5 ways to turn readers into content curators

Facebook "Likes," Google + 1 ups, Twitter followers are only worthwhile when they yield engagement. The initial engagement involves you and your immediate readers, people you make contact with or who make contact with you. But the real impact of social media is the multiplier effect. That is, when your readers take your content and shares it with their friends, followers and connections. The real trick, as heavy-hitters like TechCrunch and Mashable very well know, is creating content that is so valuable, accessible and enjoyable that your readers choose to re-post it and share it across various mediums and platforms. 

While many marketing types view content curation as the practice of packaging a broad range of issue-specific content, organic reader-driven, content curation is often more valuable.

Know your audience: 

The starting point of all communications is to think about the people who will read it. What are their interests? What does the majority of your audience have in common? What type of content, in what form, and on what channel would they find most useful? If you were them, what content would you choose to share with your network? Why? What do they want to achieve?

Content. Content. And Content. 

As everyone keeps telling you, content marketing is the next big thing or the next better thing. But too often content is immediately generated around what you want your readers to buy or do as opposed to fresh, accessible content they want to consume, know, or understand better. 

I am not saying that a direct call-to-action is not an appropriate element of your overall content strategy, but it will be ignored and may alienate your reader if it is not accompanied by value-driven content. First ask, what is your objective? Do you want to sell a product or build a relationship? If your answer is the former, then ask who would you be more likely to make a purchase from? A stranger or someone you trust and who understands your needs?

Timing. 

Automation is a great tool, but you can’t rely entirely upon them. Not only does it make real-time engagement more difficult, it prevents you from capitalizing on the organic ebb and flow of various channels. 

Do you know the peak hours for Pinterest users? Is that the same as Twitter? Do people log in more frequently to Facebook on the weekend or through the work week, after hours or during work hours? And for what purpose?

Most people use Facebook during the week and often times after work with Thursday being the peak day of the week. But the same is not the case for Twitter. And the truth is they are often less interested in branded messaging during those times but more likely to respond to geographically-specific display ads. Think for a second, it is Thursday evening and you are considering going out for a meal, and a Groupon deal to a local restaurant is on the side of the screen, are you more likely to click on it? But let’s say you are considering purchasing a car, wouldn’t you be more likely to peruse a digital showroom on the weekend? Or what about a home improvement project?

Timing is critical in the digital space as we are trying to create relationships and connections at the right time, and not simply contribute to the white noise that pervades far too many consumer experiences.

Headlines that pop. 

Generally speaking 8 out of 10 will read the headline while only 2 out of 10 will fully read the first paragraph. While a good Twitter headline differs from a good headline on a website or social bookmarking site, there are some general rules. 

• Be simple and direct. 
• Clever is good but only when it is appropriate. 
• Use puns with caution. 
• Use the active voice at all times. 
• Try to include keywords that work well with Search Engines. 
• Don’t get weighted down with numbers. 
• Don’t capitalize every word. 
• And try not to use colons and semicolons as they are notoriously unreliably translated on social bookmarking sites.

Consider the channel.  

Quite simply, social media channels are the same in a very broad way – they are virtual town halls in some respects, but they are different in very specific ways. They are only useful when you understand that. For instance, Pinterest is almost entirely visual where Twitter until recently was entirely character-driven…

Defining The Obama Doctrine: Of Doves and Drones

For a man awarded the Nobel Peace Prize within months of taking office, began
his second term with an impassioned vow to bring troops home from Afghanistan
and owes his political career to his opposition to the war in Iraq, President
Obama’s presidential Doctrine is murky at best.
Due to recently leaked Justice Department memo, we learned the Obama
administration’s infamous drone kill list includes U.S. citizens. To make things
worse, it took the administration a fews to agree to provide information to
Congress as to who is on that list and why. This has put Obama at odds with even
some of his most long-standing progressives allies.
Progressives were relatively quiet when Obama deemed closing
Guantanamo Bay politically unattainable and then expanded the Bushera
use of warrantless wire-tapping. Now, many are fed up. Every
decision short of putting troops on the ground -- from Iran to Syria to his
infamous leading from behind strategy in Libya -- is denigrated by the
right as weakness.
Obama appears to be, ungracefully, balancing drones and doves without bothering
to explain or justify the contradiction. He appears to be, while reducing the U.S.
military footprint in the Arab World, waging a covert war against individuals as
opposed to countries.
If playing the middle is supposed to help avoid the trappings of left and
right, it ain’t working.
As a progressive, I gotta say it’s not the drones. If 9/11, Iraq and
Afghanistan taught me anything, it’s that the war on terror is more like
the war on drugs than a traditional military engagement. There’s no
Terror country with a capital called Jihad. The enemy, I get it, is illusive.
When you find them, you don’t can’t just gear up an Army and storm the
Castle. The problem is Obama’s unwillingness to articulate his position.
I’m beginning to wonder if it’s just arrogance, or if there is a Doctrine at
all? Perhaps he is just a man responding to events?
The Bush Doctrine, even Sarah Palin knows by now, was simple. It was
all about the preemptive strike and this idea that our national security
depended upon our willingness to strike the first blow.
With Clinton, it was more nuanced but no less profound. From the escalation in
Somalia to Serbia bombings to invading the Haiti and all the diplomatic capital
spent on Irish and Middle East peace negotiations, Clinton believed instability
anywhere was a threat to stability everywhere.
Prior to sending troops to Serbia, Clinton famously said this:
“It's easy...to say that we really have no interests in who lives in this or that
valley in Bosnia, or who owns a strip of brushland in the Horn of Africa, or
some piece of parched earth by the Jordan River. But the true measure of
our interests lies not in how small or distant these places are, or in whether
we have trouble pronouncing their names. The question we must ask is,
what are the consequences to our security of letting conflicts fester and
spread. We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be
everywhere. But where our values and our interests are at stake, and
where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so.”
Shockingly, Obama’s Doctrine is more nuanced than Clinton’s yet less
articulate than Bush. Obama can remain quiet on the drone issue if he
wants. He does not have to campaign again, and as long as the end result
is fewer U.S. soldiers killed, I doubt the political backlash will build to critical
mass. But the long-term repercussions of this policy could prove even more
hazardous than the Bush-era torturing of suspected terrorists, and
ultimately we, the American people, deserve an explanation.

Social Media for Social Justice

Home - For all your social media and digital marketing needs!:

'via Blog this'

What Trayvon Martin can teach us about social media as an agent of change

The new word I love and hate is Slacktivism.  

Wikipedia explains it as a pejorative formed out of the words slackerand activism, and describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction. I say It is undeniably themost addictive, lazy, and non-participatory of modern social justice engagement. See something strolling along your Facebook newsfeed, click ‘Like’ and it’s done. If you really care, you might even click twice and type your name onto an electronic petition or two. 

I love it because, unlike so many obtuse and misplaced attempts at categorizing, it’s just so true. Weird thing is, I hate it for the same reason.

In the last few weeks, due to two major social media/social justice campaigns, I’ve had slacktivism on the brain.  One, Kony 2012, illustrates the ridiculousness of social media as a vehicle of change. The other, Trayvon Martin, is quite the opposite. Kony 2012. If you are unfamiliar,  here’s the video.  

On the surface it seemed ingenious. Within days, the viral video had millions of hits. Yet within days of vetting, and largely due to the ridiculous antics of the video’s producer, it was more of a punch-line than call to action. In the end, it punctuated the absurdity of slacktivism.

This week the tables turn. Initially through social media, we learn about the case of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black kid who was gunned down in Sanford, Fla. by an overzealous, race-obsessed, wanna-be cop of a neighborhood watch volunteer named George Zimmerman. Unlike the Kony 2012 campaign, awareness about the Martin case was not immediate. At first, there were only a few posts. Soon it spread through the blogosphere with every progressive news website posting the tragic details. Then, it hit the mainstream media’s afternoon circuit. Then, state prosecutors are called in to investigate the case. And then a police chief is forced to step down... And even then, thousands march in Miami, calling for the arrest of Zimmerman.  As of the writing of this post even the President has weighed in on the case.

President says if I had a son he would look like Trayvon. 

It is organic. It is real. And many are not simply clicking “like.” They are trying to affect change in perhaps as fundamental a manner as we have seen, saving the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Arab Spring, in recent years. 

People often rail about the dangers of social media as it creates superficial connections that attempt to satisfy our natural and real desires for true connections. In the end, we may be more aware of the world around us but we are fundamentally more insulated from it and less affected by it. Slacktivism appears to be a furtherance of that disease where real involvement, engagement and activism is replaced by these effortless clicks that demand so little of us and arguably produce even less in the form of tangible results.

 The Trayvon Martin story is tragic and stands as a very poignant reminder of the dangers many young American men face while simply living their lives. 

Yet it is also somewhat hopeful...

Not only has the outrage to this crime against a black youth been somewhat color-blind, but it also serves as evidence that social media doesn’t have to be superficial, detached and non-participatory. 

As someone said recently, social media is the vehicle not the destination. In this case that was certainly true. Why? Because unlike Kony 2012 where we were asked to just open our wallets and give to some sketch charity, the ad-hoc organization that sprouted up surrounding Trayvon Martin asked us to speak out, carry a sign, make a call, demand justice. Slacktivism is a social media deficit when it comes to affecting change. But perhaps that is a function of the message and messenger and not the vehicle itself.

The key differences:

Objective: In the case of Kony 2012, Jason Russell said he wanted to make Joseph Kony a household name. Well perhaps he accomplished that. The problem is that's all he accomplished. Awareness is not the objective. It’s what happens next that is important. In the case of Martin, an entirely organic and most likely people-driven campaign, awareness was the means to achieving justice. It was clearly followed up by action.

Geography: Joseph Kony's atrocities are many... He’s a bad guy for sure. He’s a Ugandan warlord who uses children as soldiers. But the campaign was quite American-centric. By contrast, the Trayvon Martin case began in Florida and has organically grown from state-to-sate. The first people who reported the event was Martin’s parents and lawyer... The subsequent stories are, for the most part, originating from local and regional news sources. 

Participation/Engagement: With Trayvon Martin, there has been a clear call to action. The people behind the protests have clearly outlined what they want to see happen. They have made contact with the necessary officials and they have called for others to do the same.... 

Kony 2012: How could outing a bad man for doing bad things go so very badly?

When the KONY 2012 thing started showing up on my Facebook page by folks who I know spend very little time on Facebook and aren't quite savvy about the many ways and means that social media can fool you, I ignored it. I ignored it in the same way that I ignore other annoying Facebook apps like Farmville, Truths about you, etc. But the 100th time, I paid attention as it was associated with a group that I am somewhat familiar with and whom I actually respect, Invisible Children, or at least I thought I did.

Before this successful digital marketing campaign, Invisible Children was a reputable charity. Its tactics had only been questioned in fairly scholarly journals. The fact that it has been accused of misrepresenting the facts to get its point across? I had not heard anything. I, like most lazy Americans, showed my support for the organization by clicking a like button then went on about my day.

But the irony here is that the firm responsible for Kony 2012 brought so much visibility to Invisible Children that every skeleton in their closet is now being trotted out in the digital square. And the sad thing is that the message behind the viral video that sparked such interest is getting consumed by the scandal.

Here is the video:


How could outing a very bad man for doing very bad things go very badly?

Social Media, a Moving Target - Manufacturing Executive Community

Social Media, a Moving Target - Manufacturing Executive Community: "--Compared to just two months ago when the Council last discussed social media, some manufacturers are moving beyond thinking of external marketing applications for social media and are now contemplating how the technology can be used to stimulate and accelerate collaboration among internal groups and individuals."

Strange Days

Today was beautiful. For the first time since I came back to the Northwest, the weather was PERFECT! The sky was clear. It was 70 degrees. I could see Mount Rainier at nearly every turn. It was in my rearview mirror as I snaked down the massive backside of Fauntleroy in West Seattle. It was in front of me going south on 99. At one point, it looked like that ragged stretch of road might just end at the bottom of this massive snow-capped wonder. It was the beginning of a beautiful day. But then I came across this... from a website ironically called christwire.org 

“You know we’re living in a delusional world when libtards all over the place are not giving President Bush credit for killing Osama bin Laden.  Bin Laden was killed because President Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda, Hamas and every other terrorist on Earth.
When Bush was wiping Saddam off the map, liberals were crying over semantics.  They were crying because they said Iraq had no WMDs, when Saddam made it clear he had no respect for UN sanctions and America’s dictations for Iraq.  We had every right to invade and Iraq had their hand in 9/11...

Then he goes on to say...

“You dumb, retarded Reddit loving, crack toking and drug thought induced liberals, listen up.  President Bush received hell for trying to capture Osama bin Laden.  Like HELL you are going to give credit for this to a man who tried to make friends with Iran on his first dark day in our nation’s White House.”

And that, my friends, is how you fuck up a perfectly beautiful day.

I don’t much care about nationalizing vengeance. I feel it on a personal level, and I am not proud of that instinct. So, it becomes this contradiction. I understand it. I can’t judge it. But I can’t embrace it either. A man kills the man who raped his daughter, “Find peace, brother.” A woman cuts off the penis of her abusive husband, “Go with God, Sister.”

But, in all cases, it’s there but the grace of God go I.

But what I can’t ignore is that even this, even this act of putting down a man who killed more than 3,000 Americans, and who in supposedly purusing him, we launched a war that has taken from us nearly $2 trillion and nearly 5,000 in U.S. military lives, that this country cannot quit from its incessent bullshit for more than a day.... What enrages me is the gaul of honestly proposing that George W. bush bares no blame for the depression he left us with or the war he put us in based on lies but credit in absentia for killing Osama Bin Laden?

On the day of Bin Laden’s death, America reveled in vengeance. Partying at Ground Zero. Partying in front of the White House. The day after, the really self-destructive right-wing politicizing began anew, again exacting revenge. Not against terrorists. But against the political party that defeated them. Against the fact that a “black man” runs the country. In writing that, I’m not saying it’s base racism but desplacement. Think about the American man, women joining the workforce and perhaps on occasion competing with them for jobs spurred the Promisekeepers. The influx of Cuban and Dominican players in baseball had them decring the end of America’s pasttime. It’s not about racism but identification. We are all empowered in some ways through identifying with those in power, with talent, etc. The fact that white men no longer have exclusivity in the White House, coupled with the realization that white people will soon no longer be the “majority” in America must feel threatening.

On the left as well... Among liberals (assumedly emancipated from such base tendencie)  there is that sliver consumed by the get-back, against a President who did not live up to every last expectation. More importantly, however, it’s really about their own identity. After all, buffoon leadership is a necessary justification for rage. Then, Obama had the nerve to try to replace it with temperance and moderation.

Oh, the horror!!!!

Osama Bin Laden is dead because he is unnecessary. We are truly a country that needs no enemies. We are entirely capable of and are on a fast road to destroying ourselves. We don’t need Russia. We don’t need terrorist, China, “illegal immigrants,” outsourcing, bankers, unions, gays, Bentley-driving hip hop artists or the fucking Federal Reserve.

Rome is definitely burning.

Sometimes when I’m at the Wal-Mart forced to see the crack of some 250 lb woman in skinny jeans and a halter top, or reading about growth of the debt purchasing industry, or making the connection that it was indeed born from the Savings & Loan scandal in the 1980s and is as much to blame for the sub-prime loan crisis as was the Community Reinvestment Act, I think burn bitch, burn!

But, then, my son and I sit down for dinner.

The patio door is open. It is cool, not at all cold, outside. Shyla, the dog, sits underneath the table as usual, waiting for Ilan to slip little corners of food to her when I look away.

“Geronimo, EKIA,” I say instead of grace, then explain to my boy it’s the code word for mission accomplished and the acronym for Enemy Killed In Action. Ilan looks at me as if I have loss my mind and Shyla barks. Guess I startled her.

The loaf...

I hated meatloaf as a kid. Don’t remember why. Maybe it was the word “meatloaf” I didn’t like. Maybe it was because it was usually bland. It could have been the fact that my Mother always put diced onions in the loaf. As a kid, I hated onions. Anytime we went to McDonalds, we were always asked to pull aside so the pimply teenager inside could scrape the onions off my hamburger.

Anyway, I got a hair to make meatloaf. Found a recipe that called for two cups of brown sugar and ketchup. The reviews were glowing but it sounded like something Roseanne Barr would make. So I substituted the two cups of brown sugar for half a cup -- one-fourth for the loaf and one-fourth for the sauce. For the loaf, I mixed garlic, ginger, one egg, one quarter cup of milk, green and red bell peppers, bread crumbs, rosemary, oregano and the brown sugar into a food processor. Mixed it all into the loaf. For the sauce, instead of ketchup (what fool ever uses ketchup in cooking? Mustard I get, but ketchup?) I used tomato paste, diced tomatoes, a bit more garlic, rosemary, oregano, worcester and soy.... I do everything to taste. It was a bit sweet. So I added that Vietnamese garlic chili sauce and coarsely ground black pepper. It was fantastic.  Way too rich for a marinara but perfect for meat loaf. So I lined the pan with the sauce, put the loaf in the middle and topped it with more bread crumbs. Then I cooked it for an hour at 350.

The gravy...

When the loaf came out of the oven, it had, along with a serious amount of meat grease, a gravy. I put the loaf onto a serving plate then spooned all the oil off the gravy. Then I kind of whisked the gravy with a spatula... It too was good. So fucking good. I served it on top of rosemary mashed potatoes.
Ilan is a fickle eater. Lettuce wraps, he likes. Pizza, he likes. Fried chicken, he could give or take. Pizza, strictly pepperoni and cheese. If he’s in the right mood, he will tolerate spaghetti and meatballs. All else, in his mind, is disgusting. But tonight, I discover that Ilan loves meatloaf. He eats it with the mashed potatoes and gravy, then he ask for more. He wants me to make him a meatball sandwich for his lunch tomorrow. “But put cheese on it,” he says, drinking a big glass of water, already wearing his pajamas. “And gravy. Put the gravy on top.”

It occurs to me. When you are happy, life is good regardless. When you are unhappy, dissatisfied, or otherwise lacking, nothing satisfies. I’m not talking about the fickle eating habits of my kid, but life, politics, the media and this country’s apparent collective pursuit of disdain. And my own detours. In all honestness, I got my own shit. Like the fact that Rush Limbaugh lives life a millionaire, exploiting the basest of human emotions, while Lenny Bruce, Sammy Davis Jr., Edgar Allen Poe and Thomas Jefferson all died penniless. To be blatantly honest, the fact that I am smart, fairly thoughtful, with a great work ethic, and I have little more than a 401K, a half-assed college savings account and a house full of furniture to my name while there are people -- whom I personally know -- who are verifiably crazies, narcissists and idiots with millions in the bank. It’s enough to make you bitter. Just like 3,000 plus dead is enough to make you vengeful. Just like losing your house to bankruptcy while the U.S. government, whom you pay taxes to, gives roughly 700 billion to the banking industry who took it is enough to make you hate your own government. Just like no longer being the King of the World makes you vulnerable to conspiracies about birth certificates.

I put Ilan to bed. As I walk out the door, he ask, “President Obama killed the terrorists?”
“Yes, he killed the bad man.”

Today was a strange day indeed. The point, I think, is to adapt, be generous with compassion and certain about rage. Above all, know that life is a struggle. The joy that comes with... is all gravy.

What about the post-Bin Laden America?

Media focused on the emotive and visceral yesterday in re-telling the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Is he  really dead?  The humiliating burial at sea?  Will he be a martyr? Who gets credit President Obama or, believe it or not, former President George W. Bush?  Really, that’s what the court jesters on the right are saying... Then there were the political oddsmakers: Will this make it more difficult to defeat President Obama in 2012? There’s even a poll.

And then finally, there was the unbelievably daft vindication of torture. 

In the words of my alter ego Mushmouth: “The American media could fuck up a wet dream.”

But in this insanity there were the words of NYT’s Roger Cohen that really got me. In an op-ed entitled “The Post-Bin Laden World,” Cohen posed an important question: What will the world look like in this Post-Bin Laden world? Does Bin Laden’s death along with the successful people-driven uprising in Egypt signal a significant shift in the Arab world? He makes the very important point that for many in the Arab world, Bin Laden’s death was less relevant than the plight of a budding Democracy in Egypt and Tunisia or the fate of the Libyan resistance.

Cohen writes: 
“He died a marginal figure to the transformation fast-forwarding the Arab world toward pluralism and self-expression...

His death comes as post-Islamist revolutions from Tunis to Cairo topple despotism in the name of democratic values long denied Arabs, who, in their vast majority, now seek a reasonable balance between modernity and their faith. Arab pride has disentangled itself from the complex of the West. Bin Laden’s Holy War drew sustenance from “Westoxification” — the sense of humiliation among Arabs at perceived Western dominance and aggression. Bin Laden whipped that resentment into Al Qaeda’s capacity for nihilistic mass murder.

He died as Arabs en masse move away from the politics of rage and revenge, directed mainly outward, toward a new politics of responsibility and representative government, directed mainly inward.”

Cohen makes an interesting point: “Inward-looking.” But he stops short of demanding that we as Americans do the same. Even now, neocons and pundits are turning their righteous indignation to Pakistan, working themselves into a fervor to fight another war we can’t afford... It seems ironic that Bin Laden’s death somehow means more to us Americans than it does to the floundering movement he once spearheaded...

Cohen goes on to say:

“An era has passed. It was a painful decade of disorientation and American whiplash. The mass murder so agonizing it had to be distilled to three digits — 9/11 — poisoned a new century at its outset. Bin Laden was that poison’s slow drip.”

“How then to complete the work and make a corpse not only of Bin Laden but his movement? Oust Gaddafi with ruthlessness and in short order. Steer the Arab revolutions into port with consistent political support and funding. Arab democracy must also mean Arab opportunity. End the war in Afghanistan as soon as America’s basic security requirements are met. Make America’s closest regional ally, Israel, understand that a changed Middle East cannot be met with unchanging Israeli policies. Palestine, like Israel, must rise to the region’s dawning post-Osama era of responsibility and representation.”

In summary, Cohen does slip in the real point here. Sure, it’s important what the people of the Arab world do. It’s important that they continue to move towards these Democratic principles and find a way to balance their faith and the modern world. But what we do, from now on, is equally important. It’s just as important to envision a post-Bin Laden America as it is to preach about and hope for a post-Bin Laden Arab world. We should re-evaluate U.S. foreign policy from that same vantage point, appreciating the wave of Democratic uprisings in the Arab world for what it is.

Sure, we picked the winning side in Egypt. But we were helping the people of Egypt depose a tyrant we picked in the first place. And I wonder, somewhat cynically, if our actions in Libya would be so altruistic if Moammar Gaddafi wasn’t such an insufferable pain in our and Israel’s ass.

The point is the people of the Arab world are moving, whether we like it or not, towards Democracy. It would be a huge mistake if we as a country did not take the opportunity to be at least somewhat introspective.