Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) wants to design his own universal health care system.
Now, another governor is looking to take advantage of flexibility in Obama’s health care law in order to establish a single payer system. Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) announced yesterday that he will be seeking a waiver to set up his own universal health care system in his state modeled after the single payer Canadian health care system that began in the province of Saskatchewan:
Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday he will ask the U.S. government to let Montana set up its own universal health care program, taking his rhetorical fight over health care to another level. [...] The popular second-term Democrat would like to create a state-run system that borrows from the program used in Saskatchewan. He said the Canadian province controls cost by negotiating drug prices and limiting non-emergency procedures such as MRIs.
Local news station KRTV covered Schweitzer’s bid for a new universal health care system for his state. Schweitzer said that under his ideal system patients can still buy private insurance if they want to, but that it’ll be a “lonely place over there at Blue Cross Blue Shield” due to the superior public health insurance he plans to provide. Watch it:
Schweitzer’s announcement to seek a waiver and design his own system was met with curiosity by GOP state Sen. Jason Priest, who responded, “I don’t want to reject it before I see the details. I am just glad he is thinking about it.”
This is a seriously incredible story. If you did not already kind of love Carl Sagan, and think of him as a sort of benevolent hippie grandpa, you totally will now.
And the message here is seriously spot-on: The best way to honor the people who helped you realize your dreams is to help somebody else realize theirs.
Via Joanne Manaster
As a consultant I hear a lot about social media and SEO: at conferences, from marketers, by entrepreneurs. And unfortunately, while well-intentioned there is a fair amount of misinformation that continues to spread.
So today let’s debunk some common SEO and social media myths that continue to perpetuate:
Myth 1: meta keywords are important to SEO
I know, I know, who still thinks this? Trust me, it is still lingering. And it frustrates me a lot because Google even has a blog post that you only need to read the title of to get: Google does not use the keywords meta tag in web ranking.
Sadly it is not just marketers who keep insisting we “optimize the meta keywords” on pages, it is web designers too. I’ve seen enough new websites where the design team launches it and takes the time to flesh out meta keywords but doesn’t even bother with the title tag or meta description. It is actually in my experience the rare web designer who considers search. Sad.
Myth 2: age of website and age of links are factors for SEO
Rand Fishkin does a good job debunking this one and I’m inclined to agree. There are enough new sites (i.e. Quora) that do well in SERPs and have a link profile that’s a lot fresher than older sites. I’ve seen it in my own experience marketing start-ups. Also logically it doesn’t make sense for any of the engines to do this: it would tilt the web in favor of legacy sites and links and not inspire fresh content to be created. And fresh content makes the engines far more valuable than old links.
Myth 3: blogs / self-hosted websites are dead
Another one that continues to propagate is that self-hosted web properties / communities are dead. This one is just silly. We share plenty of examples of what happens when you yield your presence to the stream, and the people propagating the notion that self-publishing is dead usually have motivations behind it. Savvy digital marketers understand you need to self-publish forever. In fact, I’ll say the opposite of dead: it’s never been a better time to start a blog.
Myth 4: we suffer from information overload
Anyone who spouts this one simply does a poor job at staying organized or isn’t managing their RSS reader, email inbox, or social client well. Louis Gray does a great job debunking this. And anyway, the reality is you don’t need to read everything that happens in a given industry. Setup the right filtering, selectively choose who and what sites you opt into, setup the right media monitoring and ruthlessly unsubscribe / unfriend / unfollow the junk.
Myth 5: you shouldn’t automate syndication of micro content
This one always gets people up in arms. They proclaim you can’t automate Twitter. Even a little bit. Anywhere. Of course, this is silly: there is no “right” or “wrong” use of Twitter or any social network so long as it’s useful and makes sense to users. Any given post syndicated via Seth’s blog auto feed gets more ReTweets than most real people on Twitter. You don’t even have to be Seth Godin to do this: I decided to conduct an experiment and create a feed for content instead of sending it through a person and the opt-in rate was the same. Automation aside, if what you’re doing is valuable people don’t care how it’s done even if pundits complain.
Myth 6: social media is difficult / impossible to measure
Ummmm, ok. The real problem here isn’t that social media is difficult to measure. The problem is the people saying this generally aren’t fluent in any online marketing metrics. They immediately call into question social channels, but I’m willing to bet if you push these people on how their existing website performs they won’t be able to tell you. Or if they can, they’re not actually using that data to make decisions. This stuff is very possible to measure (we do it for all our clients at LEWIS) and everyone can get to conversion.
Myth 7: our customers don’t use social
I’ve actually heard this one. In 2011. Really. Do we even need to comment on this? 17.1 billion searches monthly (social content taps this if you’re smart). More than 800 million users on Facebook alone. But this is silly anyway, generally people saying this haven’t even polled their own customers to find out. Or researched their category in social. Or considered trying to be the leader in their category in the space and attract new audiences. Usually they are just people who are afraid of change.
This is, of course, just a short list. Comments are open: what myths do you keep hearing that should be debunked?
And for your moment of zen, here’s the Mythbusters YouTube special:
SEO And Social Media Myths Busted is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing
Some things actually are black and white.
A conversation with a good friend in the agency world the other day (and particularly her horrified reaction to what I shared with her) prompted me to finally write this post. If your company is working with an agency on building or managing a social media program, you probably need to read this. And if you work for an agency that works with social media, you definitely need to read this.
Here’s the skinny: I work with agencies around the world, and more importantly, I have friends in a lot of places, both on the brand side and the agency side. Every chance we get, we talk shop. When someone does something cool, we talk about it. When someone does something not so cool, we talk about it too. And when we start noticing things that bother us, especially when those things touch on ethics, we most certainly talk about it. Over the last few months, one conversation has dominated all others, and it is this: The existence of two prevailing agency models when it comes to building and managing social media programs for clients. One is primarily client-focused and good, and the other… well, not so much. And yet, the latter seems to be gaining traction in the agency world, and that isn’t good.
Here is what these two models look like:
Model #1: The proper, working model.
In this model, the agency identifies the client’s business objectives and uses its capabilities to support them. Note that in this model, the agency doesn’t simply pitch a campaign or provide a cookie-cutter service. It identifies the client’s goals. It clarifies them, even, if not for themselves, for the client (as this is sometimes needed).
For example, if the client comes into a meeting and says “we need a social media program” or “we want 100,000 new Twitter followers by Christmas,” the agency doesn’t simply nod and set to work building a social media program or acquiring 100,000 new followers. What it does first is dig a little deeper: It finds out why the client wants a social media program or why 100,000 new twitter followers is a significant number for them. It finds out what the social media program is there to accomplish. Is it to attract new customers? Is it to capture more relevant data from existing customers? Is it to improve conversion rates or facilitate positive word-of-mouth? Is it to build the foundations of a consumer insights program? Is it merely to monitor brand mentions for a while, until the executive team has a better idea what they want to do?
Whatever the client’s ultimate goal (or series of goals) is, that becomes the basis for the program or campaign. That complex of end goals becomes the driving force behind the ideas, the mechanisms and the activities that will become the core of the pitch.
Why? Because a social media program that blends customer acquisition and increased buy-rate with facilitating WOM and activating hobbyist communities looks VERY different from a social media program whose objective is merely to “build and fill.” (The self-serving process by which an empty space is built only to be filled by a budget.)
What comes out of this type of model is a social media program that blends into a client’s overall business ecosystem. It deliberately supports its marketing efforts, its PR efforts, its customer service efforts, its sales efforts, and so on. Success is measured not only in social media metrics (net new likes/fans/subscribers/followers, net mentions, sentiment deltas and estimated advertising value) but in business-relevant metrics as well: Net new customers, Net growth in sales, increased buy-rates, net positive customer recommendations, improvements in loyalty metrics, increased market share, faster customer service ticket resolutions, improvements in PR crisis resolution, greater operational efficiency in x, etc.
In this model, the agency works with the client as an integrated partner, not just an outsourced service provider, and the results are concrete. In fact, the question of R.O.I. pretty much answers itself. It is never in question. Whether in a support role or a leadership role, the agency and the client act in tandem from start to finish.
This is the proper model for agency involvement in Social Media with a client. The ideal model, if you will.
Model #2 : The improper, unethical model.
In spite of the amazing breadth of potential for agencies in the social media space in terms of impact, revenues and success, many unfortunately choose to just cut corners and go for the fast, easy money. In this model, an agency knowingly sells what essentially amounts to bullshit to unsuspecting clients.
Let me give you two examples:
1. “We need to be in social media.”
Client comes to agency thinking they need a social media program. Their competitors all have one now, and after years of resisting, it looks like they are just going to have to get into that social media “business.” They don’t know much and they don’t know what they want, so they are relying on the agency to provide them with whatever help they need.
What the agency comes up with is a package that includes the development of an official Facebook page, several customized Twitter accounts, a YouTube channel, some internal training, and a content package to go along with it all. If the client has the funds, some campaigns will be thrown into the fray, maybe a contest or two.
Enter the “win an iPad 2 for liking our new Facebook page or following us on Twitter” discussions.
Enter the 5 tweets per day and 3 Facebook updates per day content packages.
In this model, nothing actually happens that directly impacts the business. Nothing is done to support a particular business objective or outcome. The model is simply this: To create billable social media “activity,” bill the client, and generate metrics that seem to indicate that the social media activity is a success. (We will come back to that in a minute.)
What the client ends up with is noise. Ask the client about his social media program, and he will proudly tell you how wonderful it is. Ask him what it is doing for his company, however, and the answers begin to sound less concrete. “Well, we’re attracting a lot of comments and likes. Like, 30 or 40 per week now.”
Yeah? That’s wonderful. But what is it doing for your business?
2. “We need 100,000 followers asap.”
Client comes to agency with an urgent need to grow its social media reach from 7,359 likes/fans or followers to 100,000 by Christmas. Why? Could be anything: Because the CEO said so. Because their closest competitor is there already and it’s embarrassing to be that far behind. Because the digital manager just came back from a conference during which a social media guru told them that 100,000 followers was a minimum benchmark for a brand.
What the agency comes up with is a simple package based on “the value of a fan” or “the value of a follower.” From this subjective metric, the agency quotes the client on a price: “We can get you your 100,000 followers before Christmas, but it will cost $x.” Negotiations ensue. A price is agreed upon. The agency throws in a little hat trick: “If we get you to 120,000 followers by Christmas, how about a 5% bonus?” The answer: No, but if you get us to 100,000 by December 1st, you’ll have your extra 5%.
This is a real situation, by the way. A real conversation.
From the client’s perspective, this is an awesome deal:
1. Internally, nothing is required except signing checks, signing off on activity, and keeping track of the agency’s progress. If the agency fails, no one is really to blame internally. The agency can be fired and replaced. But if they succeed, there will be enough glory to go around.
2. It would cost 5x more to reach potential customers in more traditional ways, even email. Social media really is cheaper!
3. We have a social media program! How cool is that?!
4. The client thinks it could have never gotten 100,000 followers on his own by Christmas. God bless that agency and its amazing social media savoir-faire!
From the agency’s perspective, this is an even better deal:
1. The client hasn’t figured out that social media activity is there to support business objectives. He is so focused on hitting that follower goal that nothing else really matters. All the agency will be goaled on is its ability to reach that number by Christmas December 1st. Nothing else matters. Not conversions, not positive WOM, not FRY, nothing. Just get those 100,000 followers.
2. The client is clueless about social media, and there is no reason to change that. The less they know, the more they rely on the agency to deal with their needs. This is very good for the agency, as we will see in a moment.
3. The agency, like an increasing number of its “competitors” around the world, has been recently and repeatedly pitched by companies out of China, India, South America and Eastern Europe that offer followers, fans, likes, clicks and other digital traffic à la carte. It can, like any other agency with the funding to do it, pay for all the new followers and fans it wants. You can buy all the positive mentions you want too.
Let me explain how this works: Money changes hands. Somewhere in a country where the client has no business presence, 25,000 people either create accounts or use existing ones via proxies and simply click “like” or “subscribe” or “follow.” These people will NEVER become customers, but to the client who doesn’t know, they have just become his 25,000 new followers on Twitter.
The only two details for the agency to worry about at that point are a) making sure to cover their tracks, and b) figure out the optimal markup.
This, boys and girls, is how it’s done, and we aren’t just talking about small fly-by-night outfits. Think bigger. Much bigger. And it doesn’t stop there.
4. The agency doesn’t need to have experienced professionals on their social media integration/management team anymore. Why waste money on that when you can just buy fans and followers?
Agencies opting for this model have two options:
A) Hire someone with an influential blog on Social media and put them on staff as a sort of social media mantle piece. These folks will be there to woo the client and help pitch them. They’ll charm them and do some internal trainings for them. They’ll create content for the agency blog, put a face to the agency’s social media capabilities, speak at events (always pitching the agency’s “case studies,” of course), and serve as a “thought leader” but will never actually work on building anything for clients.
B) Hire or promote someone with zero experience in social media integration and build them up as “experts” anyway. Any intern will do, but someone with a few years of experience in any “digital” field will look better. If you’ve ever wondered how some of these people you have never heard of become “experts” almost overnight, wonder no more.
Think about it: Why bother staffing up with expensive talent when you can just buy your followers and fans? The page builds can be outsourced to developers. The content can be outsourced to any number of content farms. The structure is already in place. If the agency is already working on a campaign, its content can be easily adapted to social media channels. (Add revenue line items here, here, and here.)
5. Once the followers have been purchased and the campaign or program seems to be gaining traction, start beating your own drum. Convince the client that their success could make a great case study, then build it up. In a few months, wouldn’t it be great to present at conferences around the world how “engagement” and “content” took Brand A from 7,000 followers to 100,000 in just a few months? Oh, the white papers. Oh the slide decks. Oh the positive press in Mashable and ZDnet. Oh the blog posts. Oh the awards.
Get on the phone with the PR team pronto.
Meanwhile, those 100,000 followers provide nothing for the business. Sure, it looks good when people check out the account’s profile page. It looks like the company and its agency are doing something right. The stats are easy to graph too. Empirical data, right? Is anyone ever going to go back and check where all of those “fans” came from?
Unfortunately, that number is a smoke screen. The vast majority of those followers will never become customers. They will never recommend the company (unless paid to do so). They’re paid extras, pretending to like your company, nothing more. Chances are, they had never heard of it before an email notification with a Paypal link told them to.
Meanwhile, the agency looks like a superstar. In the next few months, other brands will visit them and these words will fill their conference room time and time again:
“Can you do for us what you did for [Brand A]?”
The answer will always be yes.
6. Do not pass Go. Collect that 5% bonus for spending the client’s money faster than the original timetable called for.
In this type of model, KPIs (key performance indicators) will tend to focus on digital measurement only:
Net new follows.
Net new likes.
Net new subscribers.
Net new & volume of mentions.
Click-throughs.
EAV/EMV (Estimated Advertising/Media Value)
Reports will include fascinating graphs measuring “engagement” and “social equity.” Middle-managers will have exciting (albeit somewhat complicated) reports to present to their bosses that clearly indicate that the agency is kicking ass, doing its job, earning its pay. And yet, nothing concrete will come out of it. No actual new customers. No increases in loyalty. No preparedness for the next PR crisis. No improvements anywhere, except for all that “activity” in social media, except for all that noise.
I’ve been in the room when deals like this were discussed. I’ve had drinks with agency professionals who confirmed, disgusted, that it was becoming standard operating procedures at their firms. I’ve worked with clients who had no idea the extent to which they had been screwed by their own agencies in precisely this manner until they started digging under the surface of easy “social” metrics and “R.O.I. is not really applicable to social business” discussions.
This is happening in your market right now. It doesn’t matter if you’re in New York or Paris, Atlanta or Brussels, San Francisco or Hong Kong. This model is gaining traction because it’s easy, it’s cheap, it generates revenue and accolades for agencies, and the clients don’t know enough to make a stink. (Not that making their disappointment public would be to their advantage anyway.)
Where your choices lead:
Fortunately, because the second model is now so widespread, it won’t remain a dirty little secret much longer. Before long, clients will start figuring it out, other witnesses to it will start talking about it, and the agencies they work(ed) for will be exposed. Careers will be tossed down the proverbial drain, and the higher the pay grade, the harder the fall. Don’t kid yourselves: It is as inevitable as the fall of Enron.
Take a step back and ask yourself: What will clients do when they find out? How many new clients will these agencies attract once the curtain falls away? Who will want to go work for that kind of organization? What kind of professional will they attract (and more importantly, retain)? What future can this sort of organization really hope for?
To use a cycling analogy, do you really want to be remembered as the guy who won the Tour de France only to be stripped of the honor for blood doping a year later?
Cheating to win sucks. Cheating to get paid or to get ahead sucks. And no one gets away with it. No one. Not anymore. What side of the ax do you want to be on when it finally falls? That’s your call.
The agencies who opt for real results, on the other hand, who truly want to be the best in the business, whose relationship with clients is not predatory or parasitic, will stand out and attract solid talent, the people with insights and ideas and the ability to win and help them grow. Their success in recruiting the best talent in the world and use it properly will get around. This will gradually score them bigger clients. Meanwhile, the idiots who ripped off their clients with purchased “success” will just vanish from the scene altogether.
I know this because Tyler knows this. And also because I also know that reputation is everything. People talk. People always talk. And they always remember too.
As I begin to transition from being just an independent consultant (where my impact is often far too limited for my taste) to joining a larger organization (where I will be able to do a lot more), I realize how difficult the next few months will be. Sorting through potential new ‘homes’ for me won’t be as easy as just agreeing on a figure anymore. Now I have this stuff to deal with too, and the big famous name on the door doesn’t mean what it used to back in the day. As sad as that is, it’s the sad reality of where the marketing world stands in 2011. The vetting process on my end will have to be more thorough than it ever has been, adding a whole new layer of scrutiny in my search for #thenextgig.
This should be interesting.
PS: If you are an agency that falls into the first category (the proper model), let’s talk. If you fall into the second, let’s not.
* * *
Get ready, America—net neutrality finally comes to the Internet on November 20, 2011.
That's the plan, at least. The FCC has just filed its final "open Internet" rules (PDF) with the Federal Register, which will publish them tomorrow and make them official. The rules go into effect on November 20, nearly a year after they were passed over Republican opposition on a 3-2 vote. (One of the FCC Commissioners who voted against the rules now works for Comcast.)
Read the comments on this post
Courtesy of Robyn Peterson.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has unveiled the company’s much anticipated overhaul of profile pages, transforming the user profile into a virtual scrapbook that digs all the way into your past.
At the company’s f8 developer conference in San Francisco, Zuckerberg laid out Facebook’s vision for the future of profiles. He described the history of the Facebook profile, starting with the original profile from 2006, when Facebook was still known as TheFacebook. He explained that through all of these iterations, Facebook profiles have been a good gauge of what you’re doing now, but they are not a good way to share what you or your friends have done in the past.
“We’re more than what we did recently,” Zuckerberg explained to the audience.
It was then that Zuckerberg unveiled Timeline, the revamped version of the Facebook Profile. It’s a way to show off who you are, what you do and where you’ve been. It’s a complete design overhaul that makes a visual history of everything you’ve ever done, all the way to when you were born.
Facebook automatically adds photos, status updates and life events from your Facebook history to your timeline, but you can also add photos and content from you past to fill out the “Way Back” section. In his demo, Zuckerberg showed how to add a baby picture to the beginning of your timeline.
“It’s fun and easy to fill out your timeline,” Zuckerberg said.
The new profiles also include a map feature that lets you see where you’ve been, thanks to Facebook Places. It maps out your travel. You can even mark your place of birth. But perhaps the most striking feature is the cover photo, which displays a giant image at the top of the new profile page.
Timeline’s purpose is to resurface all the content you have created on Facebook. The problem is simple: once a status updates leaves your profile, you are unlikely to ever see it again. Zuckerberg and the Facebook team want to make Facebook a place to express who you are while discovering who your friends are at the same time.
You can check out more from Facebook’s f8 conference in the gallery we’ve included below:
Courtesy of Robyn Peterson
More About: Facebook, facebook profiles
