Posts from: February 28, 2011

If it doesn’t Spread, it’s Dead

SpreadWant to learn why if you content doesn’t spread it’s dead, and how to make it spread? Read on.

You’ve heard me bang on before about spreadability vs reach. I arrogantly thought that I had come up with the concept, but I found out in the middle of last year that Henry Jenkins and Sam Ford had been using the phrase far longer than I had.

One of the things that Henry wrote about in 2009 that I was re-reading recently was the notion that If it Doesn’t Spread, it’s Dead. I’d advise you take 10 minutes today to read the article. Sam on the other hand has been writing about the difference between sticky media and spreadable media. You can see some of his slides on the subject in this presentation.

Spread me or I’ll die

Certainly Henry and Sam’s thinking is high level but what they are both saying when it comes down to the basics is that if whatever you produce isn’t spreadable, it is dead. You might succeed in getting something to stick with one person, but if they don’t spread it… well.. it’s dead.

I can see a few levels of spreadability here, crossing both offline and online:

  1. An item needs to compel people to spread it in the first place (as Scott Stratten says, people spread awesome)
  2. An item should be simple, because complexity is hard to explain and spread
  3. An item should provide the words for mouth if it expects word of mouth – in other words, give us the words to use when we spread your product
  4. An item should have built-in one-click ways to spread it

So if we took a typical peice of digital content:

  1. It should be awesome. This spans from a Facebook photo that you are tagged in (awesome because it’s personal) to a video that makes you laugh (awesome because it’s very funny) to a blog post that speaks right into a situation you are in (awesome because it’s relevant)
  2. Simplicity for online content mostly means short and simple. But when people get offline, it seems our attention span increases, which is why we shower The King’s Speech and Black Swan with Oscars (both films, interestingly, with a simple premise)
  3. A photo by nature will warrant a description, but a video or blog post should have a title and a description that people repeat
  4. In built spreading means a blog post has a retweet or Facebook like. Facebook’s eco system enables one click posting of any media item to one’s newsfeed, Disqus auto posts comments to feeds, etc. (Unfortunately, Twitter still requires two clicks to share which I think is just plain idiotic)

I would say that each level trumps the level below – so whilst many people adorn their sites with share buttons, you can still see that they’ve only had 5 retweets of a particular blog post. Clearly the content wasn’t  compelling, and thus despite having those share buttons, it didn’t spread and now it’s dead.

Of course, I have hundreds of these blog posts, particularly the last 6 months, that just haven’t been shared because the content was not compelling enough.

Seth Godin in Purple Cow praises Hotmail’s use of the inbuilt email signature that was at the bottom of every Hotmail email account inviting others to sign up. They certainly hit level 4 and got millions upon millions of signups because of it. But this was only because the content itself – the email – was compelling and personal in the first place. I can imagine far fewer email accounts would’ve been created of the back of a SPAM email message – which is what people perceive Hotmail to have become.

Be Compelling

Thus your ultimate goal has creators of any media is to make it compelling – compelling because it’s personal, relevant, entertaining, inspiring, and so on. If you do, people will spread it. And if you add ways to make it spreadable, people will spread it more.

Your Leading Thoughts

Your thoughts as a leader are valuable and the driving force of this blog.

  1. Are you hitting those 4 levels with the media content that you are creating?
  2. If we took “compelling”, what are the different parts of that, i.e. personal, relevant, entertaining, etc?

Video: Put People in the Story

I thought this video was a really great example of promoting a product by putting people in the story.

Just a note on this: putting people in the story is more powerful than teling them the story. And telling people a story is more powerful than just showing off a logo.

More to come on this over the next week, including how I’m going to be using this principle for Like Minds.

Enjoy your Sunday,
Scott

Why you must see yourself as the leader that you are

Last week I did an interview on leadership, community and social media with Adrian Swinscoe, which I thoroughly enjoyed and you can listen to here.

At the end of the blog post in which the interview was posted, Wendy commented and talked about a situation where others might regard her as a leader, but she doesn’t think she is one herself – and asked if this is a problem. I think it is, and so I responded. Here’s what I responded with, and it’s important to post here because I believe it is detrimental to not see yourself as the leader that you are:

Leadership expert John Maxwell maintains that there are 5 levels of leadership – the lowest being “position” which is being a leader because of your position, but nothing more. Then each level on top is about being a more influential and regarded leader beyond the position that you may or may not have. (link to the framework: http://hubpages.com/hub/John-Maxwell-defines-5-levels-of-leadership

Very often, poor leaders are those who only ever exist on the “position” level. People follow them because they have to. I’m sure we all have known someone in this position, or even been this person at some point in our life! The next level is “permission” and this is where people follow you because they have given you permission as a leader to do so – regardless of whether you have a position or not. You don’t have to have a position for people to give you permission to lead them.

Often at this second level, people regard us as leaders more than we do ourselves. This is because when we are aspring and unsure of our leadership, we are more aware of our weaknesses than our strengths, so when we display leadership we don’t see it because we are more caught up with the mistakes we made or what we could’ve done differently.

This is a natural stage of leadership and is to be expected – but leaders must grow through it. If they dont, and continue to not see themselves as leaders whilst others do, these others will loose respect for them and the leader’s stature will be diminished in their eyes. Imagine if you respected me as a leader, but I kept on telling you I wasn’t a leader. At first you’d try to encourage me, but after months of this, you’d begin to see me as less of the leader that you once thought.

Aspring leaders must not, on the other hand, over step the mark and act as more of a leader than they actually are! This arrogance is the other side of the ditch.

Your Leading Thoughts

  • Do you or have you had to fight this problem in your life? (I have!) If so, how did you overcome?
  • Digitally, how does this effect people who don’t realise the influence that they actually have online?

In Dubai This Week

The Burj al-Arab, at sunset

Hey all – just a quick note to say that I am in Dubai all week, Monday 21 – Friday 25 February, and would love to meet you if you are here, or would love to catch up with any connections that you think might be prudent for me, as we are taking Like Minds out here later on this year.

If you can, comment on this thread, or drop me an email or a tweet, or preferably, just go right ahead and call me on 0044 7771 795566.

Hope to hear from you,
Scott

Video: Birthday Party

Too often we complicate community, marketing, social media, etc. So when I saw this exceptional video the other week, I had to share it with you.

Question: doesn’t this just get you right back to the basics of:

  • Identifying passions
  • Identifying influencers
  • Targeting online and offline to create word of mouth
  • Delivering an exceptional product / event
  • Creating multiple levels of participation within the product / event
  • Providing some memorabilia / takeaway to build advocacy for next time
  • Keeping the community alive

I think I’ve got myself a new framework right there?

So my task to you: boil this down to the simplest framework and let’s discus.

What on earth IS influence?

Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C.Last week Like Minds ran some free events for Social Media Week, one of which was on Social Influence. The participants debated digital influence over and over, bringing their different views of what they considered influence to be and what it looked like. Followers, shopping, reach, action, volume – these were the things that were discussed. You can hear many of their thoughts here.

Then this week, we got word that Like Minds was the “most influential on Twitter” for the whole of Social Media Week globally. That’s quite an incredible thing to have said about us. This is based on the number of tweets with our hashtag and/or Twitter account mentioned, which we led.

However both our debate on social influence and then this stat that we were the “most influential” trouble me. On one hand, I don’t agree with either of them, but on the other hand, there is some truth in them in the way that they are perceived and the end result that they have had. Let me explain a bit more and then let’s discuss it:

Influence is not measured by numbers

My dear friend Trey Pennington wrote a great tongue in cheek post last week on “4 keys to increasing your Klout Score“. The first half is now to get a higher Klout Score, which is a service that supposedly calculates your social media influence.

Then Trey writes in the second half:

THE REAL KEY TO INCREASING YOUR INFLUENCE ONLINE (and off)

None of the suggestions mentioned above has anything to do with real influence. Real influence is complex, multifaceted, and environmentally constrained (time, space, people, place, topic, occasion, etc.). Influence is more significant than two digits can capture (though Klout is necessary nonetheless)…..

Even so, as I ponder the real keys to increasing real influence, the words of Zig Ziglar ring in my ears and reverberate in my heart. A definite key to increasing your influence is found is Zig’s counsel: “You can have everything in life you want if you’ll just help enough people get what they want.”

Don’t worry about increasing your Klout score (or twittergrader ranking or whatever comes next). Just use whatever gifts you have to help other people accomplish their dreams. If you’ll help enough other people get what they want, you’ll have all the influence you’ll need.

But influence is helped by numbers

If you are helping one person, you are influential in that persons life. But if you are helping two people, you have the opportunity to increase your influence.

Note that I said opportunity. Unless you actually do create bottom line influence, it’s theoretical and not actual.

So what do you think influence is?

I lecture on influence and have been reading about it for years, and still I find it a hotly debated topic. Perhaps I just lack a framework ;-)

So I’d like to hear the smart inputs of the Friends who hang out here: what do you define influence as?

Photo courtesy of US National Archives

Presentations vs Participations

We learn by engaging, asking questions, getting our heads around an issue, right? Then why are conferences full of one way presentations?

I clipped this article over a year ago and was re-reading it today, called Presentations vs Discussions. In it, Fred Wilson makes the case that those exceptional class room experiences, those board room meetings that really change the direction of the company, those conferences where the light bulb really goes on, are not the result of presentation, but – to use my language – participation.

Fred writes

A presentation is like a TV show. It’s a lean back experience. A discussion is like an online chat room. It is a lean forward experience. They are not the same thing and in many cases they work against each other.

And then concludes

Presentations are important. I do a lot of them and post all of them on this blog in advance. I am not saying they don’t have a role. But if you want to foster real engagement and real discussion, they are not helpful and in fact I think they are hurtful.

What’s really great about the post is the 145 comments that proceed the blog post – the participation after the presentation, as it were. And thus this gets me thinking. We need presentation and participation. Presentation sets the scene and gets everyone up to speed, but it’s participation where the learning takes place – because as we say, if you’re not talking your’re not learning.

I’ve always made an effort here to encourage participation and it’s been my delight to engage in some wonderful relationships as a result of it. But I’m aware that it wouldn’t have happened unless I had presented something to begin with.

On another note, I’m aiming to change the design of this blog a bit to help make it easier to both get hold of the presentations here, and more importantly, participate.

Your Leading Thoughts

  • What is the balance between presentation and participation? 50/50? Dependent on context? Variable?
  • How do you minimise a presentation to the essentials in order to get the participation underway?