Smart Move, Snapchat.

Does anyone remember the time that Snapchat declined Facebook’s offer to buy them for $3 billion? Yeah? Me, too. And so does Facebook, most likely, with the announcement today from Snapchat about its updates to the popular app.

Back when Facebook made the $3B offer to Snapchat, people wondered why. Since then there have been a few articles released that include interviews with the Snapchat CEO, but they were relatively inconclusive as to what Snapchat had up its sleeve. Now the secret is out, with Snapchat’s update including video chatting and in-app text messaging. Sorry Facebook, but Snapchat beat you to the punch on that one (referencing the WhatsApp announcement of rolling out voice calling later this year).

Photo: wlth.com

It’s definitely a smart move for Snapchat, in my opinion. The video chatting feature may seem useless to my age demographic and older, but it may very well be heavily used by the younger generation— those prized 13-17 year olds. It’s quick, it’s a novelty, and it’s part of an app that they already love to use. That demographic is increasingly visual. They grew up with laptops, tablets, smartphones— all very visual, all very in your face. So it’s natural that they’re migrating to apps like Instagram and Snapchat, because a) their parents aren’t on them and b) they’re much more aesthetically pleasing. So now that they can message and video chat, I think it’s going to make the app that much stronger.

I read an article by The Verge that had a really in depth perspective of the whole situation from Snapchat’s point of view. Evan Spiegel, the Snapchat CEO, discussed his desire for messaging to stop being so disruptive and to be more instantaneous. When a person’s online/offline status is visible, Spiegel theorizes that it’s a more negative experience because if someone is online but hasn’t started up a conversation, it means they don’t have the desire to interact with you. With the Snapchat updates, you don’t know when a person is active in the app. You don’t know when they’ve read your message until they exit the conversation and the message disappears (although they did include a screenshot option for saving texts, which is smart for when people send addresses, phone numbers, or other important information). Video chatting is very quick with Snapchat, and very “in the moment” in Spiegel’s eyes.

It seems that Spiegel is looking at communication very differently than Facebook, Twitter, and the other leading social media platforms. If he’s successful in whatever it is he’s trying to do, it could really change the direction of social media. Brands have already been joining Snapchat in efforts to cultivate brand loyalty and distribute marketing materials such as coupons and deals (which is great because you can track exactly who opens your snap, and then furthermore, who takes a screenshot), and I think many more will follow as younger teens use Snapchat more frequently with the new features. I think that there is a lot happening right now, and I can’t wait to see what’s around the corner for social media marketing.

Maybe Twitter Isn’t Being as Stupid as We Thought.

I don’t know about you, but when I saw the Twitter redesign I was not a happy camper. I even ranted about it on Twitter a bit, which I usually don’t do.

I stewed about it for awhile, trying to figure out why in the world Twitter would continue to morph into a very Facebook-like design. First with the header photo, and now this very drastic change to the layout. And I’m especially angsty about it because I remember how long it took me to edit my sunflower background to be in the perfect position, and with the redesign the background photo no longer appears. But I digress.

At first, the reasoning behind the Twitter redesign was muddled and seemed out of place for a platform doing as well as Twitter is. However, I read this article today from Mashable detailing the stats of recruiting on social media; for example, 66% of recruiters use Facebook to discover potential candidates, and 54% of recruiters look to Twitter. Twitter’s number is continuing to grow (and the acquisition of Gnip seems to strengthen this idea), and in my opinion the Facebook number will eventually be surpassed by Twitter’s due to factors like Facebook’s algorithm changes and Twitter’s interest graph design compared to Facebook’s social graph setting. Facebook’s algorithm changes have already proved frustrating to brands, who are now only reaching 10% max of people that already like their page without paying for advertising. Facebook is becoming greedy, and brands seem to be ready to throw in the towel on Facebook advertising.

Which is where Twitter swoops in to play the knight in computer screen armor.

If you think about it, Twitter’s redesign includes the option to pin a tweet to the top of your profile, a larger picture, and increased size of the tweets that garner more engagement. Recruiters can use this to their advantage when finding candidates. And not only that, but brands may begin to prefer Twitter with these features, too. If they’re hiring, they can pin a tweet about it. They don’t have to worry about algorithms because Twitter simply doesn’t use them. If they’re a smaller brand, they don’t have to worry as much about profile design as they do currently because the redesign removes the background and makes profiles more uniform. The ROI of Twitter may become more prominent as time goes on (and as Facebook digs itself into a hole), which is crucial for brands.

So I’m still not happy about losing my (adorable) sunflower background with the Twitter redesign, but maybe they’re onto something that will pan out in the long term.

Source: http://www.weboptimizers.com.au

Divorce: Twitter’s Fault

I was on Twitter today and saw an article from Mashable about how Twitter use is correlated to divorce and infidelity. Being in social media marketing, I had to go check it out to make sure my love life wasn’t at stake or anything, and was pleasantly surprised to find that the article was based off of a study done at Mizzou’s PRIME Lab, where I was a research assistant last year. It was really cool to be able to get that hands-on research experience in college, especially experience working with media topics. I was physio trained, so I could take physiological data such as skin conductance and pulse monitoring. Although I wasn’t working with this study, it was cool to see my university featured.

However, the subject of the study was troubling. Being in social media marketing, I surround myself with online audiences. I try to learn about them, interact with them, relate to them. But if it’s true that increased social media use can lead to divorce and other not-so-great things, then that’s just sad. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still 100% see the value of an interpersonal relationship. I like talking to people, I’m a great hugger, and I try to avoid solving problems over text/social media at all costs. People need that social interaction in their lives, and social media communication doesn’t count nearly as much as the real deal. The variables of this study of course need to be examined, but still, it says something about our society. Social media needs to be used for healthy interaction and relationships between users… not for avoiding face to face interactions and escaping to a virtual reality.

photo: itpro.co.uk

 

Twitter’s Advertising Game

It was recently announced that Twitter will begin rolling out new types of advertisements. Okay fine, whatever, but when this is in the midst of rumors of a changing timeline and thoughts of breaking up the stream of fresh news for some users (although I can see why this may be a cool feature for more prominent users), I have to raise my eyebrow.

photo: mashable.com

I’ll admit, I know little to none about Twitter’s quarterly income numbers. But something must be going wrong in order for Twitter to be making so many drastic changes to the way their platform runs. I’m especially citing the layout changes to the profile that are being tested:

photo: mashable.com

Look familiar? Like… Facebook, maybe?

I’m all about evolution of social platform to match changing demographic audiences and user trends. But Twitter seems to be slightly morphing into Facebook, rather than putting distance between the two platforms and giving strength to the features that individuate Twitter. So with the new “call to action” buttons that will be on Twitter advertising, after Facebook just rolled out the same thing, I’m getting nervous that Twitter will lose the spot it has as a social platform that’s here to stay (as if there’s such a thing as security when it comes to social media platforms). It has been proven that the Facebook CTA buttons are fairly effective, so I can see why Twitter may want to try to use this as a conversion tactic, but it reflects poorly on the social platform when implemented this soon after Facebook rolled out the option. Twitter could have done a number of different things, including maybe making it possible for photos to connect to a webpage like Pinterest does. A fashion-industry brand posts a photo of a new top, and enables the click-through feature so a user can click the photo and go directly to the site to order online. It works for Pinterest, so why not try that instead of stealing more things from Facebook (if you have to steal at all)?

So good luck Twitter, because you may need it. Individuality is key in the social media game of Monopoly and when defining a need that your social platform alone can fill. If Twitter turns into something too similar to Facebook, people may be converted – not into customers, but into runaways.

A favorite quote

Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let the pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness. Take pride that even though the rest of the world may disagree, you still believe it to be a beautiful place.

-Kurt Vonngeut

Sometimes we just need a little reminder to appreciate everything around us.

Facebook + WhatsApp = <3

Frankly, I don’t know why anyone’s surprised about this whole “Facebook buying WhatsApp” thing. Okay, maybe the $16b price was a little steep. But Facebook sure has some jangle in their pockets, so why not spend a few extra Benjamins to gain even more media coverage focused on the price of the buy?

Facebook is a major social media platform, yes. But they’re losing part of their audience, and the most important part at that. So they have to make another business move. When Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 for $1b, it was groundbreaking. And Facebook absolutely came out on top, with Instagram now having 150 million monthly users. Every second, there are 8,500 likes on photos that have been posted on Instagram. That’s a ton of engagement. And Facebook really likes engagement. So Facebook hung out with Instagram for awhile and they got together and everyone was cool. Instagram has been flourishing and all is well. Then Facebook decided it still didn’t have a total monopoly on the world and everything ever, deciding that it needed another big communication platform.

And WhatsApp was acquired. With good reason.

WhatsApp is gold. Mark Zuckerberg was quoted saying that WhatsApp is on track to acquiring more than one billion users, which makes it a rare (and valuable) mass-market service. It currently has over 350 million monthly active users, and is growing at an alarming rate. And if Facebook is nervous about losing the teenagers to other platforms, then Zuckerberg will definitely want to own one of the messaging services that could threaten to take down the empire. According to The Guardian, cell phone providers were estimated to have lost $23b in SMS revenue even as far back as 2012 because of services like WhatsApp. Now that they’re threatening social media platforms, Zuckerberg wants to fill Facebook’s voids with a competitor. If you can’t beat ’em, buy ’em— right?

Photo: mashable.com

It makes sense, if you think about it. Facebook offers a lot of services: photo sharing, public communication, private messaging, and video chatting. But what don’t they have? Phone calls. Since their Facebook Home idea with Android was a total flop, they had to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to integrate the use of Facebook into every facet of someone’s mobile life. And phone capabilities are the one thing they don’t yet have. So when I read this morning on Mashable that WhatsApp is going to be introducing free voice calling later this year, I wasn’t surprised. Nor was I surprised that they announced it after Facebook announced the buy of the service.

When market change and irrelevancy are constantly imminent for a social network, it’s imperative that you stay ahead of the curve. That’s exactly what Facebook is doing here, and I’m certain that they’re already looking into what platform to purchase next. Especially with the so highly sought-after teen demographic, once things are known as “cool” they stop being viewed as such. Facebook needs to be constantly tweaking and developing its existing services, as well as buying new ones to stay a necessary aspect of everyday communication.

The Magic of a “Limited Time” Offer

Last night, I got to finally try the Cookie Dough Oreo. I can’t keep myself from smiling as I type this, because I know I’m such a typical consumer. Why? Because I so desperately wanted to try a Cookie Dough Oreo simply for the fact that it was only available for a limited time.

Well, and partly because of the fact that it brings together cookie dough and Oreos which is one of the best combinations ever. But I digress.

In January the news articles started going viral about the Cookie Dough and Marshmallow Crispy Oreos that were to hit the shelves in early February. I saw the articles and knew I had to try at least one of them. Not only did the articles say the new flavors were only available for a limited time, but they also listed the release date: February 3. I marked it on my calendar and waited until the day that I could finally try a Cookie Dough Oreo. In retrospect, would I have been so excited to try them if they weren’t only available for a limited time? Probably not. It would have been like every other Oreo flavor ever that I haven’t gotten around to sampling, despite the fact that the flavor does sound pretty good.

What got me was the “limited time” offer, combined with the social media attention. It happened last year too with the Candy Corn Oreo fad, even though they really weren’t all that great.

“Limited Time” are two magical words because they tell people to act now. And when people are told to act now, many of them do exactly that. It’s why “call to action” phrases are effective. It’s why the FOMO exists. It’s why those dumb television informercial things that always advertise $19.99 prices and the offer to double the amount if you call within 10 minutes actually work. And not only does “Limited Time” tell people to act now, but it promises them exclusivity because they’re one of the people that acted now, they get something that other people may not. The hype gets them going, and the prestige seals the deal. It’s kind of sad how predictable we are, but it’s kind of cool to think about, as well. Especially if you’re pursuing a career in advertising like I am (fellow community managers, get at me).

My opinion? If a “limited time” offer is overdone with too many products, people won’t care. But something like Oreo, where the “limited time” offers are scarce? You’re golden, because people love feeling special.

Why Real-Time Marketing and DiGiorno Pizza Win the Super Bowl

That awkward moment when the ads are better than the Super Bowl itself. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge sports fan (well, football and hockey). But the game was so disappointing that I turned my attention to the ads and, when the game was in play, Twitter.

I’ve always enjoyed seeing the Super Bowl ads but I was anticipating them even more since a number of them had already become available online. It was interesting— everyone around me complained about the ads being available sooner than the actual Super Bowl, but the moment the ad came on during the game people recognized it and shushed everyone around them. I’m mainly thinking of the Budweiser #BestBuds ad with this one, but there were a few others too.

However, it wasn’t just the ads this year. Ever since Oreo’s quick-thinking at last year’s Super Bowl, real-time marketing has become a requirement. Some say it’s going to fizzle out just as quickly as it made its entrance, but I don’t think so. I was glued to my phone during the 3rd quarter and most of the 4th following some of the conversations between brands, and many of them were great. Of course there’s the J.C. Penney debacle where there was a small hint toward mittens and then the brand’s tweets were incoherent. It was later explained that they were trying to type in mittens, but when the seemingly “drunk tweet” garnered over 19,000 retweets and the explanation only 3,800, there are bound to be a lot of people left with the impression that J.C Penney let their community manager drunk tweet. But I won’t rant too much about that one. Some other brands got into the fun as well, like Snickers and Coors. My personal favorites were the sassy DiGiorno tweets:

They were really entertaining, and instead of just interacting with other brands that advertised during the Super Bowl it capitalized on the game itself, which has the potential of drawing in a bigger audience than just the ad-focused viewers. The brand also practiced great community management, favoriting and responding to many of the tweets instead of ignoring them.

Sometimes when life gives you a terrible Super Bowl game, you just have to get a little sassy.

Published in USA Today College

So in December of 2013 I was approached by a contact of mine about blogging for USA Today College. It sounded like a pretty great opportunity, so I gave it a go. On the day it was published it made the list of top five most popular posts! Thought I’d share it with y’all. Enjoy!

http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/career/what-youll-gain-from-interning-in-a-big-city

 

So Many Platforms, So Little Time

Facebook. Instagram. Vine. Pinterest. LinkedIn. Twitter. Foursquare. There are so many platforms, and more and more businesses are on them. All of them. It’s exhausting to see so many icons across a banner ad for a company; besides, who’s going to follow or like a company on a million different platforms, especially when too many companies are using the rudimentary “same message on every platform” approach to social? I’m sorry, but “Who’s excited for #homecoming? Find the perfect dress here —> [link] #shopping #highschool” is not universally effective!

This is why each successful social media platform has a different focus. Because they’re all useful for different approaches in different areas. I’ve done some research into each platform and the different graphs into which each platform can fit, and it breaks my heart to see a business on a particular platform judged simply on popularity, rather than demographics, tactics and goals. That time could easily be focused on another, more efficient platform to try to maximize the effect there, rather than stretching the resources too thin.

Photo courtesy of naz.edu

I’ve always felt that a brand or company should be selective about their social media platforms, determining the best ones to use rather than trying to cover every possible base. But this Mashable article caused me to want to blog about it, especially the following quote:

Digitas and Curalate found that only 18% of fashion retail brands pin items on Pinterest.

The article talks about how the majority of Pinterest content is user generated. Which is fine. Except that means that brands aren’t using it to their benefit— otherwise, much more content would be generated by brands. Pinterest is, for whatever reason, an untapped gold mine. It’s all visual, like Instagram, and visual is a very good thing. A Facebook post will get double the normal engagement if an image is included. So why aren’t brands on Pinterest? That’s a question I don’t have an answer to. It makes sense that a fashion brand would have a Pinterest account along with their other social media efforts, because it effectively showcases an outfit or an article of clothing. And it easily links to the page where a consumer can learn more about the product and make an online purchase. And people can share it with their Pinterest followers. And hashtags are actually utilized on Pinterest, unlike Facebook’s unfortunate attempt at integrating them into the platform. So why not use it?

I think this sort of thing occurs with too many brands these days. Facebook and Twitter are the most well-known, popular choices, so many brands jump on those and leave other platforms by the wayside. If an art supply company wants to employ Facebook and Twitter as their only platforms, then fine. But they’re missing out on making cute DIY 6- or 15-second videos through Vine or Instagram, or creating popular texture/color/technique boards on Pinterest. The local ice cream shop may use Twitter to announce their hours, but they could also be posting Instagram photos to their Twitter of the flavors, adorable kids eating ice cream, and a map to the new store location.

What’s the moral of the story? Examine your company’s needs BEFORE examining what the most popular social media platform seems to be. It saves time and resources, and your targeting marketing efforts will be more effective.

Oh, and I graduate college in May. So like, all I’m saying is that social media marketing is my passion and it would rock if you wanted to hire me. Here’s my résumé.