Why Viggle Will Change Television

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post originally appeared on PR Breakfast Club on May 23rd, 2012.

Ever since Howdy Doody showed up in the 1950′s, PR and marketing folks have wanted to know how many people are watching a particular TV show. This sets advertising rates, actor salaries, and a million other things. Most of this is based on the Nielsen ratings, which is possibly the most laughable measurement tool in the history of everything. Nielsen selects a certain amount of people to wire a box to their TV that sends data OVER A PHONE LINE or to keep a journal about what they’ve been watching. Seriously. Starting to understand why CBS cleans up in the ratings? They target older demographics since older demographics are the ones most likely to use a systems like Nielsen. Enter Viggle.

Viggle is an app for iPhone that is a combination of Get Glue and Shazam (or Soundhound). Essentially, Viggle listens to whatever show you’re watching live (or within 24 hours of broadcast), and then rewards you with points after checking in. You get one point for each minute of the show you watch plus any bonus points being awarded for that particular show. Those points can then be redeemed for Amazon gift cards, iTunes gift cards, a Kindle Fire, a MacBook Air, Gap and Old Navy gift cardsthe list goes on.

I find this service a far more accurate depiction of television viewership. This is ratings by anyone with this app, not a pre-selected group of people that probably don’t accurate reflect the diversity of the viewing public. It’s really democracy at work in television ratings.

Full disclosure: Viggle did not ask me to write this, nor have I received any compensation for this article. If Viggle approaches me and asks me to use this article to help promote their service, I will sell out in a heartbeat. I have purchased some items through the Viggle rewards program and those transactions have gone very smoothly.

Categories: Business

Why Your Klout Score Doesn’t Matter (Much)

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post originally appeared on PR Breakfast Club on May 16th, 2012.

Last night’s #pr20chat was on the subject of integrating offline marketing tactics with those being used online. More to the point, ensuring “real world” tactics are still playing a large part in the strategy for your organization or client(s).

I’ve been wanting to write about Klout for a week or so now, and why I think Klout is a good starting point for a lot of things, but in the end doesn’t mean anything. This all started for me with the infamous Wired article a few weeks ago where an executive’s job interview essentially ended after his Klout score was deemed too low. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, posts were written about how much Klout sucks and how it is making those in the PR and marketing industries lazy.

It seems there’s only two sides to be had. Either Klout is the savior we’ve all been waiting for in measuring influence or it’s a meaningless game. The truth is that it’s somewhere in between. Online influence is an important topic. Who is talking about your brand and shaping opinions about it is VERY important. That doesn’t mean that offline influence has taken a back seat and don’t mean anything though.

Speaking at conferences, writing a book, teaching a college class, client referrals, none of these are measured on Klout. Does that make them meaningless? Certainly not. Klout is pioneering a segment of PR and marketing that is critical as the digital realm becomes more important. This isn’t something that is going to be hashed out overnight, or even in the span of a few years.

That picture you see is my Klout score. It was at a 62 a few weeks ago, but has dipped as my job and personal life have demanded more attention. As I’ve spent time on several major projects, enjoying my wife’s pregnancy, searching for a new house, and the Game of Thrones series (I’m reading the books first), my time spent in the social media sphere has diminished. I have a hard time believing that I’m not influencing the world around me, and yes. I know exactly how arrogant that sounds.

Influence doesn’t mean everyone around me bends to my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. It means that others around me think I’m valuable in some way. Klout is heading in the right direction. Just don’t think it’s a non-stop flight to measurement paradise.

 

Categories: social media

Why Paywalls Ultimately Fail

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post originally appeared on PR Breakfast Club on April 2, 2012.

Google announced a new partnership last week with Pandora, the New York Daily News, and several other media companies that could be the death of the paywall model. “Google Consumer Surveys” is a stunningly simple idea. Say you’re surfing the web, and click on a link to a story that would typically be behind a paywall. Rather than pay, you answer a simple marketing question, and as a result are granted access to the article. Google pays the entity five cents for each question answered, which is about $15 per 1,000 pageviews.

I’ve long maintained that paywalls are a terrible idea and do nothing but drive potential readers elsewhere. The ROI of putting your content behind a paywall is far less than charging appropriate advertising rates on your site, or other inventive ideas. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why newspapers and magazines have sold ads since time began. It’s not because they’re looking for filler. The subscription price has never been sustainable for a magazine or newspaper. Why would that change simply because we’ve moved to a digital model? Take a moment and think about who is clamoring for paywallsWall Street Journal. New York Times. Essentially, NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. I bet if you ask Pete Cashmore about putting Mashable content behind a paywall he’ll laugh you out of the building.

In the new economy, I believe personal information that a company can use to market to a person is far more valuable than the $50 a year you can squeeze out of them for a subscription. A small tidbit about a person may be able to sell them hundreds, maybe even thousands, of dollars worth of product rather than getting $50. Google’s “Consumer Survey” is a creative way to both be paid for each visit and to collect valuable information to sell to readership. This is the beginning of the end for paywalls.

Image: Dennis Crowley via Flickr CC 3.0 

P.S. For a really fun laugh as to why paywalls are ridiculous, visit that flickr stream and look at the first comment.

Categories: Business

Social Media ROI

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post originally appeared on PR Breakfast Club on March 22nd, 2012.

I struggle with ROI in the social sphere, as I’ve talked about before. Google has taken a huge step forward this week in measuring the ROI of social media, as it announced the first concrete effort at valuing efforts in this arena. The three main reasons Google made this change (from the Analytics blog):

  • “Identify the full value of traffic coming from social sites and measure how they lead to direct conversions or assist in future conversions
  • Understand social activities happening both on and off of your site to help you optimize user engagement and increase social key performance indicators (KPIs)
  • Make better, more efficient data-driven decisions in your social media marketing programs

I’ll let you read through the post itself to familiarize yourself. Never before has anyone tried to tie real, tangible, financial results to likes, follows, comments, posts, and so on and so forth. We know the value of social media. It’s networking, listening, identifying new customers, etc. Selling it to the C-Suite can be difficult as the bottom line is the only number they are concerned about. This provides a tool that provides realistic numbers as to conversions, and where those conversions are coming from.

This is not a be-all-end-all tool, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

Categories: social media

You Are The Most Valuable Product On The Internet

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post first appeared on PR Breakfast Club on March 5th, 2012.

Much has been made of Google’s unified privacy policy that went into effect last week. In my Twitter feed, I saw the usual suspects; threats of dumping all Google products, enraged people shouting about how Google is out to take over the world, you know, a whole lot of this. Perhaps these people are unaware of how commerce on the Internet works. This is always a good reminder for us as PR pros, and for our clients. The number of companies that collect your data for their own marketing purposes or for their partners is astronomical. However, let’s rundown a few of the major names to put this in perspective:

This isn’t an argument that says companies collecting personal information is a good thing, but it IS an argument for taking responsibility. You’re using Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Path, and tons of other apps FOR FREE. Ever paid a dime to post your status to Facebook or Twitter? Nope. Yet their IPO is expected to be worth millions, if not billions, of dollars. It ain’t because that photo of your kid is extra cute.

We, the Internet community, often forget that. We are a valuable commodity. We all have wants, needs, desires, hopes, and there are companies out there dying to learn more about us to sell those to us. The price of using these services is not monetary; it’s our information. Anyone who thinks it is Google’s responsibility to simply sit on the goldmine of information it has on its users doesn’t understand the digital business model.

It is our responsibility as consumers to safeguard our data; and each of these companies has provided ways to make your information as private as possible. In the 21st century, if you wonder how a company can make money without actually selling anything, remember this:

If you cannot discern a product a company is selling, the product they are selling is you.

Categories: Business, social media

Why Klout Doesn’t Measure True Influence

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post originally appeared on Waxing Unlyrical on July 19th, 2012.

I’ll admit that it’s fun to bash Klout. They are on the front lines of the Wild West of determining influence, and who is doing that influencing, online.

Posts have been written ad nauseam (including on this blog, though they’re not the nauseating kind) on the plusses and minuses of Klout’s service, but I think I’ve finally nailed down what bothers me about the service (which I’m still a member of and will continue to use).

I have the belief that, despite what Klout says, it ties a large part of how “influential” you are directly to how much you tweet.

What’s your proof, LaCasse?

Glad you asked.

See that picture to the right (up there, no… there, that’s it)? That’s my Klout score over the past several weeks.

I’ve been busy this summer with a large project at work, moving into a new house, and preparing for the birth of our first child (due August 20th, and that date may or may not be circled in red marker with glitter all around it.), and you know, just enjoying summer with friends and family.

Because of that, my score has dropped from the ballpark of 62 this spring to 56. I’ve been tweeting less.

To put my suspicions to the test, I spent a few days last week tweeting incessantly and then going quiet. You can see in the picture above the spikes of when I was tweeting.

Here’s the question: am I less influential than I was in March? Do my ideas and thoughts matter less? Are they less valuable to my audience simply because I’m not tweeting as much?

I don’t think so. And here’s proof: although I don’t believe the number of people who follow me on Twitter to be incredibly important, that number has continued to steadily rise during the same time my Klout score has dropped.

I have to believe that if I was truly less influential than I was in March, my follower number would have dropped at a similar pace. Are there peaks and valleys to that follower growth? Of course. Generally speaking, that number has inclined while my Klout score has declined over the same period.

This is the main reason I just can’t take Klout incredibly seriously. I think it can be a valuable service… but for that to be the case, its algorithm must be tied more to content than frequency. Clearly, that isn’t the case right now and I think that’s a shame.

I realize Klout is relatively young and has a long way to go to mature as it fine-tunes its product. For the time being, it remains a game as far as I’m concerned, and not one I can advise my clients to pay any real attention to.

Categories: social media

To Happy Hour or Not to Happy Hour: That is the Question

August 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This post originally appeared on Waxing Unlyrical on April 13, 2012.

Twitter rabbit holes can easily claim 20 minutes of my day. I click on one interesting link someone tweets out, and the next thing I know I’m on the HR blog at Ragan.com ranting in my office.

I came across this post the other day. The basic premise of the article is that it is a bad idea for managers to attend a non-work-related happy hour with their subordinates.

While I see the point, I wholeheartedly disagree.

This is not a one-size-fits-all situation. As a manager, you have to know if your authority will be compromised by attending these functions, and if so, you shouldn’t attend. However, I’ve had several managers in the past that I gained MORE respect for by having a drink or three with them at an impromptu happy hour after work.

You see, we often wear “masks” at the office, or in our professional lives in general. We have a certain role to be filled, and (depending on the office) our personalities take a back seat.

 

How much do you really learn about someone in that setting? Not a whole lot.

On the other hand, attending some kind of social function (it doesn’t have to be happy hour) with your co-workers, including managers, that isn’t work-related in any way allows people to relax and just be themselves.

If you know a person outside of the confines of the office, you’re much more likely to understand why a manager is making that decision, or why an employee is challenging you on a specific issue.

It has potential to defuse situations inside the office because you’ve taken the time to get to know each other outside the office.

What do you think? Is it a good idea for managers and subordinates to hangout together outside of the office?

 

Categories: Best Practices, Business
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,171 other followers

%d bloggers like this: