Guest Posts

Google+ Is the Social Network That?s All About Search

This is a guest post by Sean McGinnis.

Did you hear that Google launched a social network called Google+? Of course you did!

In the past, Google took a stab at social by purchasing Orkut. Later, they launched both Google Buzz and Google Wave with little success. Now comes Google+.

Kinda seems like Google is the Elizabeth Taylor of the social world, doesn?t it? They?re going to keep trying until they get it right. Given those four trips down the social aisle, and the fact that employee bonuses are tied to getting social right this year, it?s pretty clear Google is borderline obsessed about social.

I wonder why that is?

So have a lot of other people.

In fact, there?s been a lot of handwringing and hypothesizing about why Google launched Google+. Some believe it is designed to kill Facebook; others that it will kill Twitter; still others view it as a play to move everything into the cloud and take on Microsoft and Apple.

I?m not convinced.

I think Google+ is a forward thinking play to keep search market share. Coincidentally, it also opens up billions and billions of new real estate to sell Google ads against, but that?s secondary (believe it or not).

Google Makes Money By Selling Ads

You see, Google has one objective; to sell advertising. Google brought in over 28 billion dollars in ad revenue in 2010 ? 96% of total revenue for the year; and that number is already growing roughly 30% this year.

One of the things we all know is that you make more money when more people see your ads, whether that?s a TV show or a Google paid click within a search result.

Google?s goal of selling ads is directly served by making services that are as valuable as possible. But, what?s valuable in the context of search?

Think about search for a minute. You ask a question?you expect an answer; a correct answer. That is why you go to a search engine, isn?t it? I know that?s why I go to a search engine. I?m looking for something and I need to find it. So, the more accurate the search results, the more people will want to use a given search engine.

The question is how does one go about creating a better search engine?

One Question. One Answer.

Think about it for a minute. If Google were God (not to stretch credulity too far or anything), you?d ask one question and get one perfect answer. They wouldn?t need to serve you 10 or more possible answers to your question. They would know exactly what you were looking for, even if you were unclear in how you presented your question.

I mean, God would know your intent, right? God would know exactly what you were looking for. I?m really not trying to compare Google to the Omnipotent One, but I am suggesting that in a perfect world they (along with every other search engine) would like to be able to divine what you were looking for and present it to you as fast as possible, maybe even before you asked for it.

(But maybe make you click through an ad in order to get the answer).?

Even more importantly, they would know that what I was looking for may not be what you were looking for.

Enter Personalized Search

The quest for search perfection began long ago. Google made great strides in this direction by including the concept of authority into their algorithm. By indexing the link structure of the web and calculating the value of the structure, Google (unlike many other early search engines) was able to eliminate a lot of spam from their search results.

But it wasn?t enough.

Website owners became wise to the value of links to influence search results and backroom deals, link purchases and other unsavory activities began unduly influencing search results. So, in 2005, Google released a feature called Personalized Search.

It was a new and shiny object at the time. It represents (to me) the first push down the slide we are accelerating down today. Google started to present back to you (provided you were signed into your Google account when you ran a search) results that were marginally different from other users. They started to personalize those result to you.

Think about that for a minute. What better way to ensure a search engine could answer your question?

In 2009 Google extended Personalized Search to all users, whether logged into their Google account or not.

Over the past 6 years personalized search has improved some of the search experience, but only on the margins. There?s a number of reasons why Google and Bing chose to move slowly in the area of personalization, but that?s fodder for a different post.

A New Dawn for Personalized Search

Here?s the thing about personalized search. The more Google knows about all of us, the more they know about our like, dislikes, profession, connections, friends, enemies, content types, areas of influence, etc? the more they can customize the search experience.

In addition to Google+ giving all that information and more to Google, the introduction and proliferation of the +1 button allows Google to gather signals across the web of what you like and don?t like.

When we use Google+, we are creating data, all of which is within the Google network. No longer is Google relying on facebook or twitter data to learn more about you. That?s why it is so critical that Google get social right. Because social is where the data action is. It?s where we freely give up information about ourselves; where we create the connection nodes that Google can learn from and serve up a better search experience.

So while Google+ may represent a number of things tactically, the business strategy behind it is, in my view, directly correlated to their core business ? search.

More eyeballs means more ad revenue, and the best way to secure eyeballs is to have a near flawless search experience; intuitive, fast and predictive. The only way that happens is when a search engine LEARNS your tendencies ? and social is the best way to glean those tendencies.

That and it creates a few billion extra pages to sell ads against.

What do you think?

About the Author:?Sean McGinnis consults with businesses on digital customer acquisition and loyalty programs at?312 Digital.?Sean spent much of the last decade leveraging his law degree and 12 years of digital marketing experience by assisting law firms across the country create compelling online marketing programs. He is also co-founder of the group blog?12 Most. Sean currently serves as Managing Director and CMO?of?Multistate Edge, an online bar exam preparation company. You can find Sean on Twitter at @SeanMcGinnis.

The Ten Songs The Rolling Stones Wrote About Social Media

This is a guest post by Marjorie Clayman.

It’s been a weird year. Grand in many ways. Here’s an example. So, Mr. Brown here, he asked me to guest post on this site you’re looking at, and I thought, “Wow, what an honor!!”

Shortly thereafter, I was playing on Google+ and I got invited to a hang-out with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. I hadn’t even circled them! How did they know where I was?? Anyway, I agreed to hang out with them because, well, who wouldn’t. Unfortunately, I found out they were not very happy with me.

See, a while back, I wrote a post about how the Beatles had been really ahead of their time because they wrote 20 songs about Social Media engagement. I had written it as a kind of funny joke-type post. Well, as it happens, the Rolling Stones really did write songs about Social Media because they really were that far ahead of their time. I had no idea.

In order to fix this great pain I have caused, I thought I would record here, on Mr. Brown’s site (they didn’t want to be on my site cuz the Beatles were there) my conversation with the Rolling Stones, which mostly was about the 10 songs they really did write about Social Media (they insisted in a follow-up that the Beatles wrote 2 songs for every 1 of theirs).

Oh yeah, and MJ = Mick Jagger, KR = Keith Richards, and MC = me.

1. Can’t Get No Satisfaction

MJ: Right, so the first song we wrote about Social Media was actually Can’t Get No Satisfaction.

KR: Can’t get no…

MJ: You know, we just knew that people would never be satisfied online, no matter how much they achieved. Oh, you got your post tweeted out by God? Well, that’s still not good enough, probably. You do try to get satisfaction, but it just never works, does it?

2. Ain’t Too Proud to Beg

MJ: Sometimes we found a song someone else had done and thought, “Aye, that has to do with Social Media!” – that was what happened with Ain’t Too Proud To Beg.

KR: Yeah, you know, it’s ironical, because uh…because…uh…because a lot of people do beg, don’t they?

MJ: Right, people beg to have their posts tweeted out, people beg for attention. The Rolling Stones would never do something like that, so we covered this song and made it our own. You shouldn’t beg, by the way. It makes you look silly.

3. Waitin’ On a Friend

KR: Yeah, we wrote Waitin’ on a Friend because that’s what Social Media is all about isn’t it?

MJ: Well, you don’t get money off of friends unless you sell ’em, mate.

KR: Yeah, but having friends online is really nice, you know. It makes it fun and sweet and *sniff*

MJ: Are you crying?

KR: Naw.

4. Paint It Black

MJ: Well, Keith’s turn to being morose reminds me that we wrote Paint it Black because we knew that people online would have the tendency to see the dark side of everything and exhibit the darker sides of their nature. It’s really a shame, isn’t it, because positivity could spread really fast online.

KR: Maybe we should have written Paint it White to give people the idea.

MJ: Go wipe your nose, Keith.

5. Wild Horses

MC: Well, not every song you guys wrote could have been about Social Media. I mean, how would Wild Horses relate, for example?

MJ: Cor, you’re daft though aren’t ya? Wild Horses couldn’t tear me away. That’s the Social Media experience, isn’t it? Everyone says, “Ohhhh, I hate it.” But they’re still tweeting that, aren’t they?

MC: So you knew about Twitter in 1969, eh?

KR: I saw into the future.

MC: OK.

6. Time Is On My Side

MJ: Did you know that we wrote Time is on My Side?about Social Media? Very few people get this connection but it’s really true. We wanted people to take their time growing their strategy, their plan, their presence…

KR: And their egos. Heh heh heh.

MJ: Well….yeah. That’s true. But mostly the first things I said.

7. Pleased To Meet You

MJ: We were really shocked that people applied such a mean and dark translation to Pleased To Meet You (Sympathy for the Devil)...we really meant it as a reminder to introduce yourself to new people in the online world, and the “guess my name” part was ironical again. Your name should be close at hand when you’re online, shouldn’t it?

KR: Yeah…

MJ: I wasn’t asking you.

KR: Right.

8. Under My Thumb

KR: We wrote Under My Thumb because the keys are always going to be under your thumb. Heh heh heh.

MJ: Keith, I think there’s a guitar over there that needs tuning.

KR: Where?

MJ: Right, so we really wrote Under My Thumb to reflect the power struggle that goes on in the online world, right? You always want to beat the person above you and manipulate them in some way. It’s crap that people spend their time that way. Anyway, we thought if we would really talk about controlling someone and getting them to do everything you want, it would make a point to people. But people just said, “Oh yeah, great idea, mate. I think I’ll try that.”

KR: People are SO stupid.

MJ: Yeah, really they are.

9. Honky Tonk Woman

MC: Well, okay, what does Honky Tonk Woman have to do with Social Media? I mean, there can’t be a connection there, right?

KR: Oh you’re an ignorant twat. That’s about two things we knew would happen in the online world. First, unprofessional and profane behavior. And second, uh…

MJ: Second was the rumor-mongering aspect of Social Media. You know, “People say…” that part. All about online rumor-mongering.

MC: Of course it is.

MJ: I don’t like you.

MC: I know. That’s cool.

10. Mixed Emotions

MC: So what’s song number 10 in this line-up, gentlemen?

MJ: Well, the last song we wrote about Social Media *specifically* was Mixed Emotions. And there’s a lot of meaning in there. For example, we knew people would often have mixed emotions about Social Media. You love it, you hate it. It’s so much work but so much fun. But also it’s, you know, we say “You’re not the only one,” so it’s…

KR: It’s a reminder that you’re not an island, you’re a person in a big group of people and you should pay explicit attention to what people are doing around you. I mean what are you thinkin, you’re the only one with a bad day or an irritation in your life? Toughen up and look out for other people for a change how about it ya great waste of life?

MJ: Uh, yeah. That about sums it up.

Alright, so, those are the ten songs Mick and Keith say they wrote about Social Media. Once they got going, though, I really felt like they may have written more. It was just too hard to keep Keith’s attention throughout the interview.

So I need your help now. What other songs did the Rolling Stones write about Social Media? Did they actually write about it more than the Beatles? What do you think?

About the author: Marjorie Clayman works for her family-owned agency, Clayman Advertising, Inc., where she represents the third generation! Margie is the resident blogger at MargieClayman.com, and can be found on Twitter at @MargieClayman.?

image: Melvin Starbrook
image: pietroizzo

Social Media Gurus, Real Work and Diversity

This is a guest post by Olivier Blanchard.

Earlier this year, Danny wrote a post about social media diversity, that received a fair bit of conversation both on his blog, and away from it.

Maybe diversity has nothing to do with it, though. Maybe the answer is far simpler than that.

From where I stand, it says something about 30-40 year old white dudes that so many of them feel compelled to spend all day talking about social media and how to get better at social media, and how to make more money with social media and how to get more followers on social media and how to be more time-efficient on social media and how to measure their influence on social media and how to get jobs through social media and how to become speakers and experts and gurus and f***ing ninjas on social media, and everyone else doesn’t.

Maybe the fact that no one else does this is because most other people out there in the real world are more concerned with solving real problems than becoming the next Seth Godin?

And because these folks are out there doing real work instead of pontificating about Google + or investing in one another on Empire Avenue, they neither have time nor feel the need to create idealized versions of themselves on the interwebs (you know, a version in which they are brilliant and cool and successful instead of being your garden variety slob.)

No Diversity? Think Again

I could be wrong, but from where I stand, there is no diversity problem in social media. I see every religion, nationality, ethnicity, culture and community represented in the social web. You know why? Because I, like you, see beyond the glow of our own little imaginary twitternet stars. The guys I learn from are in Asia. In Africa. In Europe. In the Middle East. In Latin America. They aren’t just SxSW and Blogworld speakers. They aren’t experts or gurus either.

The only real problem touching on diversity I see in the “social media space” is this: About four dozen assholes in the US and Canada making up an imaginary social media “industry,” who suddenly realized a week ago that with all the navel-gazing and ego projection fueling their “thought leadership,” they have mostly managed to cater to people who conveniently look and sound just like them. Wow. How did THAT happen?

By the by, if they ever manage to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to get some oxygen back into their brains, they will either meet or remember having met – among hundreds of thousands of other social media users who are not pre-midlife crisis white dudes – Rohit Bhargava, Maz Nadjm, Jeremiah Owyang, Gabrielle Laine Peters, Karima Catherine Goudiam, Bonin Bough, Liva Judic, Monika Melsha, Guy Kawasaki, Chris Penn, Danielle Lewis, Peter Kim, Charlene Li, CD, Hajj Flemings, and many, many, MANY more who, last time I checked, contributed more to the social media world than all of their “white” social media guru blog posts combined, and managed to do so while being other than strictly caucasian.

So. What’s the next big topic for the “we’ve run out of things to talk about social media guru” crowd: Why aren’t there more foreigners involved in social media?

Someone really needs to pinpoint the exact moment when “social media expert” became synonymous with “dumbass” so we can add that to Wikipedia.

Note: This was originally a comment by Olivier on my post about diversity. I just thought it would be a great standalone post to complement the original, and Olivier kindly agreed to let it run as such.

About the author: Olivier Blanchard is Principal at BrandBuilder, Inc., an East Coast-based New/Social Media consultancy and Marketing management firm. He’s also the author of the book Social Media ROI, and owner of The BrandBuilder Blog. Follow Olivier on Twitter at @thebrandbuilder.

image: doughaslam

Why the A-List Conversation Hurts Us

This is a guest post by Geoff Livingston.

The ongoing conversation about the ills of the A-List produces the opposite effect than desired. Instead of creating a correction, it builds a stratosphere of influence, and creates a perception of unworthiness for the rest of the social web. This demeans the value of everyone else — literally everyone who is not a top ranked “A-Lister,” a crying shame consider that the rest of the population has as much of a chance of becoming truly useful and influential.

In some ways the “A-List” conversation is fostered by leaderboard systems of top bloggers (Ad Age 150, Technorati) and influencers (Klout, Empire Avenue). It is perpetuated by insider chatter and a corresponding attitude of eliteness from the top tier (perceived or real). This type of influence is popularity driven.

Welcome to the Fifth Estate (yes, I just shamelessly pimped my new book) concludes with a discussion about influence over the long-term. Here’s the truth about influence: It is highly subjective, and shifts with the topic, time, situation and community. Further, leaderboard influencers are not likely to create groundswells of actions. Usually, this type of influencer is a content creator or social network personality — the dog that barks the loudest. When it comes to real action, most of them can’t bite.

Influence and Individualism

Twenty years ago, the equivalent would be to dub a TV star as extremely powerful. Can you imagine Donald Trump winning the presidency of the United States based on the popularity of his TV show, “The Apprentice?” As bad of a job that our elected officials do, indoctrinating a media personality into the profession of governance would likely create much more damage than reform.

That’s why the conversation about the A-List seems fruitless and harmful. It invests time and gives influence to people who can’t accomplish things. Further, the cost of personal equity and a lesser perception of position is harmful. That makes no sense. We should be focusing on moving the needle of progress forward. The reality is that every single person has an opportunity to become influential with their community of interest.

Real influencers are awarded their position for doing great things. They are activists like Stacey Monk, or builders of new technologies such as Anil Dash. They provide real new perspectives to online media like analytics whiz Avinash Kaushik or change the business forever with new thought, like Charlene Li and her still noteworthy book, Groundswell.

These people actually do things. Their influence was a result of achievement. It may wane if they don’t continue doing great things, but in the end, this type of influence is admirable, things that people remember for decades.

Doesn’t it make more sense to talk about the noteworthy influencer instead of the narcissistic A-List? Aren’t the noteworthy successes the ones we aspire to emulate? Which can you learn from, who will make you and your efforts better?

Five Tips to Stop Supporting “A-Listers”

Ultimately, someone is only influential if they are given that influence by their community. If you don’t believe in the A-List’s influence, here are five ways to separate yourself from the conversation.

1) Don’t link to them. Linking above all else helps support their “top tier” positioning. Instead, link to people whose conversation challenges you and provokes the forward motion you are seeking.

2) Give up trying to converse with them. Why try to have a relationship with someone who is not there? Instead focus on those who do participate.

3) Don’t talk about them. Talking about them as unfit leaders still leaves them in a leadership position. This is leadership by perception. Move on, or if you do talk about them, do so in a peer-to-peer fashion. Everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time.

4) Unfollow and unsubscribe from them. If they and their behavior really upsets you, this is an act of self-preservation. Your online time will become exponentially more enjoyable.

5) Stop wasting your time on them. This above all is the most freeing of the tips. When you realize that this A-List conversation has become an energy suck, a waste of your time that is holding you back, you can reprioritize on something meaningful, for example, Danny’s 12 for 12K Challenge, or your own efforts for business, social good, or personal development.

This is mindful and good in its own right. Rather than fighting, you have moved on. Pursue new horizons.

What do you think about the continuing A-List conversation?

About the Author: Geoff Livingston is the co-founder of Zoetica, helping non-profits and socially responsible companies connect with their audience. He’s also the author of Welcome to the Fifth Estate and Now is Gone. You can read more on Geoff’s blog or connect with him on Twitter at @geoffliving.

The Weird Thing I Want You To Do On My Blog

This is a guest post by Michael Schechter.

I’m noticing a pattern lately: ?the moment that a blogger starts to monetize his or her site can usually be tracked back to moment the content begins to suck. The minute that optimization becomes the priority, creation tends to quickly take a backseat. It’s not a perfect theory, but it is quickly becoming a common one.

Now, I’m fairly new at this whole blogging thing, but I have a pretty clear call to action on my site: I want you to read the crap I wrote on the page, with the desired reaction being that you derive value from said crap. If you really found it useful, who knows, maybe you’ll even comment. Apparently, this is wrong and I just don’t get how things work.

Apparently, I need you to engage, to end on a question no matter how obvious and patronizing it is. I need an offer to get you to sign up for my email newsletter, to get you to trade your first born for an ebook. I need to coerce you to come back, because apparently compelling you just isn’t going to be good enough.

I don’t want you to get me wrong; I’m not against making money. I love money… a lot! Hell, I may even throw in an affiliate link or ten on my site. ?What I am against is those making money at the expense of their audience. I’m against those who care more about you clicking a link than reading the words on the page. In other words, I’m naive, and that is just fine with me.

It’s been sad to watch once-great bloggers leveraging past trust in exchange for future dollars. We used to get your A-game for free, but now you expect us to pay for a subscription to your 8th website (you know, the super secret one where you really put all of the “good stuff” now) for the watered down version. Worse yet, we fall for it every time. Even those of us who should know better (Read: Me). We want to believe, badly, that the trust we once put in you is still worth it today.

I don’t see things changing any time soon, so for now, the best advice I can offer is the same steps that I am trying to adhere to myself: ?unceremoniously unsubscribe your attention from anyone who is working harder on selling you than teaching you. Take that time and start writing about something you care about. Pour yourself into it, even when no one is reading. ?If and when people do start reading the crap you put on the page, don’t ever take that for granted.

So am I alone, or do you see what I’m seeing out there? Damn, there I go with the patronizing question and I didn’t even monetize…

About the author: Michael Schechter is the Digital Marketing Director for Honora Pearls, a company specializing in freshwater pearl jewelry. He writes about all things digital over at his blog, and you can connect with him on Twitter at @MSchechter. He also knows his way around a fine single malt scotch.

image: The Sun and Doves