It’s that time of year again.  All the retail stores are stocking their shelves and all the online malls are securing their shipping channels.  Marketing promotions are being rolled out with a winter and Christmas theme.  And as he is every year, Santa Claus is the un-copyrighted icon that promotes the holiday.

Increasingly, Santa Claus is becoming more tech-savvy.  With social media tools all the rage, it’s not surprising to find Santa broadcasting through these channels as much, if not more than through previous marketing vehicles.  When Santa sets up a social media presence, it’s a great sign that social media marketing is here to stay.  Marketers have shown an increasing interest in using social media to promote their products; and finding ways to engage their audiences using Santa is an interesting strategy.  If Santa is involved, it’s likely kids are the target audience.  If that’s the case, it implies marketers believe kids are increasingly aware of social media.

If that’s the case, it spells favourably for the future of social media tools.  Message: invest your money in social media.

Here are some interesting ways Santa has engaged in Social Media:

At Nordstrom, a Facebook/twitter app allows consumers to ‘creatively’ hint at which gifts they would like from their family and friends.  At the heart of this campaign is the marketing objective to collect more Facebook fans and grow Nordstrom’s social presence.

Even NORAD has evolved Santa Claus’ presence online.  The Norad Santa Twitter feed tracks Santa’s movements on Christmas Eve.  A Flicr feed takes things one step further and shows images of Santa’s workshop.

Despite this Social Media presence, not everyone seems convince that Santa’s social media strategy is effective.  In her blog, Viveka Von Rosen suggests Santa’s social media presence needs some work.  Even Santa should listen to the Groundswell and understand his ‘customers’. 

But even Santa is cautious to go ‘all in’ with Social Media; as of 2 weeks ago, he was staying clear of Google+.  But, I’m sure that is bound to change.

Backchannels are still a very new form of communication.  To date, they have been reserved for classrooms and technology based conferences.  It remains to be seen if backchannels can truly revolutionize the traditional approaches taken by professors and presenters. 

Jacobs and McFarlane suggest there is a risk that backchannels will do more to divide attention and dilute the message than improve the overall experience.  I would add there is a risk that a poorly managed backchannel could do more harm than good if abused or mismanaged.  For these reasons, non experts may be less likely to jump on board and incorporate backchannels into their presentations.  If that is the case, only certain professors (those adept with technology) and certain conferences (technology focussed) will incorporate backchannels into their presentations and as a result, backchannels will remain a niche communication concept.

To evolve from a niche market and into mainstream, the backchannel process needs to become easier to implement by the layperson.  If you consider Backchannel technology to be in its infancy (an introductory stage of the product life cycle), only specific marketing tactics will help this new communication tool evolve into growth and maturity stages.

Fortunately, there are some signs that customers, companies and the online community are investing in the necessary marketing tactics such as education, packaging and awareness.  If these trends continue, Backchannels will quickly become mainstream for classrooms and conferences.

First, the increasing popularity of Smartphone technology means that soon enough everyone (customers & companies) will be equipped with handheld devices.

Second, the rapid acceptance of Twitter shows that there is an interest for short burst communication focussed on particular subjects.  It’s still unknown if Twitter will become to vehicle of choice for Backchannel communication, however, it is useful to know there is interest in short, precise messaging akin to broadcasting.

Finally, there are increasing online resources that attempt to simplify the backchannel process for both the facilitators and the users.  Here are some of the most useful ones I found.

Jeff Hurt does well to provide a comprehensive list of criteria to consider when choosing a backchannel for your conference.

Richard Byrne provides his insight on non-twitter backchannel solutions useful for classrooms and smaller venue style presentations.

YouTube has several videos showing the process of setting up a conference backchannel using Twitter. 

Overall, probably the best resource that I found online that goes above and beyond to explain the process is by Prof. Hacker.  In this useful resource, Prof. Hacker explains the process from the most basic components (i.e. Twitter 101) to the more advanced activities (Awareness, Analysis & Reporting).  Probably the coolest thing I learned from Prof. Hacker’s Blog was the function of visibletweets.com (a tweet promotion application) Prof. Hacker recommends playing this outside a conference to give outsiders a taste of what’s going on inside.

In summary, there are numerous tools being developed and soon enough the process will be accessible to everyone.  That is the key to Backchannels becoming a mainstream communication medium.  Once non-early adopters of technology begin introducing the communication method into their presentations it will have officially arrived.

 ***

Citation: Jacobs N, Mcfarlane A. (2005), Conferences as learning communities: some early lessons in using `back-channel’ technologies at an academic conference – distributed intelligence or divided attention?,New York: Hyperion, 2006.

Before I get into the details of the Social Usergraphic Influence Ring, I’ll explain where the name came from.

Even the dictionary has adopted the term ‘user’ to define a person who uses a computer.  The term has become so mainstream that it is being used increasingly in pop culture (See Tron, a movie where the user becomes part of the game).  Thus, it is only fitting to incorporate this term into the model’s title seeing as it is more descriptive of the group than the word Techno or Technology.

The term influence is included to provide context to the users of the model.  It is more valuable to understand both the engaged user groups and their influence amongst all user groups than it is to simply understand engagement.  As mentioned in a previous post, without fully understanding the user group relationships marketers could misdirect their resources.

The descriptive term ‘Ring’ is used for a couple of reasons.  First, it signifies a bond or unity amongst individuals.  Seeing as all user groups are part of a greater unified online community, the analogy fits well.  Second, a ring does not visually represent any hierarchy; any point around the circumference is equal to other points.

Without further delay, below in Image 1 there is a visual representation of the Social Usergrahic Influence Ring leveraging Altimeter’s Socialgraphic Terms and Forrester’s Social Technographic Terms as user group descriptors.

Remember that my criticism of the Ladder and Pyramid was not directed at the terms used to describe the user groups.  I am merely suggesting an alternate model that overcomes the three main flaws described in the previous post; (the hierarchy, the static view of an ever-evolving culture and the lacking concept of influence)

Hierarchy — Just like the table in the story of King Arthur and his Knights, the round shape signifies equality.  No single group is more important that another.  It is critical to avoid a hierarchical approach seeing as hierarchy can mislead marketing efforts; seeing as one could interpret that the higher a user group sits on the hierarchy, more marketing efforts should be spent.

Static View — As demonstrated above in Image 1, this model is flexible for growth.  If additional user groups emerge, the model expands and another circle is added to the perimeter.  It is not necessary to evaluate the importance of the group and determine their hierarchical rank.  For example Image 2 below shows how the model would expand if Radicalparenting.com’s ten categories for describing teen users became the new user group descriptors.

Influence — Finally, most important for marketers is the ability to undestand how one user group influences others.  Neither the Ladder nor the Pyramid facilitate this activity.  The Ring model is more conducive to showing the relationships between the groups.  Below, in Image 3, you can see how the model can be used to show the influencial relationships between user groups.

On the left side of Image 3 (using the Socialgraphics terms), the image suggests that the most prevalent users are those that are commenting (represented by the green circle).  The arrows suggest that commenting has an influence on users that are watching and sharing (represented by the yellow circles).  A larger arrow indicates a more prevalent influence.

On the right side of Image 3 (using the Social Technographic terms), the image suggests that there are multiple prevalent user groups.  Also, each prevalent user group is shown to have influence over multiple user groups but with varying intensity.

I did not set out to contest the terms that describe the user groups.  Both Forrester and Atimeter have done that work effectively.  However, I did set out to evaluate the models from a functionality perspective.  Overall, because it addresses the three main flaws discussed, the Social Usergraphic Influence Ring is a superior marketing tool for segmentation, targeting and positioning activities.

It’s time to explore the flaws.  First the hierarchy, then the static view of an ever-evolving culture and last, the lacking concept of influence in the models.

Hierarchy — Both models, because of their structure, present a hierarchy of importance amongst the users.  The ladder suggests that conversationalists are more important than critics, critics are more important than collectors but ultimately creators are king.  The pyramid suggests that producing is more important than commenting, commenting is more important than sharing, but curating stands on top.

It is more likely that each user group within the models have (or will have) a niche where it is king.  For example, open source software sites are likely to reinforce that creators are king.  Whereas fashion and style related sites may be ruled by conversationalists.  Who decides which resides above the other on the ladder/pyramid? 

Static View — The Internet has proven to be the great equalizer.  It is a medium that creates a level playing field between hits and niches; as supported by Chris Anderson’s popular book The Long Tail.  Thus, it makes little sense to create a hierarchical model.  Also, it was born from counter-culture (suggested by Fred Turner’s book From Counter-Culture to Cyber-Culture), and by that definition will constantly fight against norms and hierarchy. 

Both of these factors will ensure any hierarchy remains in flux and will foster an evolving marketplace with emerging new and different user groups.  Forrester’s revision to the Technographic model (adding conversationalists in 2010) validates the point.  The model had to adapt.  A recent article at Radicalparenting.com suggests there are up to 10 categories describing teen internet users.  This is the generation that will define Web 2.0.  The models will have to adapt.

Influence — Both models do well to categorize users for segmentation and targeting purposes, however the models fail to provide insight into the influence of relevant user groups against the overall community.  How do you know if creators are influential on the site?  If they are, which groups are they influencing most?  What if they are influential to more than one other sub group?  With limited resources, which ones should be prioritized by marketing departments? 

The influence insight is not represented in either model.  As a result, money spent on marketing activities and time spent on elaborate campaigns could be wasted on a non-influential group.

So, what should the model look like?

The other day I was discussing my Internet Marketing class at UBC with a colleague.  As I rambled on about Forrester’s Technographics Ladder and Altimeter’s Socialgraphics Engagement Pyramid, suggesting they are incomplete models that could be improved, it dawned on me to use this blog to explore my argument.

At the time, I’m pretty sure I didn’t get my point across to my friend.  I guessed that by the uncomfortable silence.  But this was a wise friend, and her feedback was as follows; “you’re on the right track but you should take a step back and establish a thesis and create a plan.”  I’m usually pretty stubborn and I tend to do things my way, but truth is, this was pretty sound advice.

So here goes…

The Ladder and the Pyramid are simplistic models that demonstrate engagement in social media however; they are flawed for three reasons.  First, they inaccurately suggest there is a hierarchy of engagement online.  Second, they establish a static conceptual view to an ever-evolving culture.  And finally, both models fail to incorporate the critical factor of ‘influence’ to be useful for marketers.

In my next post, I’m going to explain the flaws in more detail and why I think a better model would address these flaws.  In a subsequent post, I’m going to introduce my own model.

And I can’t wait to name it.