Should I add my Twitter account to LinkedIn?

Love that you ask.

The story so far: You received an email from LinkedIn. It said you could:

1. Make your Twitter account visible on your profile
2. Use #in or #li to share posts from Twitter to your LinkedIn status
3. Add the Tweets app to share your Twitter activity on your profile

So this is an aggregator. A short time ago, Facebook started enabling users to automatically have their Facebook status updates post to their Twitter accounts. LinkedIn is offering this feature. Aggregators are good.

But are they always? The LinkedIn application goes both ways, i.e. when you post on Twitter, your LinkedIn status gets updated.

If you ever hear me speak, you'll probably hear me talk about culture and social capital. Social capital is the currency of social networks. Behaving inconsistently with the culture of the network begets a social capital deficit.

I can't imagine everyone who has an opinion on this feels the same way, and certainly it depends at least somewhat on your goals, your use of the tool, your desires for your personal brand, but here's where this might be a round peg in a square hole.

The cultures of the two networks are not totally compatible. LinkedIn is the office. It's all about work. It's like a business meeting. When you post a status update, you're delivering a report. For example, at this writing, the most recent status update on my LinkedIn news feed reads that my friend Doug Griess, attorney, is, "Doing a CLE re IP licensing issues."

Harumph, yes, but absolutely what is expected on a LinkedIn status update. Doug earns a little social capital.

Twitter is where we go when we leave the office. We talk shop, sure, but we have opinions about it. Compared to the stoic structure of LinkedIn, Twitter is an unpredictable crowded bar with many voices talking about any number of disonnected topics.

Many of us "tweet" and "re-tweet" with great frequency, or several at a time. The content of these posts may be opinion, more social than business, an "@" reply, etc. We're not accustomed to seeing this on LinkedIn. Chances are, we're connected and visible to professionals who use LinkedIn exclusively because they don't appreciate the hieroglyphics and glib chatter they find on Twitter. A quick check of my "All Friends" feed on TweetDeck gives me the opportunity to learn about, "mind blowing hyperrealistic structures," and tells me, "puppys (sic.) are cute," and, "I love this video!" The presence of any of these in a LinkedIn status update will cost the author social capital. (The presence of these in my Twitter feed tells me I need to make time for housekeeping...)

If you do link the two accounts, I strongly recommend taking the option to post only the "tweets" that you tag with "#in" or "#li." If you don't have a grip on hashtags, here's a nice primer. If the term "hashtag" is foreign to you vis-a-vis Twitter, I recommend passing on linking Twitter and LinkedIn.

I do think LinkedIn is to be commended for giving this a shot. For some, this will be a nice time saver and may allow a few to dip a toe into Twitter.

I also offer kudos to LinkedIn for providing a 1:1 communication to all users and introducing this change as an option. In this way it has shown itself to be more in tune with customer service and the expectations of its membership base than a certain other Internet social network that shall remain nameless here but whose name may rhyme with, "space hook."

Social Media ROI: Are you a Service or a Sandwich?

I love my monthly Internet Social Marketing think tank. This month, we're tackling ROI (okay, probably more like pushing it around...). There may be nothing more important for businesses to measure, right? The organizers this month asked me for a list of recommended applications for social media ROI measurement. It's cool and timely, because I'm working on an ebook compiling the tools and differences among promotion, measurement and monitoring services.

So here are a few quick answers: Google Analytics, Social Mention, Search Monitor, Facebook Lexicon.

Unfortunately, the question's wrong. As my new favorite blogger, Jason Falls, points out, we're applying old metrics to new tools or measuring what's convenient and known rather than what matters.

This article, as most Mashable stuff does, contains some great info. The preso itself makes some good points but goes astray at a critical juncture.

I am unconvinced that the nascent, dynamic medium is realistically trackable as presented here. I believe the true opportunity of the medium is not, especially at this stage of the industry, in customer acquisition but rather in customer retention.

Your social media audience is a closed, opt-in network. For cheap, transactional items like coffee or a sandwich you can acquire customers with occasional giveaways, and over time you can change purchasing habits to your favor, just as with the traditional coupon model. But what about professional services, B2B‘s, products and services with higher barriers to entry? The ROI equation becomes more complicated, the cycle for measurement much longer, the criteria more intricate. For these, the ROI equation is not, “How many more customers did we get?” but rather, “How many customers have we saved?” Not, "Are we spending less to acquire customers?" but, "Are our current customers rewarding our efforts with wallet share?"

Though qualitative, I think social media can be harnessed for brand and product development. Well used, an ROI equation might include, “What do we know about our customers, our product, the perception of us in the market, what changes or improvements have we made stemming from our social media efforts?” But don't take my word for it; take Frank Eliason's.

Ann Handley of MarketingProfs asks this question about social media ROI: “What’s the ‘I’?” Have we answered that question? As a business owner, I’m less interested in the number of re-tweets, mentions, etc. Show me sales, revenue. Social media--unless you're a sandwich, a movie ticket, a chotchkie--just isn’t there yet. This isn’t direct mail or an 800 #, where you put it out there and see who responds. This is engagement, relationship building. It provides a look at the very real, stark contrast between “Marketing” and “Advertising.”

Now...re-tweets, "shares" and backlinks are the greatest if it represents your customers becoming an effective sales force. If you're willing to invest in the creation of product champions, to let your customers tell you how to make your product more meaningful to them, how your service must adapt in order to provide greater value, social media presents a tremendous opportunity. There's your opportunity for market share gain...though indirect.

A discussion of applications is cart before horse. I love the topic for the group and I’m sure we’ll come out of this with a bunch of links and apps but the search for ROI is too important, complicated and currently nebulous to decide that the statistics such services render are meaningful just because they’re available.

Without a clear understanding of the medium and meaningful goals, all the re-tweets and click-throughs in the world mean nothing.

The Importance of the “Personal Note”

Here’s a little personal “share” with an “ask” or two at the end.

Somewhere between the ages of 7 and 17 I got to where I hated clutter.

I’m not to the point of being OC, I don’t think, but I am “If in doubt, throw it out.” If I’ve been holding on to something thinking that a use for it, or a person with a use for it, will come along, and it’s been a while and that hasn’t happened, it goes to the curb with a “free” sign, out with the trash or to charity.

Ironically, I sometimes keep a messy desk. While I prefer it neat and organized, moving forward on specific deadlines and focusing on what’s possible frequently pushes filing and recycling down the priority list. With me, there’s merit to the notion that one’s outward appearance is an indicator of one’s inner state of mind, so eventually I have to set aside time to clean and organize. I find the organization of physical things helps immensely to clear the virtual clutter in my head.

As we age, life reveals shades of grey. Nine years ago my wife and I started having children. It turns out that I don’t “hate” stuff in the middle of the floor, I just “dislike” it. My love for my children, my intense desire for them to be happy during their days provides tolerance for what strikes me first as “clutter.”

Internet social networks provide a new type of “clutter,” and I think I’ve decided to change the way I deal with it. I’m talking about “friend” or “connection” requests.

Not everyone uses Facebook and/or LinkedIn, for example, the same way. In my forthcoming Ebook and current lecture topic, The Social Network Compass, I talk about a number of concepts including the choices people make about their use and presence on Internet social networks: Personal/Professional, Inclusive/Selective.

Some people join Facebook for the sole purpose of sharing pictures of their grandchildren with a single party. Others seek purely business-oriented connections with anyone who will have them. Most of us land somewhere in between, we’re a lot or a little of all of the above. There’s no “right” answer; the question isn’t black versus white.

Some time ago, about Year 4 B.F. (Before Facebook), I took an open, “inclusive” stance toward connecting on LinkedIn. It opened my professional network and provided collaborative and fruitful business development opportunities. It also opened my network to a guy who spammed and scammed everyone about bogus real estate deals. I’m accountable for that. No matter how hard I scrub I can’t seem to rid myself of the stench. I’m sure everyone’s forgiven me but me, but that’s conversational fodder for me and a therapist. Onward, to the point.

The fact that I do post pictures of my kids on Facebook for the benefit of their grandmother in Texas, that I talk smack with friends whose emotional ties are to sports teams inferior to my favorites, dictates, for me, that I have to be more selective on Facebook than on LinkedIn. (On LinkedIn, I’m all business. And so should you be. Culture.)

Settings, yes, I know. I coach on them, their importance and their optimization. Still, it’s not the end-all. Depending on nascent technologies and hackable networks to protect your identity is a house of cards.

So, a couple of things here: When you get an email from me, the autosignature has a link to my LinkedIn profile…and not to my personal profile on Facebook. I think the culture of Facebook dictates that the social capital required to talk business is earned through the sharing of your human side; it makes me more likely to feel comfortable doing business with you. Is this a hard and fast “policy?” No. Somewhat arbitrary, even, perhaps. Shades of grey.

Here’s an area, though, where the contrast is beginning to show. Currently, I have a couple dozen “friend” requests on Facebook to which I have not responded. Reasons:

1. I have not met or do not remember the requestor, and
2. The requestor has not accompanied the request with a note on how we might know each other, work together in the future or use the connection toward a specific goal or objective.
   
   I am not an introvert. I get out. I meet lots of people. I excel at introducing power partners to each other. So, despite the fact that many of these people have “mutual friends” with me, belong to the same professional organization(s) I do, etc., the answers to 1 and 2 above are assumptions. When I assume, my network can get spammed. I’m accountable for that.
   
   I’ve rejected requests for which such commonalities do not avail but kept these couple dozen around, figuring that eventually, based on the fact that we run in the same crowds, we’ll meet. That said, for thesee couple dozen, it’s been a while and no such meeting has occurred.
   
   Not all of my “friends” have the same connection criteria I do. That’s fine. They’re more inclusive. I respect that. I may move in that direction. For now, though, these requests have become clutter. I think I’m going to put them in a box and take that box to the curb. The man comes early next Monday.
   
   Terribly sorry if this offends.
   
   In the future, if you’d like to avoid people like me treating you like this, I respectfully urge you to, when making a “friend” request (or a “connection” request on LinkedIn), take a moment to click that little link that says, “Add a personal message,” and make plain your intent. Chances are you’re a lovely person and an expert in your field. If so, a brief, meaningful exchange will illuminate mutual opportunities.
   
   So that’s “ask” #1: Please let me know who you are. I genuinely like most people I meet in person, online, otherwise. But I’m not given to random, anonymous connections. Accountable.
   
   “Ask” #2: Your reaction. Where do you set on the continuum? Are you with me? Am I totally flippin’ crazy or maybe just think a little too much? What’s your experience here? If you don’t “add a personal message,” why not?
   
   If we keep thinking and communicating, we’ll crack this nut. Thanks.

Privacy and Social Networks

Any of us who train, coach, manage, or market in the social media realm encounter a host of frequent objections. One of them is, "How can I keep my personal and professional personas separate?"

There are many different answers to this question. Here is mine: You can't. The ship has sailed, the horse is out of the barn, that was yesterday, live in the now. That said, your entire life doesn't have to be an open book.

If you've ever done business outside of the good old US of A, you just don't find this innate need to hide personal matters from business partners. Quite the opposite, in fact: People want to know who you are, to develop a relationship with you, first. Then if they like you and feel comfortable around you, they'll move to business. Perhaps this comes with having cultures and economies that have developed over thousands of years as compared to a couple hundred, perhaps for other reasons.

Regardless, the interactive and contributory nature of Web 2.0 is irreversible. As you read this, the planet is shrinking. Walls and filters are disintegrating. Do you know what Americans age 40 and under do when they meet you, get handed your business card or hear your name referenced as a potential business partner? They type your name into Google. How do you influence what they see? Social media; social networks in particular. Strategically used, your brand is most easily and strongly established with LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Meetup and others.

Facebook, due to the casual and personal nature of the network, is rightly and naturally the greatest focus of concern. And yes, people do get scammed. So while you're living a pipe dream if you think in 2009 A.D. you can get away with being a respected intellectual by day and a rock and roll drunk by night, there are some things you should do to protect yourself. Here are my top four plus one.

1. Customize your Privacy Settings. Facebook in particular throws you in. You finally got so tired of getting emails from people to please join and long story short here you are. And, in spite of yourself, you might even be enjoying it. If you find yourself mixing business and personal, you're totally getting how to be a grown-up on Facebook. It's like going to a party, isn't it? More on that in a subsequent post. But when you start your account, Facebook starts connecting you with people, growing your network. It does not overtly prompt you to protect yourself. Make sure to hover your mouse over the "settings" link in the upper right corner of your Facebook home page and do some clicking.
2. Don't overshare. First, don't post on Facebook that you're having romance problems. Second, you don't have to tell Facebook everything. Now, sometimes you want to tell Facebook something so it can help you connect with other people but you're not sure if you want to display it to everyone. In that case, put the information in your profile, tell Facebook not to display it, and go back to #1.
3. Don't start with Facebook. Don't put your personal Facebook profile on your email autosignature. Send your new prospective partner to LinkedIn and/or Twitter. Then, once the professional relationship is established to the point where you find yourself asking about each other's kids and softball games, "friend" up on Facebook.
4. Set a Google alert for your name. Anytime someone says something about you or your business, you want to know, right? Companies of size, especially but not exclusively, should also perform periodic searches in Twitter and make sure to keep the "Mentions" column active in TweetDeck.
5. Stop getting loaded in public. And hide the cameras when you have your buddies over for a keg and the game or host the girls for a "passion party."

How are you managing? Are these your top five? Have you tried these steps? If so, did they work for you? If not, why not?

The Day Social Media Became Important

On June 1, 1980, Ted Turner flipped the switch on a 24-hour cable TV channel devoted entirely to news. He stuck out his jaw, folded his arms and declared his new venture would sign off at the end of the world, not before. Everywhere, people who knew better sniggered and wished they had offered Captain Outrageous the title for a bridge. Nobody wanted to watch the news that badly. Was there that much news? Of course not. Silly southern man. Harumph.

On January 28, 1986, CNN got its watershed moment when the Challenger shuttle exploded over Florida, killing high school teacher Christa McAuliffe, who was historically aboard. The country, including President Ronald Reagan, stopped working and tuned into nonstop coverage. The skeptics were converted.

30 years later those skeptics are reincarnated as Twitter haters. In the near future they will look back on June 13, 2009, as the day the paradigm shifted, that web users overtook news producers in making programming decisions.

These "twits" did so not with large capital investments in satellite and cable technology and broadcast centers but with the contracted and connected state of the world. CNN, content to report that an election in Iran was over and the status quo remained, then give way to pop culture drivel, chose not to report on the escalating conflict in the street as Iranian citizens bravely protested the results.

It should be noted that Fox News and MSNBC committed the same sin.

Tweets from ground zero of the violent protests in Iran would not so easily turn their back on this strife. At a microblog per second, CNN and the Iranian oppressors got theirs. When the American mainstream media turned its back, Twitter revolted. The social network, astutely realizing the gravity of the moment and, undoubtedly, an opportunity to secure its place in history, delayed planned site maintenance so that communications could continue unabated. Not convinced social networking grew up this month? The U.S. State Department disagrees.

Folks, the mainstream media lost its way some time ago. Tolerance of plagiarism, a lemming mentality and a focus on ideological demographic appeal have destroyed what once plausibly masqueraded as journalism. For now--right now--you can turn on CNN and see Anderson Cooper's concerned face as he tosses to an authentic Christiane Amanpour. You can thank Twitter users for that.

In a week, we'll be back to American Chopper interviews. When that happens, remember that there actually are important things happening in the shadows of the world, and for those who care to look, Twitter is providing a lens and some light.

Facebook: Real Money for Virtual Goods?

First, thanks to my great friend Brian Olson for this blog title.

Second, if you've read me before you know I have this crazy idea that sooner rather than later, regardless of how popular you are, if you're going to be in business you have to make money. You also know I have my lens focused on the social media industry. It's great that Facebook is getting itself valued at $10 billion with a "b," but the crash is looming if it can't leverage its membership toward profit.

The latest thought thrown on the wall? Here it is, as reported by Rich Cherecwich of iMedia (iMedia has lots of great stuff) on June 3, 2009:

Facebook has officially entered the mainstream, but the über-popular social network still faces doubts about a monetization strategy. That may change with a new internal payments plan the social network is currently experimenting with that could help it become less reliant on advertising, the Financial Times reports.

The new system allows Facebook members to purchase credits and then use those credits to buy virtual goods through third-party applications that run on the social network.

Users are apparently spending big money on games and applications that run on the Facebook platform, to the tune of an estimated $500 million this year. Facebook will retain a percentage of every transaction, which could represent up to one-third of the company's income, according to the Times.

So I put this out there on Facebook and asked my friends for their thoughts. Then I stole them and put them in a blog. I'm like that.

Andy Mikesell, MBA, Director of mCommerce:

I think the application play is a tough one and creating revenue will be a small organic play. iTunes-like stores for digital goods is pretty saturated and Facebook as a concept is a free commodity. The statistics for Facebook are impressive; has it peaked at the consumer level in North America?

Andy also suggests a custom, enterprise-level model for revenue. Andy's pretty sharp and now that I don't live in a frat house with him I can say that with a straight face. Here's why Andy's right, that it's a "tough play:" 1) Most of these third-party applications are junk. The fact that they're free reduces user expectations and mitigates complaints about poor product quality. Dealing with complaints costs money. 2) A difference between Facebook and LinkedIn (you needed another one?) is that the former lets anybody just post their applications. The latter has a rather stringent approval process, the opening criteria for which most who submit to Faceook cannot satisfy. Will this move bring about a change in Facebook's standards? That would mitigate its profit from the move.

Admittedly, when it comes to calling Facebook applications, "junk," mine is but a layman's opinion. Karen Pellegrin, owner of Kelpworks Creative, however, is a bona fide expert:

As one of a team of game designers myself, none of the games and apps on Facebook are good enough to start charging me. Most of those apps are created by inexperienced people on facebook and just random thoughts... which is fine if it's free. That's just part of the fun of Facebook.

However, they better start hiring actual game developers and boosting their monies to hire those developers, or they are going to bomb out in the end. Just take a look at
the success of mini-game sites like Popcap. They hire lots of designers and developers for their games and they know who they are... a game site, not a social networking site.

So, yes, Steve, some people will buy anything. The question then becomes, what does it cost you to sell it to them?

Karen's right about something else, too: Trying to be all things to all customers is a sure path to failure. Going through an identity crisis on Other People's Money is a great way to go broke, quickly.

Social Media, Scientology and the Simpsons

Ideally, we praise publicly and critcize privately. But if we all did that, there wouldn't be much in the way of interesting blog fodder.

When I was the guest on the May 26, 2009, episode of The Experience Pros Radio Show, some of what we talked about was "what not to do" with regard to behavior on social networks.

On May 29, 2009, The Church of Scientology provided by example a much more definitive response than I did on the radio show. (Article: Wikipedia Blocks Church of Scientology From Editing Pages)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that features content provided by...well, anybody. It's wonderful for a quick answer and quite often for some pretty darn good in-depth knowledge of a subject. Example? Here's everything you ever wanted to know about the cathode ray tube but were afraid to ask. Why the cathode ray tube? I'm watching a Simpsons nostalgia episode on TV while writing this.

For the same reason it's popular, however, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information for articles or research papers. It's also frequently derided by self-defined intellectuals and pop culture critics. Here's one of my favorite Wiki passages from The Simpsons:

Bart: So Dean Martin would show up at the last minute and do everything in just one take?
Homer: That's right.
Bart: But Wikipedia said he was passionate about rehearsal!
Homer: Don't you worry about Wikipedia. We'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things.

Because anybody can post anything about anything, entities of size often (should) task their PR teams with monitoring their Wikipedia site (along with other trackable web mentions). When false or incorrect information is entered, they correct it.

Okay, here's another Simpson's Wikipedia reference, but only because it's topical. My adoration of the show has only so much to do with it.

Snake: Hey, baby, listen carefully: someone's been editing my biography on Wikipedia. I want you to kill him.

Snake gives us a for-sure "what not to do" in regard to reacting to criticism on social media. So far as we know, Scientology hasn't gone this far. In fact, the nature of what the Church was doing--defending itself against criticism and providing its own point of view--wasn't the problem. It was the frequency and unforseeable end of the back-and-forth conflict an organized group of Scientologists were having with an organized group of critics on the site.

In most cases, best practice is to publicly acknowledge the already public complaint and move toward resolution. Let your entire potential market witness the fact that you care. "Win a brother over," as Experience Pro Eric Reamer puts it. In this case, "Anonymous"--the anti-Scientology group--wasn't going to get won over. Unfortunately for the Church, its mode of response overloaded Wikipedia's servers, and now they'll have to get more creative on protecting their brand.

With expenses outpacing revenues for social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter, largely due to increasing infrastructure burdens, your strategy for engaging critics must take into account the macro forces impacting the industry.