Platforms, Differences, and Best Practices

Last week, the subject of our discussion was how and why organizations, movements, brands, and businesses use social media. For the purposes of this week's discussion—a discussion of the different social media platforms used by businesses, the differences between these platforms, and the best business practices with regards to these particular social media—the goals for our hypothetical business will be to generate visibility and traffic. The platforms I will be discussing with relation to the way businesses work to maintain an online presence are Facebook and Twitter.

For each of the aforementioned platforms, I've found several articles and blog posts espousing a number of strategies and practices which businesses can adopt if they wish to augment their presence on social media. Rather than simply reproduce each list, I've attempted to conflate them and postulate the closest I can manage to a consensus for each platform.

For Facebook, I've arrived at the following:

1. Share vs. Like, Polls, etc.: The blog at Wishpond says that a "share vs. like" post—encouraging users to either like a post or share it depending on whether they want to "vote" for option A or option B, respectively, in a binary of products—is an efficient way to drum up brand engagement on Facebook. Wishpond goes on to say that using this strategy, Walmart saw a 650% increase in Facebook likes. Another form of competition-based posts is opinion polling—similar to the "share vs. like" post, with more than just the two options. A simple means of procuring rough market research, a poll will start with a picture (say, of three or four different but somewhat similar products) and ask users what their favorite of the bunch is. Often times, brand engagement can even be achieved without any need for the competitive aspect, in such ways as offering users a "sneak peek" at an upcoming product line, or by offering users some manner of "advice" (a recipe, for example). Wishpond cites a study of 682 Facebook posts which found that posts containing advice were shared 522% more than non-advice related posts. Above all, it is important to note that images are incredibly effective on Facebook—Moz says that photo posts receive, on average, 39% more engagement. Articles found in Forbes and Post Planner seem to agree with the importance of brand engagement for businesses on Facebook, be it competitive or otherwise, and Entrepreneur even suggests keeping outright promotional posts to a minimum, instead opting for "eye candy, friendly greetings, and other shares from around the internet that consumers will likely find of interest." With Facebook, it's all about encouraging interactivity and communicating directly with your audience—which, in a way, is the single biggest benefit of social media for businesses.
2. Establishing brand identity: This may be applicable to business on all social media, but especially on Facebook, where user profiles and identities can be and often are incredibly detailed and intricate, every brand or business must be able to speak directly to its unique audience by establishing a unique brand identity. Post Planner outlines the importance of determining the tone and identity of a business' page, as well as what content incites the best possible reaction from a business' unique audience, and, perhaps most importantly, taking the time to plan out posts in advance in an effort to establish continuity and consistency within the brand identity.
3. Avoiding lengthy posts: One of the key differences between Facebook and many other social media platforms is the fact that Facebook allows its users to conduct posts with no character limit. However, this isn't a feature that businesses should take advantage of—Forbes says that a "long, rambling" post is not likely to garner the sort of attention one would wish to receive for his or her business on Facebook. Instead, Forbes suggests adopting a sort of self-imposed character limit of 100-250 characters, since these are typically the posts which receive the most attention. This is especially efficient since more than a third of Facebook users are using mobile devices, and in the case of mobile users, shorter posts are undoubtedly far more convenient.
4. Cover photos, profile pictures, page composition: This one is simple—since the cover photo holds prime real estate on a Facebook profile page, and in many ways is responsible for the "first impression" made by a Facebook profile, it should be one of the most important considerations made by any business with regards to its Facebook presence. The cover photo (and the profile photo, as well) should strike the delicate balance between being a solid yet simple representation and introduction of the brand to newcomers, and inciting brand awareness in long-time fans. Overall, a brand's Facebook page, which can be customized in myriad ways, should be composed in a way that speaks to the brand's identity. This applies to all aspects of a brand's page: the profile picture, the cover photo, the timeline, the "about" section, the photo albums or timeline photos, etc.
5. Geo-location/geo-targeting/universal appeal: Again, these strategies may be applicable to business on all social media, but they has been used extensively by businesses on Facebook. Intentionally limiting a brand's target audience creates exclusivity, says Wishpond, which gives way to greater brand engagement. Geo-targeting can be achieved through the inclusion of specific photos or hashtags, localized language, or niche subject matter, and through Facebook's "add targeting" function, which limits the targeted demographics by age, location, gender, et al. On the other hand, larger businesses—including multinational corporations such as Coca-Cola—can benefit by "appealing to the Facebook world at large," casting a larger net and ensuring appeal to as many users as possible.

For Twitter, I've compiled the following list of strategies:

1. Tweets That Resonate: Twitter's business page suggests "combining exciting useful content with an engaging, unique tone to emotionally connect with your audience." So, like Facebook, audience engagement is paramount for businesses on Twitter. However, it is important to note the vast differences in format and presentation between Facebook and Twitter. With regards to the latter, "prompt and timely" Tweets lend themselves to the most engagement from users. Twitter is less "fussy" and more "to-the-point" than Facebook, for lack of better words—as such, the most effective Tweets from a business should follow suit.
2. Short and Sweet: Considering Twitter's general penchant for brevity, this strategy should come as no surprise: keep your Tweets short and sweet. Twitter's business page says that "creativity loves constraint, and simplicity is at [Twitter's] core." Twitter's 140-character limit means that businesses will definitely have to get creative with their Tweets if they want their messages to resonate with users. The business page also cites a report by Buddy Media which found that Tweets shorter than 100 characters receive a 17% higher engagement rate. The example posed by Twitter is a Tweet by e-commerce driven apparel company Bonobos: "19 flavors. #washedchinos #bonobos [Instagram link]." The message is immediate, effective, and resonant—"our chino pants are available in 19 new washes"—all in under 100 characters.
3. Tweet often: The Twitter business page says that Tweet frequency depends on several factors such as a business' audience, its purpose, and its objectives. This is a given; however, a "good basic rule" given by the business page is to keep the frequency at between three and five Tweets per day.
4. Less Structure is Better: Mashable suggests that a business' Twitter presentation can appear disingenuous and "inhuman" if it is too structured and mechanical. This may turn users off—so to speak—and as such, it is suggested that one should treat Twitter relationships the way they would a more intimate, personal relationship: less emphasis on planning and structure, more emphasis on accessibility and relatability. Of course, planning, integration, and even structure are important, but only insofar as they do not lend themselves to a Twitter feed that feels restrictive.
5. The 80/20 Rule: Mashable's Michael Brito also suggests what he calls the 80/20 rule: 80% of a business' tweets should be, to some extent, conversational and personal, and 20% should be about the actual business in question. Rather than "pushing out one-way marketing messages about your product," Brito suggests "[asking] questions, [being] personal, and [engaging] people naturally within the Twitter community." Otherwise, Brito says, costumers won't listen to what you have to say.
6. Tracking trends: Twitter is all about trends. After all, the hashtag started with Twitter, so it stands to reason that the platform itself would be characterized by topicality and of-the-moment conversational trends. "Any enterprise or medium-sized business should invest in a paid tracking service [...] to better track Twitter conversations, identify trends, measure sentiment, and to get a quantifiable picture of what is going on in the social web," Brito says.

These lists are by no means definitive—there are countless articles and lists on the Web containing any number of different strategies for businesses on social media which may even contradict some of those listed above. However, these lists serve a further function, and that is to highlight some of the difference between Facebook and Twitter, especially as business-minded people are concerned.

Going off of these lists alone, the differences become quite apparent. Facebook seems the more structured, formal, and "adult" of the two media. It lends itself to a much more advanced level of detail than does Twitter: for example, the maintenance of a Facebook page's composition, which can speak volumes of a brand, is a relatively intricate process. The lack of a character limit means that the average post can be (and often are) far more in-depth and generally informative than the average Tweet. Further, that one must first "like" a page before meaningfully engaging with it is indicative of a key characteristic of Facebook: it is chiefly about establishing, building, and maintaining relationships. The emphasis on photo-sharing and competition-based engagement (especially with regards to the subject of our discussion) speaks to a sense of immediacy that is generally lacking in Facebook, and is more characteristic of Twitter.

Indeed, Twitter is the more immediate of the two media. The 140-character limit creates a sense of constraint, whereby Tweets become more direct and to-the-point in their messages. The brief nature of the subject matter, together with its emphasis on community (i.e. Twitter is the "digital global village") and hyper-real time, means that Tweets often give rise to trends. As such, Twitter tends to feel more "loose," informal, and conducive to fleeting conversation rather than the cultivation of relationships.

Links:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234532

http://blog.wishpond.com/post/58738215261/11-awesome-facebook-post-examples-critiques-best-practic

http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-social-media/facebook
http://www.postplanner.com/how-facebook-pages-succeed-with-13-simple-best-practices/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2014/05/05/5-content-tips-for-your-facebook-business-page/

https://business.twitter.com/best-practices
http://mashable.com/2009/06/24/twitter-brand-best-practices/

How and why do organizations and movements use social media?

Thus far in our course, we have lent most of our focus to social media vis-à-vis the individual user, as well as the more general, abstract definition of the term. This week, we lend our focus to the way social media can be used as a tool for organizations and movements to advance their interests, spread awareness, and gain popularity and traction with the public.

One movement whose social media presence has always been an intriguing aspect of the way that it presents itself is Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street (hereinafter referred to as OWS) is a protest movement which began on September 17th, 2011, in Zuccotti Park in Manhattan's Financial District. The movement sought to bring national attention to income inequality, student debt, political corruption, and corporate influence on government, among other issues. The decidedly leftist sentiments embodied by the protesters proved especially potent, and iterations of OWS soon spread to over 1,500 cities worldwide. I first liked the movement's official Facebook page in late 2011 or early 2012, around the height of the movement's popularity.

It's now been over three years since the movement's inception, and OWS has since died down. It is no longer as ubiquitous a topic of conversation in the media as it was at its peak; and yet, OWS' Facebook page remains active almost daily. In its early days, the OWS Facebook page was used as a channel through which to call attention to and urge users to join upcoming protests and strikes. Nowadays, the page is used less as a practical and proactive tool of civic change than it is as a means of advertising many of the political views and stances emblematic of the once burgeoning movement, be it by sharing photos, articles, or quotes, or by attempting to bring the attention of users to certain causes.

In many ways, OWS' Facebook is still an agent for grassroots campaigning; now, however, the page achieves this in a more indirect fashion, by aligning itself with a more generally leftist view of American and international politics, rather than through the actual organization of grassroots protests. Recent posts by the page include photos, accompanied by a caption containing the hashtag #FergusonOctober, of a demonstration in solidarity with those protesting Michael Brown's shooting in Ferguson, MO—an event concerning the issues of racial profiling and police brutality, neither of which were issues popularly addressed at the inception of OWS—as well as several posts condemning the racist and imperialist undertones of Columbus day, accompanied by the hashtag #AbolishColumbusDay. Again, it is worthy of note that these issues were not significant to the OWS movement at its outset. Regardless, the page still has a sizable and enthusiastic following—now standing at 636,000 likes strong—which seems to respond just as well to OWS' promotion of its politics as it did the prospects of civil disobedience. Perhaps "to occupy" is just as much about a state of mind as it is a means of action.

One of several photos accompanied by the hashtag #AbolishColumbusDay.

That OWS—or, at least, its Facebook page—is now aligning itself with and broadcasting its support of certain views of these and other seemingly unrelated issues does not speak to a decrease in the potency of OWS' original message, or a loss of sight of its initial goals. Rather, it speaks to the power of social media to preserve an idea like that which is exemplified in the OWS movement—an idea which would've been represented by little more than a "flash in the pan," so to speak, before the advent of social media. Through social media, OWS is able to further expound its initial goals, its general politics, and even its plans for the future. This wasn't the conclusion that I initially had in mind, but perhaps the best use for social media, as organizations and movements like OWS are concerned, is to immortalize oneself.

Links:

www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt

Social Media, Relationships, and Interaction

Is social media good or bad for relationships?

It's a question you've probably seen addressed more than a few dozen times since the "social media boom" of the mid-to-late 2000s. Our course instructor Aron Hsiao introduced this week's assignment by asserting that jokes and ironic critiques about social media's ostensible detriment to personal relationships have become so widespread that they've begun to verge on rhetorical cliché. As such, it should come as no surprise that if one were to Google a phrase such as "social media and relationships," one would find that think pieces aligning themselves with a negative stance on social media's effect on our the way we interact with one another comprise most, if not all, of the top results. I should know; I Googled that exact phrase myself, and the found that very first result was—surprise, surprise—a Time article titled, "Kim Stolz: How Social Media Is Ruining Our Relationships." The following is just a small sampling of headlines and excerpts belonging to some of the other results on the first page alone:

"Your social media habits could be hurting your marriage, according to a new study out of the University of Oxford's Internet Institute."

"Is Social Media Ruining Your Relationships?"

"Social Media Tips: Don't Let It Wreck Your Relationship"

"Now, couples say are [sic] splitting after only two years and nine months because of weird relationship perceptions due to excessive social media use."

"Is Social Media Sabotaging Real Communication?"

These headlines and excerpts have been culled from articles published by seemingly reputable and diverse publications such as Huffington Post and Forbes, and yet, it appears that their authors swear by the notion of social media's negative impact on our human relationships unanimously. It seems to me as though the popularity of this stance—that social media usage is harmful to our "real life" relationships—can be attributed, at least in part, to its position as the default "intelligent" response to the cause célèbre that is social media. There is a debate here, but it's one-sided.

The question, then, remains: Is social media good or bad for relationships? It's perhaps safe to say, at this point, that a well-substantiated case has been made for the latter option of the binary. In Time's article "Kim Stolz: How Social Media Is Ruining Our Relationships," Kim Stolz, author of the book Unfriending My Ex: And Other Things I'll Never Do, expounds her argument that social media is indeed detrimental to our relationships.

Stolz says that the rise of social media is "definitely correlated" with the rise of narcissism in our society. We derive our self-worth from "how many likes we get, how many followers we get, [and] if someone texts us back," and the problem, Stolz says, is deeper-seated than one might think:

"[...] I think when you see your phone light up from across the room, it's that ping of dopamine in your system. You get that euphoric, excited feeling, and I think that's addictive. Now we [use social media far more frequently] [...] the more we do it, the more we [receive updates], so it becomes a very addictive process."

Stolz argues that our social media usage affects two very important facets of our mental well-being as individuals: our self-worth, and more generally, our mental physiology. When asked whether she thinks social media negatively affects our relationships with others, Stolz responded:

"Yeah, I think a lot of relationships have been ruined by one person's addiction to social media. [...] [Sometimes our social media addiction] simply means that you get home at night to spend time with your significant other and you have nothing to talk about because you've spoken about everything all day through social media or you've looked through each other's social media feeds.

There's an emerging body of research that shows that when you stop having offscreen interaction, you lose empathy. You lose the ability to have genuine reactions to real problems and real things."

Kim Stolz's argument here raises several distinct social issues with which detractors of social media typically associate its ubiquity: its usage may negatively affect our physiology, potentially even manifesting itself in an addiction; it can turn us into narcissists and self-obsessives; it can negatively affect our capacity for empathy; and it can also have the undesired (and ironic) effect of making us feel more lonely and debilitating our capacity for social interaction rather than strengthening our social bonds. The latter point is especially significant with respect to the argument that social media negatively affects our relationships: essentially, the more we use social media, the greater the distance grows between us and the people we care about.

Still, there is another common argument which lends itself to the criticism of social media as a means of interaction between people: social media equates to "fake" interaction, "fake" communication, and "fake" relationships—and, essentially, "fake" versions of ourselves, as opposed to our "real," offscreen counterparts.

In a blog post on Huffington Post titled Why Social Media Isn't Social, Thomas White expresses his belief that social media does two unfortunate things, the former of which is more relevant to our discussion: it allows us to "hold up masks." The "masks" we hold up, as White calls them, serve to project an image of ourselves which may not represent who we truly are "offscreen." Because we are spending more and more time online cultivating our "fake" online personas—the hours spent on Facebook in the U.S. went up 700 percent between 2008 and 2009, White says—and putting them on display for friends, family, acquaintances, and strangers alike, we are thereby creating unreal expectations of the people we are and the people with whom we interact both on and offscreen, for both ourselves and those around us, to the detriment of "true" human interaction. "We're living behind these masks more and more," White says, calling our "wearing" these "masks" "the willful commodification of who we are."

The immediate benefits of social media, insofar as it can act to strengthen our social relationships, have always been quite apparent: it's now easier than ever before to stay in real-time contact with friends, family, and loved ones, even those who are thousands of miles apart. Old friends can become reacquainted, and new friendships can be forged. Social media can also facilitate healthy social interaction between people who may never meet in "real life." However, as its negative implications with respect to our social relationships and interaction with others become clearer with each passing day, it's important for us as a society to think about the extent to which we depend on social media, and further, how we think of social media. In my eyes, social media is about as "real" as you make it. The problem with these all of these different criticisms is that they are predicated on the presupposition that all users of social media treat it as something of a surrogate reality. If we can separate the two in our minds—our "realities" and our usage of social media—and remember to treat social media as a supplement to our lives rather than a platform through which we can live alternate versions of them, then we will always be able to reap social media's benefits, rather than become victims of its pitfalls.

Links:
http://time.com/2917916/kim-stolz-how-social-media-is-ruining-our-relationships/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-white/why-social-media-isnt-social_b_3858576.html