Comments by Rohn Jay Miller Subscribe

On The Power of Reputation: The Brian Solis Effect

Aha! We've both noticed a form of social media "gaming."  I'm writing about this for a presentation as I write this response.  It's Auto-retweeting that's to blame. 

I post at Social Media Today about once a week.  I've written some posts that have gone ballistic ("Delete Your Klout Profile Now!") and many more that gather less than 1,000 page views.  

After a post of mine goes up I'll check back an hour or two later to see how it's doing.  Usually there are 150-200 page views.  BUT at precisely that same moment there are 125-150 re-tweets.  

If all these re-tweets come from people who've actually read the post and been impressed enough to re-tweet it, that would mean almost 90% of the readers were passing it along--which is absurd.  

A few days later things simmer down and I end up with 1,000 views and about 200 re-tweets in total.  When I analyze the progress of the post on Topsy I can see some RT's of RT's, but a substantial majority are people re-tweeting the post directly from the Social Media Today feed on Twitter.

What's happening is either automated or hand processed auto-RTs--a tweet goes out on the Social Media Today feed on Twitter (with more than 100,000 followers)  Some people immediately re-tweet the SMT tweet without reading the article because they want to raise the quality of their own Twitter feed.  That's it.  SMT tweets, they re-tweet.  As a result there's a RT but no page view on SMT. 

These people, I believe, look for a few dozen sources of high quality material like SMT and every single time a post is released, they immediately re-tweet the post.  I can find people who post 50-100 times a day.  Even if these people did nothing but sit in front of their computer all day hunting for material they couldn't possibly read, evaluate, and then re-tweet that number of links.

A recent article in AdAge by Jack Krawczyk, and Jon Steinberg looked at articles passed along via BuzzFeed and StumbledUpon and found that the average number of people who visit an article based on a recommendation by another person is only nine people. Real viral pass-along influence happens in very small numbers between people who know each other.  

Brian Solis probably gets huge pass along traffic numbers from people who actually read his content.  But as you note (and my own observations confirm) there are a lot of people out there who are re-tweeting without reading just for the sake of improving the quality of their Twitter feed. 

It's the "I'm A Genius By Association" effect.

On The 6 Pillars of Social Commerce: Understanding the Psychology of Engagement

Absolutely brilliant.

The best infographics (excluding the first one) on the subject of engagement--clear, substantial and simple.

On SXSW: 'I'm Rudolph, I'm a 4G HotSpot...and I'm Homeless'

Meg: Thanks for the link to the NPR piece.  I think both of you have hit the big point, which is that BBH Labs ought to be given credit for thinking about a problem and trying to come up with an innovative social solution.  I'd hate to see them abandon it because some people had a bad gut reaction to what they heard from first news reports.

I do think they need to re-write the tagline.  It's not enough to say other people--like the babes who are hired for trade show booths (some of that evident at SXSW, btw)--are okay with being treated like objects. I think objectification, and worse, refusing to see people at all are both really wrong.  

Most people I've talked with now are taking a more measured look at this and coming down on the side of BBH Labs, understanding that it wasn't perfect.  

Working with social issues, especially with people who are homeless, is going to raise big emotions.

On Google's Social Strategy Walks Same Thin Ice as Microsoft Windows 10 Years Ago

Thanks, sir.  

On Google's Social Strategy Walks Same Thin Ice as Microsoft Windows 10 Years Ago

IamDez, thanks for the note.  Actually Microsoft was charged with two different anti-trust violations in 1999.  You are referring to the first and I am referring to the second.

The first violations were the predatory marketing practices that you describe--requiring hardware partners to carry Microsoft programs in order to get Windows OS.   These were quickly eliminated by Microsoft as part of the 2001 consent decree.

The second, which is the crux of my post, was Microsoft's practice of creating within Windows special resources and code enhancements that only Microsoft applications could use--these were kept secret and unavailable to other application developers.  The compliance with the order from the court to disclose the use of these communications protocols between Windows and Microsoft applications was not complete to the court's satisfaction until 2011.

My analogy is that Google is using the Google search engine as a core offering not unlike the Windows OS, and then creating products like Google Finance, Google Maps, Google Places and now Google+ which all succeed only because of Google's ability to drive traffic to them from preferential placement and inclusion in the user experience of the Google search engine.

Yes, Facebook and Twitter decided to keep their social data from Google.  But that doesn't change the facts that Google is using the search engine to keep customers within integrated Google applications and in doing so move into the "grey zone" of technical integration that might in the future be considered anti-competitive.  

On Google's Social Strategy Walks Same Thin Ice as Microsoft Windows 10 Years Ago

David, thanks for your kind comments and appreciation.  

Your point about Twitter and Facebook deciding not to agree with Google to providing their social content is a significant one, and is a defense for Google against accuasations of anti-trust,  However the SPYW function is one of a series  of innovations--Google +, Google Maps, Google Finance--that increasingly create an experience through the Google search engine from which these applications benefit.  

In particular Google+ is a clear attempt to create an alternative to Facebook which offers better features like circoles and video chat.  Should Google+ succeed in gathering a critical mass of consumers (currently at 65 million sign ups and counting) then SPYW would be all Google all the time and that would pretty much be the same sad state that led 19 states and the US Justice Department to sue Microsoft in 1999 for anti-trust.

On Best Social Media and Digital Marketing Research and Statistics of 2011, Part 1

Tom, you'll feel better right away without the distraction.  And rather than being a rat in a maze always trying to find the cheeze, you'll have a strong POV to share with clients.

You can find other truly meaningful ways to measure your influence.  (Like checking out Topsy's record of the 109 RT's so far of this terrific post: http://bit.ly/uCYjmQ )

Very much looking forward to part II.

On Why You Should Boycott Klout Now

Facebook, credit card companies and grocery store chains don't rate me and publish that rating publicly.  They aren't purposrting to evaluate my job performance.

And in the case of credit information that personal data is subject to strict federal and state laws and is regulated by government agencies.

Huge differences from Klout.

Though in the case of Facebook, I think there is an enormous privacy battle looming there.

On Best Social Media and Digital Marketing Research and Statistics of 2011, Part 1

Outstanding resource, Tom!  Wow, this is a bookmark to promote to the toolbar on my browser!

On Social Media Cries a River: Thank You, Klout

Speak:

Klout wants to be FICO of social media, rating human beings behavior and publishing public scores about them without their permission, and with zero accountability.  I don't care if he's your homeboy, he's running a fundementally evil, poorly designed and administered public scoring system and trying to make it the gold "standard of influence."  

People protest all the time in this country.  And often times it's for good reasons, and some times it's not protesting enough that's the problem. 

On Five Questions Klout Can't Answer

I'm aware of the point you make.  My take of the survey is that in the sense that RT's are sending the same message as a Tweet, the statement that 50% of tweets are created by a core of 20,000 (very popular) Twitter accounts is true.  May be splitting hairs semantically, but I saw precisely the disclaimer you quote and thought awhile before writing it the way I did.  Thanks for the comment, though I disagree,

On Five Questions Klout Can't Answer

Andy: "Opening the algorithym" could be as simple as saying "Net followers + RTs + RT's of RTs = Influence."  My point is that without having to either disclose precisely how they calculate the numbers nor having their results audited, then Klout is free to say any damn thing they want about anyone they want.  Who knows if they're measuring "social influence" or what?  It's just their word.

Here's a big difference between Klout and Google:  if Goggle does a lousy job of ranking the value of Web pages, then people will stop coming to their site and use another search engine (which is exactly why Google did the massive overhaul of their algorithym last year to stop link farms.)  

If Klout does a lousy job of ranking human beings, what's the consequence?  How do we tell if they're doing a lousy job?  The answer is there is no way at all.

Google is a great search engine because when I type in my query I get really interesting, relevant results.

Klout is bogus because when it says you're a 41 and I'm a 51 there's no way of telling if they're right or wrong.  And no matter if they're right or wrong there's nothing you can do about it---and it might cost you a job if you're a 41 in a job applicant pool filled with 51s.

As I point out there are plenty of precendents for companies that do rankings to have those rankings audited and certified by third parties.  The fact that it's hard to do that in social media where so many people are trying to game the system is no exuse to give Klout a free pass.

Klout is a bad idea whose time has not yet come.