I’ve been getting more and more client questions about social media, Facebook, blogging, and how all of these buzzwords really fit into the fabric of a company. What is particularly encouraging is that the questions and ideas have graduated beyond paranoia: what will I do if someone writes something negative or profane?
There’s clearly not a cookie cutter approach that might work for all businesses. I think this statement is particularly true when I think about how a large corporation with a mass appeal and universal cult-like following (think Apple) approaches social media in contrast to a smaller, localized brand (think your local independent non-profit). Two very different sets of challenges and opportunities. For starters, it’s more difficult for a smaller organization to build an engaging online community from scratch, establish critical mass, and sustain it. For Apple, not so much. At the same time, the stakes are higher for a more established brand.
So my approach to helping a client approach social media is encouraging them to learn about the various tools and business implications first and then consider their business in this context. One interesting thing to start with is reading this recent Business Week piece that provides a marketer/manager with a nice tour of the landscape; it’s an update of the earlier 2005 cover story. I also think that actually joining Facebook (or something similar) is essential to learning how it might be used in a business. Sounds obvious, but I find many managers are interested in learning how to utilize the tool yet hesitant to join.
I also hear many times that people want to be the Facebook of x (where x=their industry, town, or market segment). While I think this is always an interesting thought, I think that the approach may (at times) be ambitious. Then again, a cruise through ning.com–a site that facilitates social networking communities–will reveal that even David Hasselhoff is building users at an alarming rate. As I live and breathe, users are joining HoffSpace (I couldn’t make that name up if I tried) almost constantly with a membership base approaching 11,000..
I am also finding that people seem more likely to join a group within their existing social media application of choice (usually Facebook or Myspace) than they are to join something completely separate (like HoffSpace, for example). On the flip side, services like friendfeed help individuals manage multiple social media accounts in one place.
It is certainly much to consider, but the sense of urgency in the business community is certainly rising. Shifts in demographics beyond the college crowd is one major reason for this. Future user growth and platform enhancements will only make the trend more critical for businesses.

Starbucks makes a great case for using the Web for customer interaction and engagement. Coming off of the heels of their recent 3-hour shutdown, Starbucks is using a new Web site to help get new ideas from its customer base. Registered users can submit ideas to the company and/or vote on the ideas of others.

Scott Maxwell, a columnist at the Orlando Sentinel, has a very interesting post today about the change in business models for newspapers. Among other points, he boils the situation down to the following:

Personally, I think those in charge of business models at newspapers across the country screwed up years ago. They decided to give away everything we provide for free. So customers are left with two choices: 1) They can pay for a product that gets delivered to their door at a certain hour. 2) Or they can not pay for anything — and go online to get most every single thing that was in the live paper, plus many more features, like this blog, at any moment they choose. And then we wonder why people choose the latter.

You can’t really argue with Scott’s logic about the way people consume their news. Jack Lail has a post along similar lines which leads us to believe that most people aren’t getting their news from a newspaper anymore (according to Zogby’s it’s barely 12%. I was recently in a meeting with a prominent community leader who put this figure at 20% and told the audience to stop chasing ‘the paper’ for a story because no one’s reading it anyway.
It reminds me of something I heard Michael Eisner, former Chairman of Disney, say at a time when Web distribution of entertainment was hitting a fever pitch. Basically, and I’m paraphrasing here, he indicated that his role was simply that of a talent aggregator. Consumers pay him to bring together writers, animators, actors, and production folks to produce great content. His Adam Smith-like warning was that if he doesn’t get paid, he won’t continue to do it.
It’s no different in the newspaper business. Unless it develops a model to continue profiting from the aggregation of columnists and reporters, columnists and reporters will have to change and adapt. Matt Drudge, although in a sometimes questionable manner, has done so. We have also seen the onslaught of blog networks whereby writers get together to co-join blogs with the hope of sustaining.
I’m not suggesting that every reporter and columnist should be a blogger, because I don’t think the economics necessarily work. But newspapers will certainly have to adapt by taking control of their strengths. Yeah, I can get the newspaper for free online…but I can’t read it over coffee, take it on the plane, or clip something for someone in the same way. And, yes, I can go to ESPN.COM to check the score of the Magic game, but I can’t read about the goings-on with the Orlando Magic Youth Foundation and the inner politics of getting the new arena built. Enough folks will pay the Orlando Sentinel to pay the Scott Maxwells of the world to help us understand the world around us. But the newspaper industry needs to continue to develop its proposition for doing so.