Logic+Emotion

Google+ Ripples Visualizes Social Sharing

Back in 2006, I attempted to visualize how digital influence spread through the blogoshpere using a metaphor of "ripples". Fast forward 5 years and there's a really cool new feature you can play with on Google Plus called "Ripples". See below:


I really love what Google is doing with this visualization. Here's how it works as best I can tell. In this visualization you can see the source of the share indicated by large type. In this case, Jeanette Halgreen was the first in this particular digital influence ecosystem to start the sharing. You can follow the ripples which spill out in multiple directions. Ripples shows larger spheres where there is a lot of sharing happening and it shows you who is sharing from who and displays direct shares and total number of re-shares.

You can even play back Ripples to watch the spread of a particular post which tracks the movement of the media over a timeframe and visualizes it allowing you to see who, and where reverberation was generated.

So what's in it for business? For starters it gives media professionals a test area to see how media spreads, who is spreading it—what makes something sharable and how connections work. Of course it's only a small sample (Google Plus) but it's a nice little tool to use if you're interested in media and network effects. Nice work Google.

The Science Behind Making Your Posts Shareable

This blog post was written by Marcus Taylor, co-author of the book Get Noticed and head of social media at SEOptimise. You can follow Marcus on Twitter here.

I’ve always been fascinated watching what content gets shared by the masses and what doesn’t. I don’t believe in the myth that ‘content is king’, I also don’t believe that it’s the timing of a post, or the credibility of the author that makes or breaks a blog post’s ability to spread like wildfire. In reality, it’s the combination of these factors that intensify a blog post’s likelihood of being amplified in the blogosphere.

If content were king, then great posts wouldn’t go undiscovered every single day. If author credibility was the be all and end all, Chris Brogan would be able to post the lyrics to a Justin Bieber song on his blog and we’d all share it (Chris, please don’t test this…).

Highly shareable blog posts tend to create a compounding effect of sharing, whereby the initial people who read the post share it with their audiences, who then share it with their audiences, and so on. With this in mind, there are just two ways in that we can improve the odds of increasing a post’s ability to be shared:

1. Increase the rate of readers who share the post
2. Increase the initial number of readers

These two methods are obviously very broad and each contains a large number of sub-factors that can improve a blog post’s ability to be shared. Before we talk in more detail about what these sub-factors are, lets look at a very simple example:

Blog post A is shared by 1/100 readers

Blog post B is shared by 1/500 readers

In either case, you could increase the initial number of readers, which theoretically could create a compound sharing pattern. However, Blog post A will be five times more shareable than blog post B because there is a higher rate of sharing. Now lets look into how you can increase that rate.

A blog post’s ‘rate of sharing’ has a lot to do with the emotional reaction that is triggered in a reader that makes them want to pass the post along to friends. This ‘need to share’ emotion kicks in when a person feels a noticeable change in thought process or emotion.

What Impact’s a Blog Post’s Emotional Impact?

• The uniqueness of the post
• The timing of the post
• The relevance of the post to the reader
• The tone / style of the post
• The angle & idea of the post
• The intrigue created by the post’s headline
• The level of trust and credibility of the post (blog design, author reputation, accuracy of statements, quality of writing).

In almost all cases, any blog post can be made more likely to be shared by making it more unique, better timed, more relevant to the probable audience, more trustworthy, more intriguing and better written.

However, a blog post can also be made more likely to be shared by increasing the scale of people initially reached.

What Impacts the Scale of Initial Exposure?

• The connections & network the author / blog has established
• The accessibility and ease of sharing the post
• The budget available to reach a large audience through advertising

In other words, the larger the network of the author, the easier to share the post is, and the more money that is available to advertise the post to a large audience, the more likely a post is to be shared.

 

Measuring How Shareable Your Blog Post is:

There really is no way to do this accurately as ultimately it would require applying numbers to intensities of emotional reactions, but just for fun I decided to grade this post on each of the factors listed above:

Factor	Out of 10	Reason
Uniqueness	6	It’s a new methodology, but people have been talking about how to make a post more likely to go shareable for years.
Timing	5	There are a lot of bloggers looking to write shareable content at the moment so the timing is good, however, it would have been much more powerfully two or three years ago.
Relevance	9	This is a website read by bloggers looking to promote blog posts and learn blogging tips.
Tone	5	This is quite hard to self analyze, but I think the tone of the post is probably somewhere in-between good and bad J
Idea / Angle	6	I think the idea of analysing what makes things go shareable is always a good one!
Intrigue	4	The title of the post has some level of intrigue to it  but it could be improved.
Trust	5	This is a well-trusted website
Network of Author	5	My network is not huge, but with a little bit of help it should be enough to get the ball rolling.
Ease of Sharing	8	This website is really well designed making it very easy to share content.
Budget Available	0	I do not intend to pay to advertise this post.
Total	51/100

A few things worth noting about this table: first of all, there is no weighting. Everything is scored out of 10 suggesting that every aspect has equal impact, which is not true. Also, the value of doing this table is not to find out exactly what number you end up with, but to spot the areas that you personally feel could do with improvement.

In this case, I felt that the headline of the post was the weakest aspect that would limit the blog post’s likelihood to be shared.

Try it. Write a blog post, grade it on how shareable it is and then see if you can add 25% or 50% extra ‘shareability’ to it using this grading technique.

 Image Credit: furiousgeorge81

"Share-ability" By Design

Can you design things to be shared? Of course you can. While "sharing" is ultimately up to the end participant, it's up to the "designer" of the "thing" (this could be content, a platform, a product) to build the option and ability for sharing to occur. The media industry had no choice but to innovate in this space as my colleague Steve Rubel likes to refer to as "the war for page views". As, I've written recently—there are still untapped opportunities to enable and even kick-start social sharing behaviors.

Digital Influence: We're All Somebody

Photo by Ric Dragon

Recently I had the privilege of hosting a stimulating panel at Pivot 2011 with Joe Fernandez, founder of Klout, Larry Levy, co-founder of Appinions and Elisa Camahort, co-founder of BlogHer. The idea of digital influence or how influence works within the social-digital space is on the mind of not only marketers, but policy makers and anyone in the business of communications and or influencing stakeholders to achieve desirable outcomes. While measuring digital influence and doing something with it is still in its infancy, I believe strongly that there is a large opportunity in understanding the dynamics of networks and how ideas, opinions, stories and narratives spread. For an example of this, take a look at the NYT cascade pilot which visualizes how a story spreads on Twitter. 

Visualizations aside, our panel covered some interesting ground. Here are a few highlights:

Digital Influence & Real-World Influence, Related But Not The Same
I asked Joe Fernadez of Klout if he thought there was a difference between digital influence and real-world influence and he mentioned something he called "the Warren Buffet problem" referring to an individual who is clearly influential (and whose influence extends into the digital world) though is not personally active when it comes to their own "social graph'. From my perspective we can measure Warren's influence online via mentions, sentiment, coverage, volume of conversation etc. But where we have to get better at is understanding the "nobodies" who help spread Warren's message. These are individuals (and there are a lot of them) who nobody ever heard of but are critical in spreading ideas. To use Edelman's language—Warren Buffet is an idea starter and there are thousands of individuals, properties and media outlets on the social web who act as his amplifiers. Some of them have more digital influence than others—but it all adds up.

Topical, Temporal & Identity Based Influence: Find Your A-list At That Moment
Larry Levy of Appinions chimed in to state that they are working hard on the Warren Buffet problem by looking at the data. Topical influence means you start analyzing networks for influential data based on WHAT and not WHO (you can eventually end up with several WHO's and not just individuals. Temporal influence can indicate what person or digital property is influential in either a topic or related topic at that moment in time. These kinds of data sets through a wrench in the thinking that influencers can simply be "listed" and ranked. Elisa of BlogHer threw in a third consideration which is influence based on "identity" meaning if you can identify with the values and lifestyle of the person or media outlet you are exposed to that you are more likely to be influenced by what they tell you. An "A-list" of those who wield influence may be for a period of time or associated with specific topics and conversations—it may not always be the usual suspects.



Automation Desirable But Not Fully Realistic Yet
As Larry noted, sentiment and things like language differences can be addressed by software and extracting data, but it takes people to look at the data and extract insights from it. And this is where I think the digital influence game is heading. Understanding what influences individuals or activates certain "nodes" on networks is really what this business will be about. It will also be about data. Accessible databases of not only who, but what and where (for example, being able to store and serve up high quality conversational data in a dashboard). Understanding who has influence when and how they use it will be critical to tapping a virtual army of advocates or on the flip-side having deep knowledge of "badvocates" or those who mobilize against you. Right now, no tool does this with great precision—but platforms such as Appinions, Sysomos, Radian 6, Peer Index, and many others are all vying to produce the most actionable data when it comes to understanding and acting upon digital influence. (Edelman also has Tweetlevel and Bloglevel tools which play in this space).

With platforms like Klout evolving their Perks program, digital influence will only rise in popularity due to the fact that social is shaping up to be the other side of the coin of search—and the two will influence each other. Since Google's Panda changes to the algorithm—it's not only number of outbound links that matter but the quality of those link sources. Influential entities often drive high quality links as well as volume, and this is why we're all going to be so focused on who is influencing digital conversations, when, where, how and why. On the social Web, active participants are all "somebodies" with some degree of influence—but understanding how to harness the right data and act upon it will likely take some time.

(Disclaimers: BlackBerry is an Edelman Digital client. I've recently joined advisory board of Appinions)

How To Innovate In Spite of Innovation

I recently gave a talk, or more like a "therapy" session with Mullen's Chief Innovation Officer Edward Boches at the MIMA Summit in Minneapolis. A fantastic event populated by some of the most innovative companies in the world including Target, 3M and Best Buy. I have a bias when it comes to "innovation" that people tend to hyperfocus on what Google's Avinash Kaushik called "transformational" innovation. Ironically, a great example of transformational innovation would be Facebook which is transforming the Web from information to social interactions. But I focused my portion of the conversation on where I spend most of my time which is "incremental innovation" or smaller innovations which are not designed to dramatically transform, but can be effective ways of moving an organization in the right direction. Here are a few tips on how to innovate in spite of innovation.

Think Small: Fireflies vs. Lightbulb
Innovation doesn't always occur as the result of a single big idea (lightbulb) but can often times be the result of many little ideas. If we think about ideas, concepts or thoughts as fireflies vs. a giant lightbulb, you realize that fireflies need to be "caught" and placed in a jar. When collected, lots of fireflies can generate just as much light as a light bulb, but the trick is pulling out the right firefly or idea at the right time. Many good ideas were ahead of their time. 

Prototype
Coming from a design background, I stress the value of prototypes and define them broadly. Prototypes don't always need to be built out of code or material. A prototype needs to go beyond spoken or written word. It can be a visual, or process design or even a concept video. But it should be tangible, and it should communicate the value of the innovation.  

Culture Matters More Than Technology
Edward busted my chops a bit because I was using index cards to gather my thoughts vs. an iPad. I took that opportunity to stress that culture is more important than technology when it comes to innovation. I've seen companies with state of the art working spaces and those with just the basics in place and innovation happening at the latter. When it comes to pushing things even just a little, you don't need the latest and greatest tech but you do need a fire in the belly which is shared by your peers.

Create A Coalition of the Willing
Related to the last point I referenced specific examples where I had seen better ideas come out of hallway conversations vs. "brainstorming sessions" where the most "creative" people are invited to the table. When trying to innovate, as a manager the most effective thing you can do is find, harness, and conspire with those who are willing to take up the cause with you. Innovation is a cause. It makes people uncomfortable and challenges them to stretch their own abilities.

Speak The Language of Business
During our session, several individuals expressed the frustration of not being able to get "innovation funded". There are creative ways around the obstacle. On the professional services side, one way is to make a business case to a client which funds the initiative for you and gives them first dibs on an idea. On the corporate side, it can entail working up a business case and showing how much can be made or saved. Or there can be business cases built around things like visibility, marketing, press etc. Speaking the language of business means speaking in terms of business outcomes and not just the brilliance of the potential innovation. Do this and you'll be one step closer to finding a sponsor.

Meet A Need
One of the things that I like about Kickstarter is that it meets a need that has previously been unmet. There are lots of people with projects in need of funding, and as it turns out there are also a great deal of people who feel good about supporting a project they believe in. The results is a marketplace where "buyer" and "seller" both benefit and exchange value. But prior to the platform, neither group likely knew that needed to work this way.

These are a few personal "values" that I try my best to consider when I work and hopefully push things forward. What are yours?

Klout, Kred and the Ugly Truth About Social Influence Measurement

The following is a guest post from Jennifer Leggio, a Forbes social media blogger and raconteur. Find more about Jennifer here: http://about.me/mediaphyter

I'll be the first to admit that I once called out social influence measurement to be, as they scientifically say, a bunch of hooey. After the deluge of self-proclaimed social media "gurus" in 2007-2008, I couldn't help but be skeptical. These influence measurement tools started as simple lists of users by network size and eventually grew to services like HubSpot's fun yet vapid TweetGrader. So, it's not surprising that when Klout was first introduced, I met it with the same eye-rolling skepticism that I gave to the others. "This is likely fun," I said to myself. "But probably not much more."

I feared what a lot of other cynics feared - yet another "popularity" tool for the social media “guru” squads to tout their own awesomeness. Over several months I watched people take advantage of the perks and post about their scores until curiosity got the best of me. Sure, I'll admit that it was fun to go in and see how my score would shift based on how often (or not) I used a social network. And, I did enjoy my mockery of Klout's ill-fitted influence topics (for example, Klout currently believes I am influential about oatmeal. I'm awaiting an offer from Quaker any day now, but I digress…). However, that does not mean that influence measurement tools are without merit, especially in today’s booming social business landscape. So, the question becomes: Was I wrong to be cynical or was I right to want them to do more? The answer is an ambiguous “yes.”

Remember the whole ROI and social media debacle? Sure you do, it’s still going. Companies were clamoring for proof of ROI for their social business investment, while the same merry band of social media “gurus” screamed, "What? Can't hear you! Social media is intangible!" 

What does this have to do with influence measurement? Just hang in a bit longer. The foundation underneath both the influence and ROI debates is fear. In the ROI debate, people who truly didn't understand social business were trying to justify their existences. A common thread might be, "You can't measure this, but look at how many LIKES we got today?" and then, immediately cue the knees knocking and the teeth chattering. With influence measurement, you have the same fear. A common thread here might be, "You can't measure influence. Klout says my score is only 30, but really, I am way more popular because I go to tweet-ups." Narcissism notwithstanding, remove the fear and we can shine a spotlight on an activity that's not only growing in popularity because people can get free stuff, but because companies are starting to demand it, much like they started to demand social media ROI.

Because so many companies want to see results for their output and the right kind of influenced action, social media marketers who ignore influence measurement will do so at their own peril. The days of “we got 100 random retweets!” as a milestone are, thankfully, gone. Don’t agree? I liken this to a good public relations strategy. In the olden days of PR, any news coverage could be considered helpful. If Bob’s News Magazine Weekly Times Post ran a direct duplicate of a press release, some PR folks might’ve cheered. PR agencies would pack clip books full of these types of posts. The days of “we got 100 random stories!” are gone. Companies want targeted, meaningful, third party discussions of their wares in the media. The same goes for social. And unlike publications where circulation and readership (though sometimes debatable metrics in their own right) dictate reach, influencers don’t come with their own numbers. Services like Klout and Sulia and others exist to help make sense of all of the madness.

All of this said, there are some critical considerations:  

1) Topical Influence – There is no “general” influencer. While measurement is helpful to companies, not any ol’ influencer will do. If Quaker is going to push a new flavor of oatmeal then, according to Klout, I am their gal. While my overall score might be decent and I am influential on breakfast choices, this doesn’t mean that I should be targeted for holiday gift guides (pet peeve alert). Just as you would with a reporter, target the ones who have the audience that give a hoot about what you’re selling.

2) Immature Market – The influence measurement market is still bouncing around in its jumper swing. Much like any market in its infancy, it needs time to grow and improve. Klout and Sulia are moving quickly toward more accurate topical influence but they aren’t there yet. And, that doesn’t mean they can’t be undone by a newcomer with a better, or even simply better marketed, offering (case-in-point: Groupon). For example, Kred has recently popped up, and they tout the ability to determine where you fit into a range of communities (aka topical influence). The challenge here is that they base a lot of this on Twitter bios (mine says hockey, but I am not influential there) and they also share how scores were determined, so the bumbling group of social media “gurus” could try to game it. Is Kred the company to knock Klout from its pedestal? I have no idea. However, we need to give Klout, Kred, Sulia and others time to mature this market the way that we gave social networks time to grow into business vehicles.

3. Influencers Are a Rascally Bunch - They vary by industry and preference. It’s important to note that an influencer doesn’t need to be the most popular kid at camp. He or she only needs to be influential to a focused audience (aka topical influencers). And, right or wrong, influencers can be bought. Algorithms can’t always determine what is, for example, a sponsored tweet versus a heartfelt one. These can work in certain situations, but this is a critical consideration when weighing influence targets for promotions or outreach.

4. Size is Not Everything - It’s been debunked over and over, but I’ll say it again. A network size does not always indicate the right level of influence. Influence inspires a new type of action, and that action is harder to measure beyond the initial click. Relationships are much more critical to influence measurement than actual network size. Influence measurement needs become more dynamic and contextual to truly help us get past this “more followers equals more amazing!” mindset. Again, it’s a young market, and in time size will become less relevant, and context will become more critical.

Here’s where I tell you in a few sentences what I just rambled about above: influence measurement, in all of its grand imperfection, is not going anywhere. It will improve, it will become more critical, and your clients or executives are soon going to demand it. Rather than laughing it off or denying it based on fear, start playing around with it, determine the good pieces and how you can take those bits and feed them into a true social business strategy. If not, the merry band of social media “gurus” awaits, and I hear that their membership requirements aren’t discerning at all. 

Poking vs. Poking Holes

Watch live streaming video from digiday at livestream.com

You should watch this video from Wallgreen's Adam Kmiec because he makes a lot of great points about the hype of social and the reality check which is needed in the industry. I applaud him for stressing this. I also think he might be forgetting something I feel is really important. Poking is just as important as poking holes. Perhaps even more so.

I've watched Adam through the years and it was his "poking around" that led to his proficiency in social media. Same for Shiv Singh who leads social at Pepsi beverages. Before then he was sort of a lone voice at digital agency Razorfish trying to move that firm into the social era. Both Shiv and Adam (like myself) benefited from curiosity, digging and poking. We all made huge attempts to understand social in the context of business.

When I started blogging in 2006, at Digitas—my co-workers thought I was a little nuts. When I tried to convince them that Twitter would alter how we communicate (in 2007), they looked at me with puzzled expressions. Adam goes on to poke holes in one of social media's more innovative examples—Dell and their social media command center. But clearly expresses his interest in doing something similar for Walgreens. I would estimate that if Dell invited him to Austin, that he'd jump at the opportunity and within the year you'd see a headline citing Walgreen's roving social command center (inspired by Dell).

Here's my point: There's value to poking holes in any inflated industry. There's also value to simply poking. Adam did it and it served him well. Poking holes can serve a purpose—it can expose flaws in any area. But not at the expense of poking, digging, experimenting, and trying. Several years ago there was a market for teachers in this area and in principal, I'd agree with Adam that there are indeed myths in need of busting—some teachers have overreached. But today, the market demand is for myth busting. It makes for a good story.

In either scenario, I believe in one fundamental truth which I learned in design school. "Be true to your work and your work will be true to you". For me, this transcends all things social and has instilled my appreciation of those who "poke".