Hashtags Are Getting Out Of Hand

Holy cow! I just realized it’s been quite some time since my last post on here. Truth be told, there’s a lot going on. I realize that’s the easiest excuse ever for not getting something done and we use it all too often, but I’ll follow it up with the second most used excuse: seriously, there’s a lot going on.

I have taken notice to something though in my time away: Hashtags are getting out of hand. Does anybody know why hashtags were originally created? It was a communication tool to link anyone around the world to a conversation of like items. Such as #MyDayWasLike or #CookingProblems. Television and Venues were licking their chops at this: it was an opportunity to make your event interactive: You could connect EVERYONE watching The Voice to the same conversation with #TheVoice. Attendees at SXSW could find each other throught #SXSW. It’s been something I’ve been trying to integrate into radio with #request or #OZKTop20.

Unfortunately, hashtags have fallen victim to the masses; Most people don’t use social media to listen, they use it be heard. Good hashtag conversations are few and far between, falling victim to stupid things like #swag and #yolo. People don’t click on those links, they just use them to fill up space in their tweet because it takes less time to explain than a sentence.

It’s almost become an act of spamming. Entire tweets consisting of nothing but hashtags. What does that accomplish? Sure it may gain you an extra follow or two, but is having someone wiling to follow THAT a good quality follow? Plus, it takes away from any of those conversations you linked to, and probably lost you any additional follows you gained or more.

Perhaps the worst part is that this trend has carried over to Facebook. Hashtagging in status updates, most aren’t even linked to the Twitter accounts. Granted, this may change with their new Graph Search (hold off on that verdict) but do these hashtaggers realize IT DOESN’T LINK TO ANYTHING ON FACEBOOK?!?!? This proves my afore-mentioned point that the masses don’t use social media to truly listen to what their followers are saying, they’re merely waiting for their chance to speak.

Maybe this is the way of the future. If social media has taught us anything it’s that it can’t be predicted. Maybe this is the new form of communication. From full sentences, to shortened sentences to this. Maybe this is inevitable. Hashtags will just join the ranks of poking and profile songs as the ‘Unnecessary Applications Of Profiles’. I hope not though.

I don’t want this post to be mistaken for a complaint. I still think there’s value behind the hashtag and desperately wish to see it return to the reason of it’s creation: to link us all together in one really big conversation. End this madness.

#PleaseHelp

Are We Finally Past The ‘Social Media Is A Fad’ Fad?

I heard it in a meeting again the other day. Another decision maker shrugging off the notion that Facebook could get him a pretty legitimate ROI for his young business. “It’s cool if you’re looking to kill time or stalk people, but I don’t see any point in investing in a fad.” Facebook, a fad. What about Twitter? “Nobody cares what I had for lunch any more than I care about what they had.” Ok, well…at the very least what about having a LinkedIn profile? You know, something you can connect with fellow colleagues and network within the industry, area, nation? “What’s that?”

Social media advocates are used to this; I honestly think we get tired of defending it just about as much as they get tired hearing about it. I say just about, because anything more than that would be a lie. Social media is everywhere we look: online, on-air, on billboards. It’s clearly a battle we’re winning and those out there who still don’t see the value are bombarded with it every day. It’s, as we put it, just blind ignorance or fear at this point that is keeping them from all but submerging themselves into the depths of the deep blue ocean that is the digital marketing plan these days. However, I am a firm believer in not passing judgment until both sides of the story are not only heard but understand. With that in mind, I embarked for a great time trying to figure out what stance the anti-social media crowd had. Here’s a few key points:

There’s no control: Facebook choosing a single layout is like a 6 year old at the ice cream store…it’s not happening. And why should it? Facebook has put everything it has into becoming the #1 social giant, something that wasn’t going to be achieved by staying the same in every way. This has been known to aggravate the usual clientele from time to time, but they always seem to come around. Before we know it the Timeline will be accepted and we’ll be complaining about a new thing that Facebook has pushed us out of our comfort zone for. Brand pages are very similar, except unlike the regular profiles these pages are designed to appeal to the target audience and increase likes, interaction and the overall urge to get off the computer and walk through their respective business doors. To do so can require quite the strategy for layout, convenience, etc. None of this can be achieved every time Facebook decides to switch things up. Unlike a regular website where you have the full power to switch things up to your heart’s content (and reasonable boundaries), Facebook can take all that away with a single update. It is because of this many are cautious to add Facebook to the strategy.

There’s Market Over-Saturation: Back when social media really caught on, the cream of the crop was MySpace, Facebook & Twitter. That’s it. Each brought a different tangible to the game: MySpace was all about personalization, Facebook was all about connecting and Twitter was all about informing. Now there’s so many different things that can be accomplished and multiple sites that can accomplish them. It’s almost as if every single major player in the digital world got it in their mindset that the only way to be successful is to launch a social network. Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Tumblr. Google has tried, and tried again. Apple has Ping, oh and MySpace is still around with Justin Timberlake bringing it back. This makes it difficult to pick an option, each has a slightly different audience but huge overlap and it’s almost pointless to try and maintain all of them…you’d run out of content and be spending so much time trying to change that, you’d all but forget you still have a business to run.

Government Involvement: Social media has brought us many things: the ability to connect, inform, network and advertise. Most importantly, it’s given us the opportunity to speak out. We’ve seen what Facebook can do in Egypt, London and New York (just to name a few). Much like the internet itself, social media is VERY loosely regulated, and in many ways rightfully so. However, you’re kidding yourself if you think it’s going to continue this way. Much like WikiLeaks, and online piracy before it, social media will inevitably meet the firm hand of government intervention. We can only hope the hands holding the reigns are good and honest with the best intentions. To the business owner, this can be a very risky overview.

Overall, to say social media is still in the stage of being a fad is to deny the future of our culture. Beanie Babies, Pokémon and slap bracelets were a fad. Having the capability to reach out to people around the world with a thing as simple as a tweet is not. The question for any business should not be whether to utilize this opportunity, but how to go about doing so effectively. To those of us out there campaigning for social media to become an accepted form of marketing, it’s easy to understand the caution flags when everything is put into perspective. Yet, much like Facebook, the kid in the ice cream store taking 20 minutes to choose a flavor, then changing it, we don’t have any choice but to go with it. You’re better off playing the game then sitting on the sidelines wondering why nobody is coming to your ice cream shop to check out your flavors.

Google+ Brand Pages, Missing Just A Few Things

It’s been a good month for social media.  In an industry that constantly changes, where this blog post will be outdated in two months, nothing changed.  Which is weird to say because so much change has taken place in the formats and applications on some of the major sites.  Facebook announced it was going to up its policy on user privacy, all the while with a secret agenda. Not to mention, the highly anticipated Facebook Timelines is set to unveil…soon.  All these changes have many in the social world wondering if Facebook will ever get dethroned, Google comes in and reminds us all that they’re still here.

Google + unveiled Brand Pages this last week. Something they had struggled to keep under wraps with an aggressive world of businesses out there trying to stay on the cutting edge of everything social.  I feel though that this launch may have been a bit premature, which is weird for Google, they normally wouldn’t do that (COUGH Google Buzz!). I do admit though there are several things I like about these pages, they are simple and equal; something Facebook Pages WERE until they found out how to make money off of them. That said, here’s a few things I’d like to see in Google Brands 2.0

1)    Multiple Admins: Right now only one person can commandeer the Brand Page. That’s either a huge commitment to put on one person for the long haul (although it’s some awesome job security) or a huge responsibility on an intern, seeing as how social media for some reason tends to be a task many businesses throw at interns.  In order to successfully run a Brand, you need multiple minds working on it. This should translate over the Brand Pages that Google offers.

2)    The Chance To Add Profiles On Brand’s Own Accord:  In an ideal world, Google has set this up perfectly: brands can follow other brands freely, but brands can only follow profiles after the profile follows them. Problem is we do NOT live in a perfect world and several businesses have already set up profiles for their respective shops and refuse to give up what they’ve built. I understand this is for the benefit of the public, but to limit that process of how brands connect is to limit the business in general.

3)    Analytics: Facebook Pages have a great analytics system, tracking everything from user base to the frequency of that user base.  The irony here comes from the fact that it’s Google inspired.  Google has one of the greatest analytics systems in the cyber-world, yet they can’t apply that to their social baby?

4)    Apps:  They’re everywhere. Steve Jobs made apps a necessity for every new device. So much so that companies can live and die by it. To avoid an applications option makes sense only in that it truly levels the playing field for all businesses in having to use what’s given to you.  This would be a great concept that could have huge success…were it not for Facebook and its thriving app business. No apps, no big business. That doesn’t sound like Google.

Google + has it’s flaws, from pages to profiles, but what social site doesn’t? That’s why it’s always changing, evolving and initially receives major criticism. That is until users become accustomed to them and another round of changes comes forth, then they complain about how why it wasn’t like the concepts before.  Google Brands are no different, this layout will not be he same a couple months from now, even weeks. Because the social competition is so high Google can’t afford to keep it the same. Or maybe it can. One thing we’ve seen Google become highly efficient at is getting back up after the 2-count and delivering a knockout. Like this last week, with Facebook unveiling and planning to unveil) all of it’s changes, Google comes in and throws a curve. It’s just Google being Google.

Facebook, The Monster We’ve Created

There’s recently been a lot of talk surrounding Anonymous and their proposed attack on Facebook.

Remember, remember the 5th of November

Didn’t even catch that reference until someone in the office pointed it out to me. Thank you Hugo Weaving for continuing to inspire anarchy present day.

So all of Facebook will be lost, should Anonymous succeed; At least for a few hours, maybe more. It’s hard to imagine Mr. Zuckerburg hasn’t surrounded himself with some employees capable of handling a serious hack(s). But the question is this: what can this possibly accomplish?

Anonymous states in their video that our ‘medium of communication we all so dearly love will be destroyed’, citing the reason that Facebook sells our information to governments around the world. It’s no secret that governments and Facebook have a connection. There’s rumors left and right that Facebook has distributed our information to the highest bidder, including national governments. However, it’s another connection that has our governments pulling for Anonymous (for once).

Facebook has recently become a hub for communication between revolutionaries to inspire change, albeit good and, as Steve Olenski points out in his article “The Dark Side of Social Media”, bad. The London Riots of 2011 are without question something that is a product of tension and rapid escalation. Several frustrated with the economy of no hope for improvement in the near future and a source for communication in real-time is a formula for riot, and that’s exactly what the world witnessed unfold on the London streets. Social media is also a major player in the Egypt Revolution of 2011, so much so that there are children in Cairo now named Facebook. That’s power.

So much so that the government is scared.

And they should be, we all should be. Social media has opened the doors to possibilities we have only begun to tap into, and if where we’ve been is any indication as to where we’re going, something has to give.

For the first time EVER, we have the ability to communicate around the world in real-time, inspire millions with a :30 video and establish a following with a single page or post. However, with this power comes tremendous responsibility (I apologize for being the millionth person to beat that phrase over your head, but it fits), this is something we are far from harnessing.

My home state of Missouri just passed a law banning students and former students from friending their educators on any social media platform. Although I disagree with this particular extreme, I can certainly understand it’s reasoning: there are simply some things that shouldn’t be shared and we haven’t yet figured that out. From a platform to launch potential sexual misconduct to a student seeing a photo album of his French teacher’s time at the downtown pub crawl last weekend, social media doesn’t have a censor. Millions everyday pour everything into their profiles, from those drunk photos that will likely endanger there careers down the road to credit card information, phone numbers and real-time location. What’s worse is we don’t think anything of it. Governments loved that. Everything has a price and it’s possible Facebook and our elected officials reached that price, that they very well could be using all that information to find out everything possible about us and keeping tabs on us.

It’s now like we were super protective of it though.

Log-in to Facebook: “You want my name/address & phone number?…ok”
“Now you want all my photos with all my friends?…cool, I can tag them!”
“There’s apps that reveal my exact location and games I can play with my credit card? I DO love zombie games and FarmVille…”

We did this to ourselves, so when you speak in anger over how much the government shouldn’t be all up in your business, just remember when you entered all that information there’s another person on the other side of that computer collecting that information, and he’s just as imperfectly human as you are.

However as I’ve stated before, social media has caused the government many a headache as well. From the Riots that HAVE happened due to social communication between revolutionaries and anarchists to the millions governments around the world have caught wind of and shut down before they got started, social media poses a threat to us all. So much so that governments are pressing hard for possessing control over them. This would most likely in turn lead to censorship, and thus defeating the purpose and ultimately social media altogether; such a shame for something that has the power to do so much good around the world.

I should say that I’m not labeling social media as a troublemaker, and that nothing good has come out of it. I love social media for all that it can do, and it’s impacted my world in a tremendous way. I’m not saying we all are guilty of giving ourselves away on social platforms, there are many out there that practice social ethics and serve as models to proper social power. But in this day and age, the actions of so few can affect so many, as witnessed by these riots. Social media has to evolve in order to sustain and we have to evolve with it. As long as we continue to abuse this power we’ve created, these issues will always exist. This is exactly what Anonymous is hoping to accomplish by taking out our most popular social hub.

What if they succeed? Facebook is shut down. It will be reopened, and the slate is clean. Do we move on, or do we rebuild? I vote for both: rebuild our social presence to entertain and influence our friends and followers (in a good way) and move on from the ‘Dark Side of Social Media’. Hack or not, this is an opportunity for change.

Remember, remember the 5th of November…AGAIN, Hugo Weaving…

The New Face of the PGA?

Props to Darren Clarke on a British Open victory, between Rory McIlroy’s US Open win and Clarke’s recent trophy it’s safe the say the Irish are proudly represented in one of its most passionate sports.  However one of the greatest moments in Irish sports history is being overshadowed by another story: where is the direction of golf headed? ESPN & company argue that at this time, it’s hard to tell.  However the REAL notion at hand that the PGA and its associates is that it’s hard to sell.

The PGA hasn’t always had the multi-millions dollar television deals and athletes that pack bigger endorsement contracts then some NBA players.  There’s always been one or two around to keep national interest.  Bobby Jones, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Seve Ballesteros and Greg Norman.  Each one brought a flame to the game that kept burning in the audience’s eye, enough to make headlines on Sportscenter.  The popularity was nothing though until the arrival of Tiger Woods.  This guy broke so many barriers it would have to be another blog entirely to cover half of them.  Not since his downfall have we ‘needed’ to find somebody to claim golf and ‘return it to the glory days’.

If you’re looking to the likes of McIlroy or Clarke to fill the shoes of Tiger Woods, it’s going to take more than a stretch of majors to do so, no matter how much the PGA wants you to think otherwise.  Looking to Twitter as an example, Europe was ablaze on Sunday. The British Open Final was settled earlier that day, and it was enough to break Twitter’s Top 10 Trends. This is great, yet not in perspective to the events later that day.  The FIFA Women’s World Cup set a TPS (Tweets Per Second) record. Putting this in perspective: an International golf star wins an international golf tournament, and it’s overshadowed by an international soccer tournament. On the world stage, golf will never beat soccer.  On the national stage, the PGA can’t invest all it’s hope in a group of Irishman in a country so swollen with nationalism it will never fully embrace them as the face of the sport. Might wanna look elsewhere…

This isn’t the first time in the last few years “who’s the next?” has come into conversation. Mickelson, Ricky Barnes, Adam Scott, the list goes on. But these players never truly lived up to the hype, no matter how much the media favored them. In terms of popularity, perhaps let’s turn to the greatest gauge of the times: Facebook. McIlroy is making a dent in social fandom with 72,000 (as of 7.19.11), while Clarke is emerging with 11,000 fans respectively (7.19.11) Yet if Facebook has taught us anything, it’s that fan pages with thousands of followers is the equivalent to quarters in US currency. Even Mickelson, that likeable teddy bear with his lefty swing and bright smile, has a modest albeit unimpressive 86,000 fans (7.19.11) For a professional athlete, true social stardom is measured in hundreds of thousands if not millions. LeBron James – 7 milliion, Derek Jeter – 1.5 million, Peyton Manning – 750,000 (7.19.11). Not to mention a guy named Tiger.

Face facts: McIlroy has potential and alongside Clarke Ireland should be proud, but they’re not going to save the PGA from its slow yet steady slide into mainstream mediocrity.  There is only one person who can take golf to where is was only a few years ago, ironically enough it’s the same person who got them there in the first place: Tiger Woods. Can he come back from the injuries and rebuild his image to save the PGA? THAT’S the true story they want. It’s what people want to know. We cannot be so quick to anoint a savior when the old one isn’t beyond the brink of obscurity, although he’s flirting with the edge. It’s Tiger’s game to give, and while he’s not on the course, the torch cannot be passed (and it won’t be passed in a year’s time, no matter how much ESPN tries to push that story). People are familiar with Tiger (video games, clothing lines, unique name, SI covers & ESPY’s), they care about his story (whether they admit it or not he perks ears) and perhaps the most essential stat: the Big Guys upstairs in the PGA Office know this, and will sell this at first opportunity. Until Tiger is gone (BTW: 2 million), there will only be one Tiger.

Google+Facebook = A New Chapter In Social Media

As a social media consultant for several area businesses, including my own place of employment, it’s my responsibility to stay on top of the hottest trends in social media.  This last week, everyone in the office was abuzz about Google+. Are you on it? Should we be? What’s going to happen to Facebook? I wish this type of concern occurred when I present new ways of utilizing the social tools we ARE on…

Regardless, Google+ has 100 times the buzz of, say, Google Buzz (pun intended).  It’s safe to say this may be the most legitimate social project Google has launched yet.  However, the question still remains: can Google+ cross the barrier that no Google-backed social project has come close to until now? Some say yes, some say no; I say what’s the difference? Here’s why:

Google+ is most definitely the cool kid on the block right now: 10 million in less than a month, pretty impressive.  However, thanks to Facebook and all that it has accomplished since 2004, 10 million isn’t that impressive anymore, especially when you factor in the financial pull Google has vs. Facebook at that point in its infancy.  The question now is can Google+ sustain this momentum? Mashable’s Ben Parr would argue no, stating that unlike services such as Twitter (which utilized celebrity appeal to gain popularity) Google+ hasn’t been tested and if it were in the near future it’s doubtful they have amassed enough of a following to sustain.  The cartoon in that article is an awesome representation of Google+: a guy walking into a new nightclub, only to find nobody inside.

But you can’t rule out the power of Google, or its pocketbook. Its team of uber-brainiacs and financial power could easily repair any injury its baby might receive at this point.  JCPenney can vouch for Google’s wrath: when they got word of the retail giant possibly using the ‘black hat’ technique to increase it’s SEO, Google shut down any chance of someone finding JCP through a search engine faster than Geico switches ad campaigns.  Erik Qualman’s Socialnomics will tell you only 5% of people using search engines go past the second page of results.  JCP got pushed back to page 6 on many searches: No Man’s Land. Google doesn’t mess around, and takes whatever they choose to involve themselves in very seriously.  Consider that before you dismiss Google from any conversation.

So what’s a search engine giant doing throwing itself into the ever-aggressive ring of social media? Simple: Google has long viewed social media sites a threat, it’s what is forcing them to evolve. More and more people are relying on their social friends for information and less on whatever pops up in search engine sites. That’s why they own YouTube and why they have long-viewed Facebook as Public Enemy #1 (Facebook’s partnership with Bing adds a bit of insult to injury as well…the enemy of my enemy…you get it).

Facebook has a lot going for it: new Skype-integrated video chat, 750 million users, billions in revenue and rumors of a music service in the near future.  Not to mention one glaring bonus: Facebook has no IPO…yet. A lot has gone into Facebook; it’s virtually the Roman Empire of social media.  Yet at it’s current pace, the thing everyone seems to be talking about is ‘when will Facebook take the Myspace plunge?’ Many experts are pointing to the moment they go public, but who honestly knows?

Here’s the reality. Facebook has worked its way to the highly coveted top of social media, and Google wants in.  This isn’t Google’s first attempt, nor is it Facebook’s first time playing defense.  Most likely we’ll be witness to these two going at each other until Facebook incorporates a 3D geo-location first-person shooter social game that unites all your friends against those that won’t stop poking you with GagaVille invites, thus ending any attempt Google+ x20 has at defeating it. What both have difficulty realizing is that the true threat lies within us.  These sites can spend all the effort in the world trying to create the best social media site possible, but in the end it has to be what we want it to be. Right now Google+ is awesome because it’s like starting Facebook all over again. Yet in the end, it’s like starting Facebook….all….over…again. We lose sight sometimes in the thick of things: social media is for us, and it’s supposed to be fun.  If you spend all this time worrying which one is going to beat the other, you’re missing out on what unique opportunities each one offers.

So who wins: Google, or Facebook? Right now it’s neither. The answer has been what it always will be (until we reach the point of all our personal information flooding into public domain…but that’s another story): we are the winners. Whether it’s a ‘Circles’ app, or a new way to ‘Video Chat’, these sites are catering to you, which is something you should definitely ‘Like’.