This seems pretty basic and yet people still seem to get this wrong.

If you’re starting a new site, be sure to do a Google search on your desired site name(s) and URLs to make sure the exact name and/or URL, or closely similar names and/or URLs are not already taken. This is particularly important if you plan to use the exact name or a close variant of a popular site in the exact same niche. It only takes a few minutes to do the research. The tools are amazingly easy to use and are completely free.

When you launch a new site, take at least five minutes to do your due diligence.

Being unique is important. If you do something similar to someone else, using the same site name and an only slightly different URL, it’s going to be confusing for the public and it’s going to split search engine results. On top of everything else, it’s not going to do anything to help you build your own unique brand and community.

Sociologist Sam Ladner was direct when she opened her session on reputation management and monitoring. “We won’t talking about reputation systems”, she said. “eBay reputations will not be part of our discussion. Read Bryce Glass’ blog if want to know more. He also has a Slideshare called Designing your Reputation System“.

In fact, Dr. Ladner led an amazing session in which she explored the meaning of reputation, attributes of reputation and the impacts and contexts of brand conversations that could be reputation impacting.

Despite the response of McNeil and the amazing brand-recovery case study that is the Tylenol cyanide poisoning incident of the 80’s, the company still took six days to respond. Can you imagine a six-day response time today? How would a six-day delay convert in a twenty-year span?

To setup the discussion, Dr. Ladner presented the three elements of the Looking Glass Self:

• We imagine how we appears to others
• We imagine how others judge that appearance
• We react to that imagined judgment

Consider that reputations cannot be managed. To help understand why, Dr. Ladner outlined the three key attributes of the Online Self:

• Hidden (online sources lack contextual cues)
• Digital (easily broken down, re-arranged, mashed-up and rearranged)
• Proliferating and Permanent-ish

What’s most interesting is where brand discussions are taking place and how that context affects the brand reputation and the opportunity of individuals and corporations to participate in that discussion (Forester Research and Statistics Canada):

• 48% of North Americans participate in social computing
• 30% of Americans have posted online ratings
• The average Canadian spent 35% more minutes talking on the phone in 2003 than in 1997

Dr. Ladner walked through a number of online tools and services that allow individuals and companies to monitor reputation.  There are several classes of tools available:

• Social Media analytics (Technorati, Google Trends, ePinions, etc…)
• Social Media observation tools (Neilsen Buzz Metrics, Cymfony)
• Social Media Response Tools (Umbria, TruCast)

Using examples that involved these tools, we learned of a number of studies in which included brand reputation of breakfast cereal based on health and nostalgic references, and brand reputation based on online attitudes on sustainability.  The examples were incredibly interesting and I would have been grateful for an extra hour to explore these examples in more depth.

Before leading a more interactive discussion, Dr. Ladner proposed some reputation monitoring best practices:

• Systematic (develop standard metrics, stick to them)
• Regular (measure at consistent intervals)
• Governed (assign accountability for metrics, create a task force)

We were all encouraged to use Google Labs to do our own research on reputation conversations, offering that we research Dell and Best Buy together over a period of time and look for when the Dell announcement on selling their computers at Best Buy.

We were able to wrap up with a more lighthearted discussion on the doppelganger effect.  I guess there are some advantages to having a one-of-a-kind name.

Note: this session will be available in slideshare.

There was a lot of comparing which Mesh sessions resonated most with those in attendance, last evening.  I was particularly impressed by the Metronauts session (Government 2.0: from community participation to co-creation) and found that there were some folks in the session that disagreed with me.  Their argument was that it was a familiar story — old news.

While Metronauts has elements of familiarity, it’s a particularly important case study and something to be excited about.  You see, a group of citizens was able to thwart a long-established public procurement process that was well underway — a process that, in many cases, presupposes the winning contractor and that suggests that the public consultation process is a charade to appear transparent.

For all of the frustrations that Metronauts may be experiencing dealing with the municipal government, Metrolinx appears engaged and committed to the open-source process despite its incovenience.  Indeed, the success is probably due mostly to the open-mindedness of the Metrolinx brass and the safe third-space in which the Metronauts have invested a lot of thought and energy — two important achievements.

Much like the corporate examples we are all familiar with, Metrolinx has and is going to be the beneficiary of great publicity and a lot of public goodwill for their legitimate collaboration in this process.  There’s a lot of trust capital to be gained and for government to be tapping into that is significant.

Metronauts teaches us that there are opportunities for citizens to engage collaboratively and productively with government no matter where the government is in its long-established processes, and we are at the beginning of an era in which the public sector needs to hire open-source/social-media marketing and communications folks to be their community evangelists.

I’m a huge fan of case studies so I’ve been looking forward to this session by Mark Kuznicki and Sean Howard. This is one session with a specifically built-in audience largely of government employees, consultants to government and government relationship representatives of private sector companies (including what appeared to be a lobbyist-by-another-name).

This was the first session today in which the presenters asked each participant to introduce themselves and their work — which speaks to either the size of the crowd or the type of presenters they are.

When the Metrolinx (the greater Toronto Transportation Authority) posted an RFP for the redesign of its website, Robert Ouelette put the challenge to the Toronto blogging community: “what should the Metrolinx website look like?“. This led to the creation of Toronto TransitCamp, an event modeled after BarCamp to bring together the most passionate 1% citizens to engage with the Metrolinx and each other with the vision that the Transit Camp would not be a complaints department but a solutions playground.

The key drivers behind TransitCamp are that the current public consultation process is broken, the best ideas do not come from within anyone organization and Black Swan ideas always come from unexpected and unplanned places.

Here’s the best part — Metrolinx was invited and they came. In fact, a representative was in attendance of this session!

Metronauts was formed; a group of individuals engaged in a process that is still in its early stages. That is, they are still in phase one of a three-phase process. As such, final results were not available for this case study.

Metronauts identified three methods of gathering insights:

• Explicit: specific ideas and solutions offered by informed and engaged citizens

• Tacit: insights derived from observing the interactions and conversations of informed, engaged and enabled

• Latent: needs that are not known until they are seen for the first time

The BarCamp model was adapted for the purpose of achieving specific results. This includes an evolution to the law of two feet which permits those who are not getting anything out of a particular session to leave the session, to explicitly telling participants that if they are not getting anything out of a session that they are obliged to leave and find another session which will allow them to contribute.

Part of the process has been gathering tags that help participants to identify words that describe their TTC experience and associate elements that play into the importance of their TTC experience.

Metronauts has managed to create a safe third-space for all participants in the process. The means that the Transit Camp experience has been incredibly positive and productive and is leading to human-centered solutions that will benefit the service providers and consumers — crowdsourcing and collaboration at its best.

One of the greatest challenges is the control of communications from the government; public servants are not permitted to engage in the online dialog on behalf of the government. This can marginalize the commitment and transparency of the government in the eyes of the community. Success depends on the appointment of a community evangelist that can speak freely, with authority and without the continuous and per-engagement clearance of the legal department. Any organization that is committed to progress and remarkability needs to have its own RichardAtDell.

Note: this presentation will be on slideshare tagged mesh08.

Last night’s Third Tuesday Toronto had a more relaxed atmosphere than the events I’m familiar with in Ottawa. Perhaps that was because of the size of the crowd (standing room only in a room with a capacity of 160) or maybe because I was sitting with the wild kids at the back of the room (Jay Moonah, Eden Spodek, Doug Walker, Dave Fleet and ring leader Collin Douma).

Michael O’Connor Clarke moderated a discussion on measuring social media with panelists Katie Paine, President of KD Paine and Partners and author of Measuring Public Relationships, Marshall Sponder, Chair of the Web Analytics Association`s Community and Social Media committee, and Marcel Lebrun, President of Radian6.

Most of the discussion centered around the need for metrics and how they should be presented to clients or management as well as some of the elements that can be measured.  Ms. Paine’s direct approach which includes the ‘Suckiness Factor’ boldly displayed on charts and graphs was by far the most interesting and entertaining.  I had hoped for more discussion on methods for collecting metrics and specific case studies on the collection, presentation and influence of metrics in decision making by clients.

The panelists’ parting thoughts on social media and metrics ensured that the evening wrapped up on a high note.

• Katie Paine: ‘measure how much social media traffic you get’
• Marshall Sponder: ‘listen about you’
• Marcel Lebrun: ‘listen about the marketplace’

I’m off to the Mesh Conference.  I hope to have the opportunity to blog during the day.

I dug into my archives this morning to see what I was blogging about last year at this time and was struck by a coincidence. On April 3, 2007 I wrote a post titled Less is more in which I discussed scaling back the number of social media/social networking tools I was engaged in in order to achieve focus and be able to distribution my energy effectively. The ‘talk of the week’ on this week’s Canadian Podcast Buffet’s features a discussion on ‘overexposure’ to social media tools, networks and conversations.

Since the episode won’t be published until tomorrow, you can prepare yourself for some of the discussion by reviewing the following blog posts which inspired the dialog.

• Dave Fleet discusses a thought provoking video
• Bob Goyetche revisits a long-time love

I attended the Facing up to Facebook session at the University of Ottawa, yesterday. It was a panel discussion with Law and Technology Faculty Professors Jeremy de Beer, Ian Kerr, Jane Bailey, Val Steeves and Michael Geist and it was moderated by Andy Kaplan-Myrth.

The discussion was lively and informative and had a unique mix of social media participants (Profs de Beer, Kerr and Geist) and observers/researchers (Profs Bailey and Steeves). While there was a clear recognition of the role of social media tools such as Facebook, the discussion focussed largely on the impacts of these technological gathering places on culture and privacy, and their not-so-subtle use for corporate interests.

I found it particularly interesting when the panel explored the influence of culture on the need for social media tools and influence of social media tools on culture. Prof. de Beer introduced the room to John Fiske’s concept of Semiotic Democracy, “the delegation of the production of meanings and pleasures to viewers”.

The majority of the conversation focused on privacy concerns, the misrepresentation of information sharing controls as privacy controls and the use of aggregate information (not specific information) to generate consumer profiles. Prof. Bailey wondered if privacy is now passé. Indeed, social media tools are about publicity and micro-celebrity rather than privacy.

The session reinforced my realization that businesses that have stood up social media services (such as Facebook) are manufacturing a three-tiered privacy-crippled environment:

• crippling amounts of information that creates an environment in which privacy may be possible through obscurity
• crippling suite of options designed to perpetuate a false sense of privacy
• crippling terms of use agreements designed to protect the interests of companies through obscure language, excessive text and circular references beyond the patience and comprehension of most people

Excerpts of the Facing up to Facebook session are available in this week’s episode (#95) of the Canadian Podcast Buffet. The entire session will be released as a podcast through the University of Ottawa.

The University of Ottawa Law and Technology program hosts something called the Torys Speaker Series which features thought leaders and subject matter experts discussing issues related to law and technology. The next public session looks great!

Facing up to Facebook
A discussion panel on social media and social networking

Please join the Law & Technology group as Professors Jane Bailey, Jeremy de Beer, Michael Geist, Ian Kerr, and Valerie Steeves discuss legal issues arising from Facebook and related social media technologies.

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Place: Fauteux Hall, room 351
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Please RSVP to techlaw@uottawa.ca.
Join the Facing up to Facebook event page.

By the way, Michael Geist, Ian Kerr, Jeremy de Beer and Jane Bailey are all contributors to the book, In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law, published September 2005 and available for purchase (CDN$50 for a printed copy) or as a Creative Commons, by-the-chapter, download.

When you think about it, storytelling is a constant in any form of media including audio and video. Even when the content is meant to educate or convey a procedure, there’s some method to the delivery that can be identified as storytelling. The fact is, information is easier to remember when the consumer can relate to the content and the use of stories is an amazing way to make that connection for your audience.

Your challenge this week is to think carefully about how you present your content and find ways to enhance your message through storytelling. Remember the best stories have a beginning, middle and an end — three acts if you like — and they don’t clutter the story with unnecessary details.

If you have any questions feel free to email me, markblevis@gmail.com. Your next challenge will be available next week at markblevis.com.

 

 Challenge number 4: Use stories [1:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

It was CC Chapman who connected me with Holger Eilhard when I announced I was going to Germany.  Holger lives in Cologne (the city to which I would be traveling) and is part of CC’s Twitter network.  We made arrangements to meet.

Because we’re social media enthusiasts from different countries, Holger and I spent a fair bit of time discussing cultures, values and tools.  Specifically, we talked about the community that revolves around a G4-like television program Holger is an editor for at giga.de.  It’s a technology show with an active online community that started as far back as 1998.  The program uses forums, online comments and feedback to help guide the show — even during live broadcasts.

To giga.de, the Internet is just another channel to distribute the program (they also use satellite and digital cable).  The power of the Internet as a channel for Giga isn’t so much the reach it offers, but the fact that it is a bi-directional channel.  That key differentiator may have played a significant role in the survival of the program during a series of business decisions, network purchases and broadcast license transfers over the last several years — events that saw the relocation of the show and its productions team between three cities.

I was intrigued by the premium service package offered by Giga.  For a small cost, they offer video-on-demand and a few other small features. The truth is, though, the premium service is not in high demand and therefore represents a tiny revenue stream.

Holger offered some insight on why programs like G4 and giga.de appeal to people so much.  He suggests that the absence of a teleprompter means that the hosts must be more genuine, energetic and engaged.  They need to be real, not contrived, and people relate to people.

Social networking in Germany is still finding its legs.  Some of the more popular sites include:

• xing.de (a professional social network like LinkedIn)
• studivz.net (like facebook)
• niimo.com (like Twitter)