Because of that rapid pace, some people are claiming that the Death of the Influentials will happen sooner than later. Some digerati (Guy Kawasaki, Robert Scoble to name a few) are claiming that the best way to create an internet strategy is to obtain massive reach.  The Online Media Metrics Newsletter suggests that Guy’s argument is that the internet and social media have eliminated or at least reduced any semblance of information dissemination hierarchy.

Basically, what they’re suggesting is that if you stretch your reach as far and as fast as you can, through as many network nodes as possible, you’ve got a chance to reach more prospective customers and ideally, increase your results.

My problem with that is my own network, which is just now beginning to reap benefits, has taken me almost exactly a year to build. Social media, reach, influence and anything else you can measure is not going to be a silver bullet of any sort of marketing campaign you could begin. Reach and influence aren’t something you can buy off a shelf. They’re something you need to build, nurture and encourage.

After reading Pat LaPointe’s article, I’m not clear on whether or not he’s saying that brands shouldn’t bother focusing on the Influentials because they’re not a magic bullet (we’re not!), or if he’s suggesting that the right influentials need to be targeted still…

Whatever he’s saying, it’s important to remember that reaching the influentials is still important, because they can disseminate your message further and sometimes deeper, depending on how many conversations they can begin, but those influentials are still not the be all and end all. And they never will be.

Tags: Influential, Twitterati, Influentials. Guy Kawasaki, Robert Scoble, Silver Bullet Marketing

Post from: EveryJoe

Have the Influentials become Passe?

The site is composed of exactly five posts, all aimed at snarking at Cohen, with images that had to have come from friends or friends of friends. All of the pictures were of Cohen, with friends or at a small party with what looks like close friends. Maybe Cohen should be trying to track down where those photos came from rather than trying to get the courts to force Google to reveal anything? 

The court itself isn’t giving any indication as to which way they will rule. 

“…convincing a judge to unmask the blogger might prove difficult, because courts often protect Web users’ right to remain anonymous online. While there are exceptions for libel, it’s not clear whether the posts in this case would qualify. That’s because only facts can be defamatory, and the statements at Skanks in NYC might be deemed opinions rather than facts.” [source]

To me, this looks like a straight up case of cyberbullying. Many of us have been on the receiving end of these trolls, but we haven’t taken the perpetrators to court. 

Cohen is claiming that she’s had potential jobs bring this site up and question whether or not she is an appropriate representative of their product. If that’s really the case, the brands questioning her really aren’t looking closely at this site. It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that this is a blatant attempt to bully Cohen. 

I googled Ms Cohen to see if this apparently libelous site even had any Google juice whatsoever, and all that came up were references to this law suit and to one from last year when she made headlines because a bouncer alledgedly threw a glass (or glasses. It’s unclear) into her face, apparently disfiguring her. 

This lawsuit, put together with the headlines she made last year from the suit over the bouncer incident makes me wonder if this, like the porn industry asking for a federal bail out, isn’t just another PR stunt. A way to keep her name in the news in order to garner interest in her (perhaps flagging) career. Every article I’ve been able to find called her an “ex-Vogue” model. You don’t see working models with actual contracts being called that, even if they have graced the cover of the iconic magazine. 

It’s time for Cohen to find a new career I think. The model thing seems to be over, and her new choice of professional plaintiff isn’t exactly going gangbusters.

Post from: EveryJoe

Skank: Defamation or Opinion?

I’ve struggled with my own business brand for years, even when I had a strong brand with my PR business. I have always had a billion projects on the go, and they don’t all fit under the umbrella of the PR firm. Some of them downright seem contridictory.

What I ended up doing, was technically, creating a brand for “Colleen Coplick” rather than anything else. I’ve got a site, sure, but much like Rebecca is known as Miss604, I am working on connecting Colleen with MissManifesto, (no, that wasn’t planned, and I just noticed the similarity now!)  which acts as my umbrella brand for all of my projects. There’s a place for all of it under there. 

But then, based on my defintion of personal brand, does that mean I’ve created a brand out of Colleen Coplick, or have I developed my reputation?  

Rick over at EyeCube says that “Brand You” is dead and what’s more important is the brand you build, rather than the brand you are. 

In today’s hyper-connected, no-barrier-to-entry, Consumer-generated-content world it’s hard to escape the cult of Personal Branding. Everyone has a website, blog, Twitter account and Facebook page and they aren’t afraid to use them. But it seems to me we’ve reached an inflection point, and what was once smart move now feels self-congratulatory and driven more by ego than producing value.

I think we as marketers, strategists, consultants and social media participants need to re-think what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. [source]

What I’m wondering is, is this any different than what Geoff and I said initially? At least, I know it’s what I had in mind when I wrote that post. 

I think that the bottom line, no matter who says it, be it me, Geoff, Rick, or even the commentors on Rick’s post (Scott Monty’s stood out to me personally as excellent advice) is that no matter what technology does to our lives, or how it advances, when you work to build a brand, whether it’s your name (ergo, yourself) or your company, it’s not enough to just have a persona. You need to build the brand rather than just be a brand. 

It’s not enough to have thousands of Twitter followers (and it shouldn’t be, as many said, about the numbers. It should be about the relationships you build with those followers), an impressive Linked In account, (”oooh! I’m two degrees away from Bill Gates!” Great, but what can that do for you??) or more friends on Facebook than any of your other friends. 

Create something that other people can get interested, involved and immersed in. What is it about you that someone else can get immersed in?  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you’re just not that interesting. What you create is.

Find out what’s important to your audience or community. Put them first – show them (don’t tell them) why they need to be paying attention to whatever it is you’re doing, and what’s in it for them. Your brand has got nothing to do with YOU, it’s got to do with the value you provide to others.

This goes for your personal brand, your company’s brand, or even the brand you work for. Find a way to provide value, or you’re just another “rockstar“.

Post from: EveryJoe

Is Brand You Dead?

The idea behind Facebook Connect and all of the other connect services, is to make all of the social media sites easier to use. Basically, the thought is that users will be able to log onto other websites using their Facebook ID, and see their friends’ activities on other sites as well. They’re also giving members the chance to broadcast their actions on the partner sites to their friends on Facebook, kinda like Beacon did.

The thing that struck me most about these services was the fact of who owns the information you’re putting online, and from there, how these services will use that information. Knowing who you are, who your friends are and what you’re doing online and where, is one of the cornerstones to a fully-targeted advertising campaign.  All that freely flowing data to all the other social networks is a boon for any advertiser because it offers up a full personal profile.

So, the question, for me at least, becomes, just how much information do you allow a potential advertiser to know? Is it a good thing that, for example, an advertiser knows your favorite color is red and you are a die hard Canucks fan, and so their ad servers show you a limited-edition, red-shirted Johnny Canuck? Is that really going to make you want to click through that ad and purchase that limited edition?

I just don’t know how comfortable I am with all of this targeted-advertising thing. It feels slightly… smarmy somehow, in the way that fortune tellers or snake oil salesmen told you exactly what you wanted to hear after reading the clues you give off. Are we not just giving even more clues – and this time, blatant and direct instructions on exactly what advertisers should sell us and when? Oh, and what to send all our friends too.

After all, depending on who owns all that information you’re putting out there, you could be doing just that. it certainly isn’t personal information anymore, that’s for sure.  And, how can you be sure in the Terms of Use somewhere, deep down in there, there’s not a clause that allows Myspace to sell all that info you’re putting out there? Do you really believe these sites are just trying to keep you in touch with your friends more easily. *scoff*

Good one. You almost had me there. Say, I’ve got this great bridge overlooking Manhattan I wanted to speak with you about. I’ll give ya a great deal!!

Post from: EveryJoe

Who Owns Your Online Identity?

Geoff Livingston has a fantastic post about the fine line between building your reputation or building your personal brand.

Some will argue that these two phrases are interchangeable, and yet, I have to agree with Geoff when he points out:

Reputation is built upon past experiences — good or bad, a real track record. Personal branding is often an ego-based image based on communications. [source]

When I look around at all of the people who are considered “internet famous” I have to wonder, based on this new

perspective, are they building a reputation or are they just fueling their own ego-driven image?

Chris Brogan, as Geoff points out, is frequently said to have a stellar personal brand, but what he’s actually done, is built a fantastic reputation. (Chris Brogan image source: (CC) Brian Solis, www.briansolis.com and bub.blicio.us.)

Compare that with  iJustine, who in my opinion, is an amazingly nice person, but she’s got a personal brand. her reputation is based in goofy over the top giggly snippits of her life, rather than on a solid base of actual deliverables and value. (iJustine image source: (CC) Brian Solis, www.briansolis.com and bub.blicio.us)

In the upcoming months, when there’s so many economic concerns, concentrate on providing value to your community and build your reputation.  Without value, your personal brand isn’t worth anything.

Post from: EveryJoe

Personal Brand or Reputation? Which would you prefer?