on the freeway, and they never moved lanes? This is what I’m talking about. Five things that really bug me in the social media communities I participate in the most. I’m not really saying they’re terrible or even wrong, but I’d like to encourage everyone to consider the different ways social media is used, and ask yourself if you’re irritating others with your habits. Most importantly, are your habits moving your conversations forward? If not, time for a rethink.

So, here’s my “following the endless blinker” list:

5. “Thanks for the follow!” direct messages on Twitter. I let direct messages on Twitter come directly to my phone because many clients and colleagues communicate with me that way. The last thing I need is a bunch of texts on my iPhone that say nothing of value. Even worse? “Get my e-book here!” I give a nearly instant un-follow & block to those folks.

4. “As a person I trust, I’d like to add you to my network on LinkedIn. Please. Take a minute to erase the stock LinkedIn verbiage and jot a quick personal note. It doesn’t have to be long (in fact, it shouldn’t be), but since you’re asking for my time to connect, can’t I get 10 seconds of yours to ask me personally? Also, sometimes I don’t recognize the name of someone I just met at a conference, for example. A brief “nice to meet you at…” is not only polite, it can avoid getting bounced as someone I don’t know—a big no-no on LinkedIn.

3. Twitter streams that are nothing but “I’m at…” from Foursquare. I enjoy Foursquare, but when I follow someone that plays Foursquare and puts every check in in their Twitter stream, I find it gets really old really fast. If your check-ins are one in 10, perhaps it’s not so bad, but in general, “I’m at…” is no more interesting than “I’m eating yoghurt.” Not what I’m looking for.

2. “Since we’re following each other on Twitter, let’s be friends on Facebook.” Maybe, maybe not, but don’t just assume. We all use social networks differently. Just because we’re connected on one doesn’t mean we should be on another automatically. I don’t mind an appropriate invite through Facebook (or any other), but I do mind an immediate invite to visit your page when we’ve been friends on Twitter for about 30 seconds. One does not mean all.

1. And my #1 Pet Peeve: Playing the numbers game. Social media is not about having tens of thousands of followers or friends or fans or whatever. It’s about developing and engaging your network. In my opinion, it’s nearly impossible to truly use a tool like LinkedIn if you have tens of thousands of connections. I’ll take my few hundred—all of which I know personally. I have no problem asking for a favor or returning one for any member of that network. How can you know where to draw that line with 10,000 (or more) connections? You can’t, plain and simple.

That’s my list. What’s yours?

Share on Facebook