Stop me if you've heard these before:
  • We're going to calculate the total number of impressions
  • Then we're going to apply the famous PR multiplier to the total number of impressions
  • Maybe we can apply advertising value equivalencies. Because, you know, advertising and PR carry the same value for a brand (sarcasm)
  • Lets find the total number of fans a person has
  • Then lets find their total number of Twitter followers
  • I'm also interested in how many posts have been written about my brand/industry
  • They write for the New York Times, or Wall Street Journal so they must matter to my brand.
Guess what? All of that is bullshit. OK, maybe just PR multipliers and AVE's. The rest aren't total BS, when placed into context. We know that a brand engaging in social media, at its core, is attempting to influence a consumer, or potential consumer, into doing something. Most often it is buying your product, but you could be using it to respond to customer service inquiries. Or maybe you are using it to just gain market intelligence (read: listening only). Or maybe even using it as an employee recruitment tool. Or, finally, using it as an internal communications vehicle. No matter what your purpose in using social media is, looking at raw numbers (like the ones listed above) is pretty meaningless (just like in traditional PR, actually). I mentioned during the #DellSTU SMaC Unconference last week that one day I hoped we would get over our love affair with size. The anecdote I used was that just because Amber Naslund (she was sitting next to me at the time - I wasn't picking on her) has 20,000+ followers on Twitter doesn't mean she's relevant to your brand. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, the magic word: relevancy! If Amber has written 10,000 tweets, or 500 blog posts in the last year, how many of them relate to my brand? If only a handful are related, then how is she influential for me/my brand? On the other hand, if you take Joe Smith who has only 5,000 followers, half as many blog posts and half as many tweets but is writing more on topic content than Amber isn't he more influential? I would postulate that he is. Taken another way in traditional communications.... We love the big name writer from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal or Forbes, but what we're not taking into consideration is how much they write about us, or our industry. Just because their content is widely syndicated, or their publication has several million impressions (gag me, please), does not make them influential for you. My boss, Bob Pearson, is fond of saying that there are likely only 50 or so people shaping your brand online at any given time. Underlying that is the notion of relevancy. Just because they have a lot of followers, impressions, etc... doesn't mean they are relevant. Before your boss asks you to reach out to someone via traditional media or social media, take a second to figure out whether or not they are relevant to your brand. It might just save some swings and misses down the line