Hoi Polloi

Why we Google --and how!

Here are the results of our survey in June about the kinds of things and people we search for online. We asked ValleyPRblog readers, and communicators on social networks such LinkedIn and MyRagan to tell us a bit more about their Googling habits.

• 46.9% of respondents said they Googled a company or web site of a person.
• 100% searched for a person by name.
• 34.5% of people Googled a person they may do business with.
• 18.8% Googled someone within their organization ("Someone I don't know in my organization, but am curious about")

When asked whom they most Googled in the last month, 63.3% said they checked out the same people in their organization, as above.

And how often do people Google someone?

• 32.3% said they do it several times a month.
• 22.6% said they do it many times a week.

But here's what's equally interesting. People sent me emails about whom they Googled, many admitting they regularly Google themselves. One user said he Googles someone 25-40 times a month! Others wrote to say they look up potential employers, social contacts, someone being profiled (a media person's response.)

What this might mean: People seem to be placing enormous weight on online reputation systems, and even ranking. We didn't ask respondents if they were looking for negative or positive factors, but from the tone of the emails and open-ended answers, combined with the stats above, a picture emerges: we do worry about what might pop up -at least when we Google (or Yahoo) ourselves!

People also seem to be doing some degree of due diligence about whom they come into contact with, or may be doing business with, using search engines to gather some 'context' before they meet a company, a potential employer, or a date. At the enterprise level, given the potential for organizations to leave unsightly digital trails, we see a whole industry of media monitoring, and reputation management taking off.

What do you think of all this?

Live Earth sms campaign not quite integrated

With all the attention to music, and Al Gore's 7-Point Pledge, the use of text messaging (or sms) was more like an afterthought.

Saturday's Live Earth event urged viewers in the US, Australia, South Africa, Japan, Brazil and Germany and the UK  to send different keywords to a short code. Keywords were "home," "ride," "share" etc.

I tried it out, and received a prompt response saying:

"Thanks. You have answered the call. U will get weekly updates. More info at www.liveearth.org"

That's it?

No follow up to the double opt-in, asking me for an email address.

No redirect to a custom website or landing page.

Considering the event was riding on the music platform, there was so much more they could have done. How difficult would it have been:

• To get one of the stars to write a song and use it for viral distribution only --spread by people who opted-in via cell phones?
• Forget music. How difficult would it have been to get the 7-point pledge spread via phones?
• They could have tapped into the user-generated content bandwagon and asked citizens to create their own pledges.
• They could have beamed those pledges up to outdoor venues in the seven continents. They could have re-purposed those contributions and fed it to the media...

It was a huge, huge, missed opportunity.

Sending my phone the URL for Live Earth was so lame, considering, I already knew the web address!` (it was all over the screen on TV!) and it was not providing me any new information, or linking me to any new medium, or event.

Let's hope they answer the call!

On Wikipedia 'brand image' is a contentious work in progress.

For those of us involved in marketing and/or corporate communications, trying to make sure the organization is not misrepresented in the media, it's not enough to pay attention to press releases, media kits, and getting the 'brand police' department to flex some muscle.

Some people's and many organizations' image are not managed by appointed brand guardians, designers, or copywriters, but by unpaid workers at Wikipedia. Say what you like about the 'bias' of Wikipedia, but there are people out there, the hoi polloi, who have absolutely nothing to gain by the work they do into the wee hours of the morning but they do it anyway.

If you've only gone to Wikipedia to find out "things you would have known had you paid more attention in high school" ( to borrow a phrase from the NPR quiz  "Wait, wait, don't tell me" ) I invite you to take a peek behind the curtain to see a fascinating work in progress.

A few days back, as the news broke of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston's release, I clicked on the discussion tab of Wikipedia, as editors hurriedly updated information about him. (The Discussion page is a place where those who edit content talk to each other about the accuracy of facts, and importance of detail.) I bet none of these Wikipedians are connected to the BBC or to Johnston, but they were debating whether this page should be about his life, or his kidnapping, whether he was even 'notable' enough to merit so a page on him.

Similar discussions go on about  the much-used term "Web 2.0"  where editors meticulously remove 'retarded' pictures someone keeps adding, and police and other types of mild vandalism.

Now to corporate marketing: Go over to to the entry on Sun Microsystems, and you'll see an interesting debate has taken place. On the 27th February, one editor scolded:

"Sun is THE leading contributor of [sic] open source software (emphasis mine)? this is rubbish, and reads as though it was written by somebody from Sun marketing."

What's interesting, is that the editor says he's not a hardcore Wikipedian, but asks someone to please step in and make the change. Someone has. The entry is now very balanced. As the editor says, allowing the simple use of the word THE, is

"akin to Bill Gates' claiming that Windows Vista is the most secure operating system ever produced - pure hype, and demonstrably false."

It's the hoi polloi at work, folks. You may fire off the most creative press release one evening, or launch a campaign that's getting rave reviews, but do you appreciate what someone with a screen name like NapoliRoma is saying about you on Wikipedia late at night?

We oughta get used to it, and rethink what our business cards say we are responsible for!

 

Alan Johnston's free!

After so much bad news out of the UK, this is wonderful!

BBC correspondent Alan Johnston's been released in the Gaza.

Thinking beyond the iPhone

Al Ries must be keeping his fingers crossed.

Now that the blogosphere and the media is all abuzz about the iPhone's activation problems, the Positioning guru must wonder if he is right, after all.

Before the launch, he had declared that the iPhone was was "going to be a major disappointment" not in the activation department mind you, but because it was technology going off in the wrong direction. He believed that technology that took the path of divergence would succeed as it had in the past, but this new gizmo on the 'convergence' was bound to fail.

With all respect to Mr. Ries, I don't think it's good to predict  the future on the past. Not with Apple, the company that's defied going with the flow. It's got to where it is by not been fixated on the rear view mirror. Its Graphical User Interface was its way of sticking the middle finger at the geeky DOS world. It's

A smart phone is a convergent phenomenon. I don't have a problem with that. It happens to look like a phone, but it is anything but.  Even before the iPhone, we were able to do a Google search, maintain contact databases, use text messaging and email, and play music on these convergent devices. Millions of users didn't think it was headed in the wrong direction. Why? Because the interface simplified their lives.   

If you've been awed by the iPhone's stunning multi-touch interface, Jeff Hann's multi-touch sensing demo will give you a glimpse of where we are headed. It's not on a phone. But it's guaranteed to blow your mind!