Open The Dialogue

You don’t need to reach everyone all the time.

The beauty of fragmented media consumption means that omnipresence is important from the perspective of accessibility, not necessarily dominance, of a certain medium.

A while ago, Robert Scoble mentioned he was doing a comparison of FriendFeed vs. Facebook.  I’m assuming he meant their feature sets, user bases, etc. but maybe not specific roles for the communities they cater to.  Essentially, a “which one is better” discussion.  Concerned that he was comparing apples & oranges, I (along w/ Brian Wallace) left a comment on his status about why there is a place for both in this world and why each have their obvious benefits:

Facebook vs. FriendFeed

I point out some intrinsic differences in terms of how each tool relies on its user to generate content, populate it and keep it alive.  The basic argument being that Facebook is a “social utility” in the sense that it is shaped around us generating data about how we move throughout our lives.  I became friends with someone?  That is a data point in addition to how an imported note would be.  FriendFeed doesn’t have the deep social interactions built-in just yet (or maybe never?).  It’s focused on the content we put into it and want to aggregate/broadcast to others.  Facebook has similar features but the audiences and user bases are clearly worlds apart.

One won’t overtake the other and each have a place on the web because there is a very specific audience FriendFeed resonates with and that differs, as a broad assumption, to the audience on Facebook.  My activity on FriendFeed is squarely focused on content ephemera while 95% of the people I’m friends on with Facebook are real relationships I have outside of the web.  As marketers, we should be very cognizant of that.  People can be using these two tools in very distinctly different ways:  they’re not interchangable. 

People consume things differently. Not the same way as the next and certainly not at the same rate as the next. It is key to realize that your audience is now distributed across the social web and there is still tremendous value in someone who might follow you on Twitter but not really care for your blog all that much. Don’t be bummed about the lack of all-encompassing inclusion, it just means the quality of the connection is higher. How someone follows or engages with you usually means that they find that method to be of highest value to them. You want that. You want to be ultimately accessible to the point where every aspect of information changing hands helps your audience.

To close, good insight from Micah Baldwin of Lijit:

“we as online content generators forget our daily voice and wear the voices getting traction. dont be @garyvee; I just want to hear you.”

Photo credit, lynetter.

Looking ahead, as many are laying out plans and budgets for the year in front of us, I thought it’d be important to revisit two major realities of today’s digital world:  the big-picture role brands play online and the truth behind engagement, participation, etc.

One “old” post I constantly find myself going back to is David Armano talking about brands being facilitators online instead of, traditionally, broadcasters.  Using this thinking often during brainstorms and client meetings, the point here is that as the communication landscape changes – so must a brand and how they react, participate and work with their audiences.  From David’s post:

This means that like any good facilitator, they get off center stage, move over to the side and let others do the talking. But just like any good facilitator, the brands who succeed in this direction need to master it as an both and art and science. Good facilitators know how to actively listen, how to create environments which stimulate productive conversations and interactions and most importantly they add incredible value even though they may come across as the least vocal in the group.

Another truth to be mindful of in 2009 is the reality behind participation. As marketers, we like to think every audience we try to reach is 100% engaged and digitally active. Sadly, as Jake points out, that isn’t so.

Most of today’s web community falls into those three buckets.  The large majority being an audience who never really engages themslves, taking content and moving on.  A small percentage of people actually mold and adust what is out there  - but only what is out there, nothing comes from them directly.  Finally, the 1% who actually create and drive activity.

A great stat that Jake provides to back-up the 90-9-1 principle:

Just 0.16% of all visitors to YouTube upload videos to it, and 0.2% of visitors to Flickr upload photos.

Even if you’re a “creator,” think about how many photos or videos you upload in a day vs. the amount you passively digest from links found online or passed on from friends.  I’d bet that ratio supports the principle behind Jake’s great single-serving site.

In 2009, we should focus on changing both of these realities for the better. The opportunity is there to level the playing field and for brands to become better transparent, active participants with not just the media but their customers and the digital world as a whole. In doing so, hopefully we’ll see the facilitator model be more popular and the 90-9-1 percentages begin to adjust themselves, moving closer and closer to the 100% “participation nirvana” we’re all seeking.

What do you want to see happen in 2009 for the world of PR, interactive marketing, etc.?