Facebook, Social Media & Business Strategy: Do you panic?

So you are a corporation and your workers are spending time on Facebook. What do you do? Do you shut down access? Do nothing? Develop acceptable use policies? Or order in pizza, get the gang together and figure out how social media fits in with your overall business strategy?

If you said the latter, move to the front of the line and consider yourself an innovative organization.

While there are many trying to figure out what social media means for their business, they should take note that this is just natural evolution. We have been there before. Many times.

History repeats itself. When the telephone became readily available, organizations had to figure out its role within its core business. Can you imagine a business today without a telephone? I think not. Let’s look at some great moments in technology evolution.

The telephone evolved into toll free lines. The photograph evolved into the photocopier. The telephone and the photocopier evolved into the fax. Census tract data and media measurement evolved into database and direct marketing. Electronic mail became e-mail and these to opt-in e-newsletters and tailored communications.

We only have to go back to 1995 when Netscape and Mosaic appeared on the scene. Most organizations questioned the value of the Internet. Now most believe if you are not on the Internet, you are not in business.

The Internet boom provides a good point of analogy – many got caught up in the “dot com” revolution. There were many pushing the capabilities of the technology without taking the time to understand the true business need.

Organizations should not be “dazzled” with social media. It is really just another business tool and channel for communication. A highly, cost-effective and efficient tool and channel at that.

The fact remains that social media is a technology. And the real challenge is to figure out how it fits in with an organization’s business strategy.

Social Media presents many opportunities for organizations. Internally for collaboration, building corporate culture and even using employee networks for recruitment, externally to build communities with customers and stakeholders, as well as garner “word of click” free marketing. It is boundless. What social media offers is true integration. We are seeing the merging of media, collaboration and community.

So instead of thinking about social media as an impediment to your business, think about it in terms of your fundamentals – goals, objectives and strategy – and leverage the opportunity to evolve and elevate your business.

Facebook, Social Media & Making Money

June 7 2008 - I read Mark Sutcliffe’s editorial in the Ottawa Citizen today - “Still hard to see how Facebook will make a buck with social networks.”

He establishes his position right from the start:

At the risk of sounding like a heretic, I don’t get Facebook.

It’s not that I don’t get the concept. I suppose I understand why some seven million Canadians are now active users of the social-networking site, even though I’m not one of them.

He further adds that he can’t grasp Facebook’s business model and makes the following statement about advertising:

But social-networking sites have no such ability to target. An advertiser on Facebook has no idea who he’s reaching. And any attempt to discern logical advertising connections and create targeted subgroups of Facebook’s audience from the information posted on user pages has proved futile.

This is clearly ignorance on his behalf - there is some remarkable targeting offered to advertisers via the Facebook platform.

He further compares Facebook with Threadless.com:

Threadless.com’s approach is brilliant and simple. Users create T-shirt designs and the online community votes on the ones they like most. The winning designs receive cash awards, and Threadless.com produces the T-shirts and sells them to the community.

He adds it is a business model he gets. Of course, a tee-shirt is a tangible product.

This is an unfair comparison - a tangible product that evolves through consumers voting with their dollars versus A UTILITY that connects people over a range of interests and communities. As an editorial writer, Mr. Sutcliffe should compare apples to apples.

Facebook has been around, in the public domain, for under two years. There are about 9 million Canadians on it. To a large share of these members, the social networking utility is meaningful in presenting themselves and connect with friends and colleagues. It also provides an opportunity to maintain continuity with a host of friends but also communities of interest.

Threadless may have capitalized on the the social networking revolution and found their niche. Good for them! However, Facebook is an evolving concept that has captured the imagination of millions of people. A fairer comparison would be Google (who he references in the article), even Amazon and Research in Motion. All of these companies were banking on a bigger idea and were not profitable for years. We wonder if Mr. Sutcliffe would have written the same thing about search engines and online shopping 10 years ago? However, we live in a world now where these three companies’ offerings have fundamentally changed how we live and work. And these companies have evolved to become more relevant to increase our productivity, connectivity and how we shop.

While Mr. Sutcliffe may rightfully challenge the Facebook business model, he remains shortsighted in what the platform offers and how it will evolve as a utility. His article is on the Internet, so he must have some faith in what cyberspace has to offer.

Facebook, New Graduates & Usage Policies

What is it about the 18-34 generation and Facebook? Well, they have a better networking and relationship maintenance tool than their Boomer predecessors. This presents a golden opportunity for all organizations.

For those of us who graduated and left school for good before 1995 (yours truly included) - the year that the Internet became mainstream – we all suffered the cruel fate of losing contact with our friends. These were the days when we all signed each others yearbooks and parted ways. Well not quite, if we were good friends, we exchanged phone numbers and addresses, and some of us got to stick around our old stomping grounds. But being in our early 20’s, what were the chances of us staying settled? In the same place? With the same phone number? If you are 18 to 34 years old, you are part of the most mobile cohort. And with globalization, mobility extends beyond national boundaries. Before the days of the Internet, unless we really worked on it, we just simply lost touch. And with friends moving around – changing addresses and phone numbers – it was a minor miracle that we managed long distance relationships.

Then came e-mail and personal websites. Staying in touch was merely an act of updating your address book in your e-mail program or reader. Then there was the instant messenger (the forerunners being MSN, Yahoo and AOL) and we could load on all our friends and chat with them online from any place – any time – as long as they had the same technology and were online at the time.

And then came social media. An integrated platform where you can post your “personal” CV, your interests, and connect with other groups of like-minded individuals. But most importantly, the platform offered the opportunity to invite friends to join parties and your network. With the simple act of uploading and selecting contacts from your e-mail address book, the wildfire of connection spread. Friends for life, so to say (well, if you let them into your network). While there are numerous platforms, in westernized democracies, Facebook is emerging to be the dominant platform.

With social media, our internet savvy under 35 generation has grown up with contact maintenance and networking tools that Baby Boomers could never have imagined. The challenge is to accept that this is not play for this generation. It is how they communicate. It is how they define their relationships.

Employers who recognize this and are able to incorporate it into its overall business strategy – from operations and communications – would likely reap the benefits across its internal operation. If firms have acceptable usage policies, they would likely be viewed as progressive and an attractive place to work – as are all places with high degrees of open and transparent lines of communication. Further, it can bridge the gap between the generations in positive ways – younger workers can show their senior colleagues how to take advantage of social media tools, while the latter can teach the former sound business fundamentals, communications and strategic skills.

What is your organization’s Facebook policy?

If People Operated Like Facebook

Here’s a fun look at how we may interact if we talked “Facebook” in real life.

http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/04/30

Clarifications: Reuters Coverage on Facebook News Release

Yesterday I was interviewed by Reuters on our recent news release. As with most interviews related to polling results, there are some things that get a little lost in translation and edited.

Please note the following clarifications on their article “Facebook users willing to let employers see profiles” by Claire Sibonney.

Quote:

Almost half of 1,200 people questioned in an online survey said they would be comfortable sharing their personal profile with their current employer, while two in five would consider letting prospective employers look at their Facebook account in addition to their resume.

Clarification: Poll was population representative of 1,200 online Canadians. Of which, 51% were Facebook members. It is this 51% that these findings apply to.

Quote:

The poll showed that out of Facebook’s 9 million Canadian members, almost 9 in 10 adults aged 18 to 34 use the site. Singh suggested that more people are censoring potentially embarrassing information.

Clarification: Based on Facebook membership stats, when proxied against the Canadian population (2006 Census) yields the estimate of “almost 9 in 10 adults aged 18 to 34 use the site.” Our survey indicates 74% of those 18 to 34 years are members of Facebook. Assuming that there may be persons with multiple profiles and that there may be some small concerns with the reporting sample, the truth may be somewhere in between.

The “censoring” reference relates this quote:

“The days of getting drunk and getting all your pictures posted online, that’s gone,” he said.

What I said: Almost two-thirds of Facebook users feel that their profile is an accurate representation of who they are. While there may be a time in their youth that their profile may contain the usual silliness of pictures getting drunk, people are savvy about employers searching for their profiles and related postings online. So when these member enter the working world, they would likely tailor their profile to be more professional but still reflective of their personality. I also noted that Facebook has sophisticated privacy settings should a member want to limit access to who views their profile.

Everything else was accurate.

Fact remains, Facebook is great tool for screening and attracting talent (and getting a sense of a candidate’s personality and organization fit), and presents great platform for building a vibrant company culture (with ample examples of companies who have done so already).

Facebook helps employers screen & develop talent…

Social networking is the new frontier of recruiting and connecting with staff.

Yes, indeed. While not an obvious first place to advertise jobs, the medium does take advantage of one key element - networks.

There have been a wave of employers shutting down workers access to this revolutionary Web 2.0 application because it is considered a time waster. E-mail was once considered a time waster. Even the telephone.

Employers are trying to figure out how Facebook can be a positive contribution to their operations. Even in the midst of what we now refer as the “talent crunch.” But, with all the efforts being poured into new recruitment and retention programs and employer branding initiatives, Facebook might be a manager’s best ally.

It is well known that many new hires are now done on a referral basis - may it be through an employee, professional network of post-secondary drive. It is my strong sense that employers who embrace the ‘trusted network’ aspects and personal profile features of Facebook could leverage the social networking system to attract talent with the “right fit” faster and easier than traditional means.

As we noted in one of our recent reports: Facebook is the account of choice for more than 80% of Canadians who subscribe to social networking sites. While membership appears to have stabilized at over 9 million, almost 9 in 10 Canadians aged 18 to 34 years are members – the cohort that is most sought after by employers.

For some excellent insights into what Facebook and social media can do for your organization, I suggest you read the following article “Web 2.0 @ Work” by Elizabeth Kelly that appeared in the April/May issue of HR Professional.

Article: Web 2.0 @ Work by Elizabeth Kelly

Have we got our priorities right?

I’ll admit it. I am a foodie. Some may say food snob. Sure. Whatever.

I regularly pick up food magazines for new ideas, among which bon appetit is one.

Flipping through the May 2008 issue I encountered this ad for Fancy Feast.

Now, I’ll also admit I like cats and that they make good pets.

BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

“Restaurant Inspired” food for cats??? Come on.

At this time when food prices continue to rise, the are riots over the shortage of staples and millions starving in poor countries, I have a real problem with such product development and marketing.

While kitty should be fed, I think that we should take a hard look at how we have promoted such frivolous opulence in our society.

Trying to stay up-to-date

In the business of providing advice, you simply have to stay in the know. Whatever is going on in the news, business, science, the arts and popular culture, clients expect us to be up-to-date. We need to stay abreast of the latest trends and innovations in society and the market.

So we have the radio on… on some news channel. Or a small television on… on some news channel. Near our desk. While we work. We try to read the daily papers first thing in the morning… at home… in the office… on the can. Or check out the key news websites and scan the new postings (some of us subscribe to a host of RSS feeds). And the magazines – weekly, monthly, special issues… news, business, music… IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO STAY UP-TO-DATE!!!! And even more challenging, trying to get a balanced perspective by reviewing a number of news sources.

Another thing that takes effort… EXERCISE.

I have found a handy little trick to stay in the loop AND (my attempts of) staying fit. PODCASTS.

Yup. I listen to a host of podcasts from around the world. With iTunes and an iPod I have access to news reports, documentaries, editorials and political and social trends analysis at my fingertips as I grind away on the treadmill. I am thankful to media around the world for letting me package information in a way that allows me to digest it when I can, wherever that may be.

Some of my favourite podcasts are as follows.

On the Media (www.onthemedia.org): From their website - “On the Media explores how the media “sausage” is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of “making media,” especially news media, because it’s through that lens that we literally see the world and the world sees us.”

Peter Day’s World of Business (www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/worldbiz/): From their website - “In Business is all about change. New ways of work and new technologies are challenging most of the assumptions by which organisations have been run for the last 100 years. We try to report on ideas coming over the horizon, just before they start being talked about.”

Slate Magazine (www.slate.com/id/2119317/): From their website - “Slate is a daily magazine on the Web. Founded in 1996, we are a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, and culture. Slate’s strong editorial voice and witty take on current events have been recognized with numerous awards. The site, which is owned by The Washington Post Company, does not charge for access.”

Search Engine (www.cbc.ca/searchengine/): From the CBC website - “Search Engine is your open source to all the surprising and significant ways the Internet is transforming our world. It’s about the little Myspace page that could swing the next election, the anonymous message board comment that led to the CEO’s indictment, and the official online video game of the Chinese government. Think of Search Engine as a radio show about the Internet in the same way The New Yorker is a magazine about New York. It’s a look at politics and culture through the lens of the Net. It’s radio that predicts the present.”

All in the Mind (www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/default.htm): From their website - “All in the Mind, presented by Natasha Mitchell, is Radio National’s weekly foray into all things mental – a program about the mind, brain and behaviour. From dreaming to depression, addiction to artificial intelligence, consciousness to coma, psychoanalysis to psychopathy, free will to forgetting – All in the Mind explores the human condition through the mind’s eye.”

There are many more…

If you have not done so as yet, and are looking for creative ways to stay up-to-date in your field of interest, search the podcast section of iTunes and start subscribing.

Happy listening.

AB Election 2008: A Remarkable and Spectacular Result for Governing PCs

Amidst much debate about a need for change, the Alberta PC party rode into a bright new dawn with a resounding victory in the 2008 provincial election on March 3, 2008.

With a mandate of 70+ seats, they have effectively eliminated any opposition and have free reign over the operation of the province for at least another four to five years.

The opposition parties, optimistic with 20+ seats in 2004 and stealing Ralph Klein’s riding in a by-election, are now decimated. With little hope and no voice for the current term, elected members can only hope on working on their roles of as future statesmen in a range of different capacities. Kevin Taft has no option but to step down as leader of the Liberals.

This result has emphasized the following realities.

1. The Tories clearly understand the electorate better than the opposition. While under the Tory rule, even though wealth from oil has increased, and access to healthcare and post-secondary education and environmental protection has declined (based on factual data), they continue to demonstrate that they have a resounding appeal among their core constituency.
2. The Tories understand what it takes to stay in power. While there is much discussion about resolving voter apathy and the need for electoral reform, these are of little interest to Tories. The current system and configuration works for them and they are remarkably efficient at using it to their advantage – especially when they can generate enough interest to get a 41% turn out rate, obtain 53% of the vote and parlay that into 88% of the seats. Opposition parties have little chance, if any, to erode this well-oiled machine.
3. Voter apathy… self-fulfilling prophecy or political advantage? Voter turnout at 41% raises a number of questions. Are Albertans happy with the current state of government that they don’t feel that they need to vote? Do they think that the result is pre-determined that they have little effect on the final result? Do they think that being labeled “apathetic” that they act accordingly? Or are citizens disengaged and lack any interest in politics whatsoever? Regardless of what voter apathy is exactly (and how it contributes to weakened debate with a minimal opposition), the Tories understand it, are happy to maintain the status quo and leverage the situation to their advantage.
4. A paradoxical notion of change. While all parties emphasized they offer a solution for and were the agent for change, voters opted for the status quo. Did they buy into the Tories vision for change? Did voters unequivocally reject all other parties’ notion of change? Or was it that no change was the most desirable change of all? Or are voters scared to rock the boat with “too much change?”It is interesting to note on this measure of change how Albertans view the world. After over 12 years of Federal Liberal rule, Albertans were among the most vocal demanding change. They also view Ontario as a Liberal stronghold - even though Ontario has managed a number of changes in provincial government while it has been steadfastly Tory blue in Alberta. Regardless of what “change” is, the Alberta Tories understand that holding steady is what their committed electorate seeks.
5. The Tory Team is Alberta’s team. For the basic majority of voters, anything other than a Tory government is “un-Albertan.” Being a Tory is an Albertan tradition – that which has resulted in the province’s wealth and land of opportunity. The Tories continue to tap into this tradition and strengthen their brand with committed voters who perceive that being Albertan means voting Tory.

While the problems in the province rise – physician shortages, conflict in water rights and usage, power rates, ever increasing cost of housing, rising costs and reduced access to post-secondary education, homelessness, crime, suburban sprawl and environmental degradation – Tory stewardship has been deemed as the only acceptable solution for the province’s voters. And with no opposition, the Tories have been granted the strongest possible mandate to provide citizens with their current level of management and concern. The Tories will likely keep their foot firmly planted on the economic accelerator with the anticipation that market forces will resolve any of these “perceived” problems.

With an impotent opposition, it will be left to the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton to lead the charge on trying to resolve the lack of investment and support for the Alberta’s cities. However, with their renewed power, the Tories can pick and choose what investments will strategically support their mandate, ensure that Albertans stay politically engaged to the extent they currently do and steer their party towards a solid fifth decade in power.

Beware of Black Boxes - The Strength and Validity of Internet Surveys

ZINC research was recently a sponsor for Net Gain 2.0 in Ottawa.

This was an excellent conference on the current state and future on online research and using wireless technologies. I recommend that fellow researchers attend future iterations of this conference.

One area that many speakers dedicated much attention was the reliability of online polls. And specifically, the representativeness of the sample. I take the firm stance that online polling, with demographic-based weighting, is able to deliver findings reflective of the general population.

The fact is online is just another medium for data collection, and should be treated as such. With 70% of North Americans being Internet Users (with a higher incidence in Canada), given the nature of the study being conducted, we are at a point of acceptability of online gen-pop polling.

At the conference there were a number of issues raised about online data collection. Let me elaborate on the topics and my associated thoughts.

First, there was discussion as to how do you overcome the issue of the offline population. This is the traditional argument among researchers who argue that telephone polling is better at generating a “random and representative” sample. Two points here. First, young people are opting not to have a land line. Given the diminished capability of contacting this group, one must question the weighting procedure for younger respondents within a sample. Second, telephone response rates are most probably at the lowest point that they ever were. Telephone polling now has a host of tools, such as predictive dialers and pre-screened sample, to assist in their trade. So the question arises - are they approaching a representative population? Like the online population, in reality there are limits of who can be contacted and who wants to be contacted via telephone surveys. Thus, it is likely that the offline population may share much in common with the “uncontactable” population.

Another discussion was on self selection bias with online surveys. As indicated above, given the declining telephone response rates there is likely a self-selection process in participating in a phone survey. Many of us are aware that there are respondents who pick and chose to participate in the telephone survey, especially when asked how long it would take and what is the topic. Online researchers have been challenged to conduct parallel studies with telephone methods and the findings have repeatedly shown that there are minimal self selection differences. Further, given the vehicle of online data collection, it has delivered innovation in using incentives to motivate participation without any major quality effects.

Mode effects also raised some questions. Does the medium attract and produce skewed results? There is ample evidence - from polling companies and academic researchers - that has proven that the presence of “hyperactive” panel members is a myth and, if there are any withing a survey, have had little effect on data quality. Further, there are enough controls to assess fraudulent responses and “automaton” type responses via pattern recognition algorithms. The latter is easily investigated within longer surveys - and truth be told, we as market researchers do a great injustice to our discipline with lengthy surveys, regardless of the medium.

Finally, there is the subject of social desirability. The presence of a person automatically offers a “barrier” and “perceived filter” for the honesty of respondents. We have seen this across the breadth of research we have conducted - including self-complete and administered onsite projects. We have noted that online respondents tend to me MORE honest on contentious issues as know that their feedback is anonymous. Clients should appreciate this as there is less “sugar coating” within the actual data. Ultimately, what needs to be assessed is the consistency of method - if it is a tracking study, keeping a similar data collection is critical to mitigate any of the surprises that may result in shift in methodology.

Considering all these points, one thing that is noted is many government departments (who I regard as the most stringent in their data collection methods as they cannot afford to get it wrong), regardless of order, have moved over to online methodologies. So they must be comfortable with its application.

My last thought is this notion on proprietary weighting schemes. I personally disapprove of these. As they are proprietary, by definition they are not transparent nor reproducible. And the question arises, is the weighting applied designed to “fit the data?” We as researchers have a responsibility to apply simple methods to rebalance data from publicly available sources (such as the census) to ensure that our approach is reproducible and easily validated. I personally believe, given the magnitude of the online population at this time, that weighting by age, gender, region and (if the data exists) education. For those who have proprietary “black box” weighting schemes, it has been demonstrated that their data is within the margins of error of demographic weightings. With the issue of margins of error being debatable for online studies, the goal should be to deliver insights that are from a sample reflective of the population to ensure and reinforce the credibility of this means of data collection.