I’ve hit on several of these topics in individual posts in the past, but it is definitely time to bring them to the forefront in one post.

So with all of that in mind, please read: What Makes a Guru? What Doesn’t? And for social media-specific comments, please use the Comments here. Thanks.

Besides, how can you go wrong with the job title of Reel Wrangler? Although it looks like it is already taken, it’s a cool spot nonetheless.

Would you be good at this kind of gig? Let me know in the Comments section.

By the way, another ideal job is the one I have here at Portalfuze and Sibdu. So no, I’m not looking. But this caught my eye after linking from a link to a link to a link kind of thing (you know the kind of path I’m talking about). So I thought I’d let your imagination run wild with it, like I did with mine.

—

Quick housekeeping note: Because of a family emergency kind of situation, there won’t be any blog posts here until next Thursday or Friday, at least. Apologies, and see you then.

Unfortunately, I didn’t write it.

But I have no problem pointing you to it, because not only do I think it is brilliantly written, I agree with 99% of it. Here it is, at the ever-excellent ReadWriteWeb.

Of the five points made in this post, there’s only one that your company won’t be able to help (if it even falls in that category) — the first one on high-ticket businesses. With the others, if you can put your company/org/government agency in any one of these, you should:

1. Hang your head in shame
2. Work like heck to change the situation
3. After the situation is changed, get into social media

There is one exception – companies with compliance issues. We’re talking about insurance, financial firms, etc. While one can still probably have social media in those cases, it’s much more difficult to do.

The only line I disagree with in the post is:

Of course, having more Hollywood celebs sign up for Twitter couldn’t hurt either.

I made how I feel about celebs on Twitter pretty clear in this post. Read it only if you’re ready to see what I’m like when I get on a bit of a tear! There’s also a good lesson in the post for companies/organizations that are not using Twitter in the right way, either.

—

On a completely different note, anyone who is in public relations should read this post on how PR is totally mucking it up, when it comes to social media. Since I know that several PR people read this blog, I’ll let this article stand on its own, without comment. Because I like it when those people buy me beer.

Plus I have to admit, I like the name of the blog: Flack Me.

233,000 people just twittered on Twitter. 26 percent of you viewing this have no idea what that means.

Haven’t seen it? I’d be a bit surprised if you said you haven’t, considering that Sprint’s ad/marketing budget seems to be the same size as the gross domestic product of, say, Portugal ($237.3 billion, thanks for asking). No matter, though — here’s the entire spot, with the Twitter part being about :33 in:

It’s actually a funny line, especially considering my wife didn’t know what Twitter even was until a few months ago, and I had been on Twitter for several months before that.

I have a problem with the Twitter segment in the spot, though. Not the actual line — but what the cute little birdies are saying. That’s what has my knickers in a bit of a twist.

If you noticed, they’re saying “me me me me.” You can even see the word in the little cell-phone icons over their little twittery heads. Friggin’ birds.

Actually, I should take that back (and I do). My objection is to them saying “me me me.” Why? If you’ve read enough of my posts here, you know that I do not view Twitter as a one-way “push” service where I tell people that I just took my third sip of coffee of the morning and it was just as hot as my first sip — or something just as innane. If you didn’t know that before, you do now.

What’s worse, I know that many people out there … especially this influx of celebrities the service has seen … treat it like their little cyber soap box of sorts. Well, guess what? Twitter is all about conversations. It’s all about building community. Something a vast majority of the “stars” out there don’t even bother to think about doing. And many of the corporate brands on Twitter don’t, either.

There’s plenty of us Twitterers out there who know this, and who do their best to try to engage others in conversation. Share opinions. Even call one another out every once in awhile, when you disagree. It’s safe, I promise.

What’s more, the celebs and brands that do engage with their Twitter followers discover something wonderful: They actually get good ideas and suggestions from their consumers! Wow – two-way conversations with the people who put money in your pocket! Who’da thunk?

Seriously, if as a brand or a celebrity (but I repeat myself) you’re not in touch with the people payin’ your freight … well, you might as well pack it in. Because you have competitors out there now who “get” the whole social-media thing. They know how to talk to their customers. How to handle their complaints. How to better their chances that they gain those things called … repeat customers.

Probably the biggest question I have about the spot, though, is … where’s the Fail Whale? I could think of all kinds of “whale eats birds” scenarios for that commercial that would be an absolute scream. Then follow it up with a Pepcid spot, and you’re pretty much in commercial heaven.

(NOTE TO SELF: Get ticked off when writing blog posts. You know they always turn out sharper … and funnier).

Social Media Connection – Fox News Case Study – David Bullock and Jay Deragon from commlink on Vimeo.

Note: my apologies – WordPress wont let me embed this video. You’ll need to click on the first link above to watch it. Don’t worry, though; it’ll open in a new window.

If you didn’t watch it, I’ll list some of my take-aways. If you did, see if you agree with my takeaways:

* The “survey” taken in this video makes me a bit nervous. Polling your followers on Twitter, and then presenting that as a true survey? C’mon. Although I’m assuming that their audience is more tech savvy (and social-media savvy) than the common person. Yet I would have liked to hear that “common person” angle, too. Not sure how that could have happened, but it would have been nice.

* “Pushing news, not engaging the user” – a lot of media-branded sites have problems with this. Guess those cutbacks are really hitting home, eh? These sites need their own people to engage their audience … audience members may do that on their own, but it is not guaranteed.

* Too many shows pushing their own message (especially on Twitter), and not a unified “Fox News” message – that happens at a lot of publications (TV and otherwise) as well. That’s not an easy issue to address, though. Just like the hosts in this video said, Twitter is a great tool to listen to followers, but a majority do not (see the next point as well).

* People want to engage … with the personalities who host the shows: The way celebrities treat Twitter (as a one-way feed of mainly promotional items), I say good luck with that. Celebs, media properties, etc.: Follow your followers!

* Fox News retweet rate is very low … hosts here said that is because there is no conversation between Fox News and its followers, there’s no real community being built. Amen to that.

* Broadcast media = push (by its very nature). Social media = communication. Yet media concerns like Fox News don’t get that. The retweet rate (or lack thereof) is a great indication of that.

* Fox News Web site stickiness is low … is CNN engaging people more on their site? Hosts say so. From what I’ve seen, I’d agree as well.

* If Fox Nation was a woman looking to be engaged, she’d be waiting a long time. The reason? There’s no tools on the main page to bring a user in via engagement (no log-ins, etc.). The Fox Nation main page is not a very good one, in terms of even representing a social network or a site that’s social media-driven. More than anything else, it looks like the main page for any news site.

* Inside, a lot of Fox Nation’s social-media tools and content are actually on other sites. What are they thinking? In my opinion (both as a social-media practitioner and a former broadcast journalist), Fox News should consolidate all of its content and social-media functionality into one site — Fox Nation — and brand the frakkin’ crap out of it. (Then build a true social network out of it and use tools like Facebook Connect to draw them into the network, but that’s another blog post in and of itself).

I’ve got so many other minor notes on this presentation, but the above covers the major ones. Overall, their social-media effort is like one of those ultra low-calorie beers: it has something there in terms taste, but you’re not sure just what it is. It’s watered down.

I’d give Fox News’ social media efforts a C-. They’re just starting to get “there,” but they’re still a ways away from being there. And the video judging all of this was great, by the way. I may have a quibble about their survey, but it definitely won’t prevent me from recommending this video overall as a “101″ on how not to strategize and implement social media within a heavily content-driven Web site.

What are your takeaways? Let me know in the Comments section below.

More from the “doesn’t get it” department. One thing that surprised me from the Comments section at the original blog post that highlighted this video is that Fox News apparently blocks access to Facebook … to its own employees. That’s right – Facebook is one of the hottest sites on the Internet right now, where all kinds of communication goes on. Maybe … some story ideas can be gleaned from it? Maybe … an intrepid reporter can start a relationship with a reluctant source? Maybe so. But apparently that’s not an option for Fox News journalists. Again, they’re not getting that social media is a two-way communication medium.

I mean, I know of people at the Washington Post who use Facebook (and other social networks) for stories, keeping in touch with PR people and sources, and so on — in other words, as a two-way communication medium. Believe me — from someone who used to be on the “inside” there, the WPost is a verrrrrrry uptight organization. Yet their management apparently supports the use of Facebook. If the reports at that other blog are true, Fox News needs to wake up and smell the social-media coffee.

While the headline for this post sounds like the typical “scare ‘em to death” promo that local television stations like to run during sweeps periods, it actually applies here. The “danger” results from not being able to directly communicate with your group in the way you want … or need.

I got the following note over the weekend from the Social Media Marketing group to which I belong at LinkedIn:

I apologize in advance for sending this announcement to everyone in the group – I have no choice because LinkedIn recently made some policy changes that adversely affects the ability for group managers to communicate with the group. Specifically, they have disabled the group email list download function. This means I can no longer send the Social Media Marketing email newsletter, nor can I communicate directly with you except through this once-a-week announcement.

These new policies have totally hamstrung us group managers, and over 200 people have signed this petition to get them to reverse their policy. That represents about 500,000 users!

If you run a group on LinkedIn, I highly encourage you to sign this petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Linkedgr/

If you don’t run a group, again please accept my apologies for sending you something irrelevant. As I said, it is my only option under their new policy.

When I read this message, I swear my head was going to explode. Not out of anger, though — just from the complexities that underlay this seemingly simple problem.

First off, why does the group Social Media Marketing depend on LinkedIn? I can definitely understand having an outpost on there. Any group, though, should really be concentrating on driving that traffic to their own network, where they have more control over their members. If nothing else, at least they should set up their own  CollectiveX- type of network, where they have a bit more control than at LinkedIn.

Being part of a company that owns its own network and develops them for others, I can see why LinkedIn did what it did. Before I start ducking from all of the eggs and tomatoes you want to throw my way, let me explain. LinkedIn is a public network provider, rather than a company or an association that runs its own network. Because of this, LinkedIn has responsibilities to both the people who run groups on LinkedIn, as well as LinkedIn members. Sometimes, serving both constituencies can come into conflict.

Here’s a scenario that I hope makes sense. Let’s assume in this scenario that LinkedIn still had its old way of doing things, re: e-mail addresses. Let’s also say someone started their own group on LinkedIn and successfully ran it. Later, though, that owner gave it/sold it to an individual or company that turns to be very unscrupulous. The group goes to hell, and its members start receiving spam from the group owner, who is going outside of LinkedIn to send these e-mails, and is most definitely not honoring opt-out requests.

Net result? A whole lot of ticked-off LinkedIn members. And who would they blame? The scumbag … and LinkedIn. See where I’m going with this? By enacting this policy, LinkedIn protects its end-users. Yes, it is ticking off its group leaders. But I argue that LinkedIn’s true constituency here is the end user.

In dealing with a LinkedIn type of network, you have much-greater restrictions with what you can do. That’s the nature of dealing with public networks. I’m not criticizing it; if anything, I understand it.

Now, if you’re a LinkedIn group moderator and this ticks you off, I encourage you to scroll up, click on the link, and sign the petition. Then I’d encourage you to go and get your own group. Because more often than not, groups like Social Media Marketing need their own “home,” and not depend on a LinkedIn for their goals.

And that’s the lesson here: There’s many different ways to use social media. Make sure you’re using the right network for your needs and goals.

I recently posted this blog entry at Sibdu Blog about our RFP (request-for-proposal) platform, and how it can turn the search for commercial real estate on its head. How? In short, with our system the “demand” side (those looking for real estate to lease or buy) drive the search by issuing RFPs with their wants and needs. The “supply” side then responds to the RPFs.

To understand what’s coming, you first need to read the post at Sibdu Blog. I’ll wait.

Back? Good.

What the audience there probably doesn’t care about, but what this one does, is that we’ve enabled social-media functionality into this application. How? In a few different ways:

1. We have added question-and-answer functionality to the process, so that those people who respond to RFPs with their listings can ask questions directly online of the person issuing RFPs. Those questions and answers are then posted in their own separate forum, so that anyone can see them. This way, the Q&A process is completely transparent, and it also helps to answer questions before they’re even asked.
2. We’ve enabled the distribution of RFPs in several different ways, including to dually verified associates within the platform, to public and private groups, and to any e-mail address(es) outside the platform.

What’s more, we can do the same thing for most any Web application out there, in terms of adding social media to them. It doesn’t have to be the same as the above — it probably won’t be, actually.

The application involved just needs to be Web services-based. We can potentially work with Java, .Net, etc. (I say “potentially” because we always want to look “under the hood,” as it were, first before truly saying we can add social media to an application).

We can also add social media to current Web sites, in much the same fashion. If you want more information, please feel free to contact me.

I can’t wait to work with them more on projects. But that’s not why I’m writing this post.

Part of our conversation focused on white papers; specifically, the white paper we produced on social media and associations. They said they liked it, so I thought I’d check the stats for it over at Scribd.

Wow – 342 views (as of last Wednesday, when I wrote this post — thank you, WordPress advanced scheduling function), 65 downloads, 4 likes and 3 favorites. We like that here, I have to admit.

So I thought I’d bring it back, just in case you missed it the first time around:

I hope you get a lot out of it. And as always, if you have questions, etc., please contact me. We like building social media-related networks, applications, etc., just as much as we like to talk about it. Probably even more, actually. Thanks.

For those people, I offer the following video. I didn’t do it myself, but I’d be really proud of it if I did. It explains social media in a very basic, yet entertaining way. Enjoy!

If you’d like to discuss more about social media and how it can help your organization, please contact me using the information in the “About Portalfuze (short version)” box.