Leadership in a Socially Networked World

The world of social networking is still viewed as a frontier, a dangerous one at that.   It shouldn't be.    

Proactive business leaders who are dealing with the issue and helping employees, are finding that social media is well within their comfort zone.   How and why?   This great piece from CIO.com tells it like it is.    

In an earlier post I referred to the importance of treating social media as part of the marketing mix and ensuring that tracking and ROI were paramount.    Together these pieces reflect my view of what social media can do for organisations and how.   To enable it to happen of course, you need to get the experts in.   We, at Creative Nation, can help.

In related news it looks as though MySpace has finally woken up to the basic principles of SEO, user centred design and usability.   A major re-design of MySpace will roll out in the next few months, get a sneak preview here.

Google soars: Digg and The Times wither

Hot on yesterday's post came a comment to Paid Content from someone naming themselves 'Times Worker'.   It may be someone being mischievous, it may be someone with a grievance OR it may be someone telling something close to the truth.

As Google accounts for a record amount of web traffic (6.4%), Digg expires . . . or at least withers away.    Digg's demise has been put down to the departure of the founding members on large payouts and the re-design.   But I'd question that.   The rise of Twitter may also have something to do with it.   Digg's social bookmark model seems 'quaint' by comparison  with Twitter.   I was an early adopter of Digg, but I also confess to having gradually stopped using it in favour of Twitter and other social media over the last couple of years . . . and the thing is, I didn't miss Digg.

The Times' Paywall: A Health Warning

Nielsen estimate The Times has just over 360,000 unique users behind it's paywall (these are people who have registered and been through the payment gateway to the other side of the wall).   The Nielsen figures include traffic generated by users who were given free online trials, or get free web access thrown in with their print subscription to the Times' publications.


A health warning in terms of the accuracy of the figures is appropriate. Nielsen measures these things slightly differently to, say, a report from the pay engine or conventional web analytics services. In addition you should bear in mind that some 'users' are people who have paid for one-off access (£1 to access The Times sites for one day) and therefore of little value down the line.   

• Nielsen state that The Times and Sunday Times websites experienced an 88% drop in unique users (UK only) since the erection of the paywall
• The Times had 3.1 million UK unique users in the second quarter of 2010 according to Nielsen. This figure has fallen to 1.78 million overall now, and it is on the basis of this differential that Nielsen estimates the number of paying subscribers
• Nielsen estimate that one in five subscribers have paid a £1 (or one days' access).

Clearly the initial figures will include many who have trialled it (me included). We don’t know how many of these people go on to become subscribers (I know I didn't).


The 362,000 unique users figure Nielsen has reached seems to be quite high, in my view. News International has yet to release any data. It would be interesting to know how they pitch their reach to advertisers for example. Targeting and personalisation have been mentioned. After all, signing up to the Times paywall online involves nine required fields of personal data.


The Times' argument is that the very act of subscribing online suggests a more engaged audience. Nielsen attempt to corroborate this by suggesting that in Q3 Times paywall visitors averaged 42% more pages per person a month than the average Q2 pre-paywall visitors .


Whilst the argument that subscribers' data enables better targeting and value might be true for, say, FT.com (where the scale is subscribers is indisputable) I suggest it has dubious value based on the figures we are discussing here. I doubt that the fall-off in ad revenues is matched by an uplift in subscription revenues – the product just isn't that unique.


According to Nielsen, the over 50s account for 52% of the paywall group; the over 65s account for 16%. The footprint of the over 50s group has increased whilst that of the 25-34 year old age group is now 13% of the paywall group compared to 22% of the general audience - a big fall. Nielsen goes on to say that households earning between £50,000 and £80,000 make up a larger part of the paywall group at the expense of those earning less than £20,000 and that paywall audience also tends to be older.


So, an older and wealthier audience is always good (look at the success of the Telegraph and Mail). However, this audience is also very demanding of quality, a lack of gimicks and faultless customer service . . . they want a Rolls Royce. As we all know, Rolls Royces cost. Add to this the advertising campaigns The Times has engaged in and the sweeteners it has doled out, more costs. The door on social media sharing is firmly closed, so there is no low-cost marketing effort designed to bait (younger?) users with targeted content. It just doesn't stack up in my view.


This suggests what we all probably knew anyway, that young people will not pay for this type of content. It is freely available everywhere. 'Opinion' pieces from a right-wing commentariat will not attract young audiences.


Advertisers and agencies are right to be concerned. According to John Baylon, group digital trading director at Starcom MediaVest, of most concern will be the dip in the number of those 25- to 34-year-old visitors.

• Where is the future audience? 
• Where is the diversity in The Times' appeal? 
• Should advertisers looking at broad based brand campaigns really spend the big bucks with The Times?

Building a brand

In a perfect world, there would be no boundaries within companies and organisations.   The practice often falls far short of the ideal theory.

Creative Nation (the creative production consultancy I am part of) address just that in their latest post.   It also brought to mind the discussions which took place at yesterday's Jump event organised by the lovely people at eConsultancy.   We talked about how the silos need to be broken down to create the seamless experience that customers expect.   How true. 

Why should consumers expect to receive a different message or customer experience when dealing with the online off-shoot of an offline company, servive, product or organisation?   The obvious media issues aside, the message should be the same.   Companies, organisations, service providers and product development and sales need to start having conversations with customers.

In a world where ROI is king, we all need to start thinking about how we can dissolve barriers and work together.   Digital remains in the vanguard of these moves and many companies are starting to make moves in the right direction. 

Tomorrow sees the AoP summit where simlar issues have long been discussed.   In addition, there will be round tables on subjects like the place of content in the digital world, ROI and monetisation and how organisations can work better internally to deliver ROI.

We live in interesting times!

September 2010

It has been a busy month with a short break in-between.   I am now working with Creative Nation as Digital Director, find out how and more about what we do from Creative Nation News.

Whilst on a brief break (to France) I got to thinking about how France was changing and how some of those changes (social and economic) seemed to entrench stereotypes, theirs of us, ours of them, everyone about everyone else.   Then this came long - it's a hoot!

We've been engaged on some branding projects recently and whilst researching that I came across this little nugget - blue is the colour for sure.   Personally I can't help thinking it a very 'safe' option, implying seriousness and solidity in much the same way as Estate Agents used to tell you to pain your front door dark blue in the 1980s.

Whilst on the subject of branding I was quite taken by this post from Felix Velarde about why Brands should engage with the social web.   I'll be speaking at a conference in October on how Social Media has the scope to not only help Brands but also how it can (positively) change their internal structures and dynamics.   Whilst on that subject, this post from Christian Howes of WebTrends tells it like it is . . .

. . . and finally, I couldn't agree more with this post from Inspired Outsiders, genius and so true.  

Social Media and Marketing

Some of the hype surrounding social media could do more harm than good for businesses. Let me explain why.   Social media, used wisely and well, has the ability to do wonderful things for your business, but it's not the miracle diet pill of the marketing world.


We've all seen them, the 'twankers'. There’s no denying that social media continues to experience impressive growth. The potential for engagement and innovation is almost exponential.

Some executives remain sceptical about adopting a social strategy and I can see why. Social media is a young discipline. Few, if any practitioners have a background that is based in marketing (there are some admirable exceptions . . ahem!).

Social Media advocates often argue that the set in stone rules of traditional marketing stifle innovation.   This is unfair.

It's probably fairer to say that traditional marketing fails to innovate as well as social media today. Traditional marketing is top-down. It was never developed as a system of thought and practice designed to create genuine one-to-one customer interactions.   There is the rub.

Assuming social media is more influential than traditional media:

• Digital spends have increased massively over the past decade, those in print has steadily declined - yet revenues from digital have scarcely met those lost from print.
• People aren’t prepared to pay for general content any more. Whilst newspapers struggle, other broadcast areas' fortunes are increasing steadily.   TV experienced a minor drop in penetration but studies now show increasing adoption in younger users.
• Free streaming services like Spotify have not reduced global radio audiences - quite the opposite.

So, what is my point?

Falling broadcast and traditional media numbers have little to do with rising social adoption.

Broadcast media is a fluid, adaptable medium that continues to be the information service of choice for many people. We relax with the Sunday papers.   We trust what we know.

Social media marketers must acknowledge that integrating successfully with other marketing channels and creating a multi-channel presence is the way forward.

Only by embracing tracking, analysis and cold, hard numbers can it ever work.  

There is no other way.