Talk It Up!

Five steps to Twitter engagement for small business

Why should my small business be on Twitter? It doesn't help my business to say "I'm at the mall having a sandwich."

These days, it's unusual to hear this objection, since Twitter has reached a mainstream adoption level. Personally, I find this refreshing and wish I heard this objection more often. Instead, what social media consultants will hear is, "I need to be on Twitter. How do I do that?"

Tweet

The answer to both objections is a question: I don't know. What are your small business' marketing objectives? And that is followed quickly by another question: where are your customers?

Step 1: Establish marketing objectives

There is no point to initiating any marketing campaign without solid objectives. What would you say to someone who says, "I need to be on a fax machine. How do I do that?" Twitter, like a fax machine, is a communication tool that serves the needs of its master. Or rather, its master's goals.

And "getting more followers" isn't a goal because it carries no inherent benefit, just as "sending a fax" isn't a marketing goal. To whom? For what purpose? To what end? Sending a Tweet with no goal is like sending a fax to a random 10-digit phone number; it's pointless.

A few sample marketing goals that might carry a benefit, especially for a local small business:

• Increase awareness of the organization's charity efforts
• Increase attendance to a particular event
• Build customer loyalty
• Build personal relationships within the community
• Establish our organization as a thought leader in X category
• Increase foot traffic to a specific store or set of locations
• Provide immediate customer service
• Establish a channel for crisis communications
• Establish a loyal user focus group for product development

Step 2: Marketing research

Before initiating ongoing participation and engagement through any new social media tool, organizations must first determine where their fans and customers are gathering. In short, it's important to fish where the fish are. To determine if local content enthusiasts and experts are actively engaged on Twitter, begin by doing Twitter bio keyword searches with a series of keywords. FollowerWonk allows for easy searches of Twitter bios with the option to search by city/location.

For example, if a Seattle green construction company is considering reaching out to the Twittersphere, the marketing research would entail tracking down Twitter bios with the keywords Seattle, green, construction, building, environment, sustainable to get a feel for the number and influence level of both individuals and organizations participating in related discussions via Twitter.

If those searches turn up a level of active accounts engaging the public on these topics, it's a sign that the Twittersphere is likely a viable channel for a local green construction company to achieve some of its marketing and PR goals.

Step 3: Monitor key influencers

The next step is to follow and monitor the influencers discovered in the first phase of research with the goal of gaining insight into the type of content that is most relevant to key influencers and followers within the local green building community. Which conversations generate long threads? Which posts get reTweeted the most often? Which hashtags and Twitter chats are the most active? In this phase, the organization should:

• Follow relevant accounts and follow new accounts daily (be more concerned about who you are following rather than who is following you--this is your information stream)
• Track and monitor relevant hashtags
• Track and follow relevant lists
• Begin building Twitter list of key influencers

Step 4: Develop content strategy

Armed with information on the dynamics of the relevant community on Twitter, the organization can now develop a realistic and relevant content strategy for posting content on a regular basis. And a quick note: it's okey to insert some personality into a corporate Twitter account. Let's not forget that Twitter is for people with common interests to connect, so it's perfectly acceptable to be personable.

Step 5: Measure, rinse, repeat

Content creation and community engagement is an ongoing process. It's less important to have the perfect content right from the start but rather to use tools to analyze metrics for ongoing analysis of the most relevant and engaging content. HootSuite, my favorite free tool, provides fantastic analytics as to which links gained the most clickthroughs and which Tweets were referenced and reTweeted most frequently.

Tweriod is also useful for determining the best time of day to Tweet based on your followers' online availability. I recently posted an analysis of my own Tweet timing using Tweriod. Your metrics will tell you if your content and conversations are relevant and if you are ultimately reaching your marketing goals, and they will also tell you how to redirect if the current strategy isn't working as well as you'd hoped.

To sum up, Twitter isn't a set-it-and-forget-it tool. As with any social media tool, it requires a level of strategy for content and for ongoing participation and engagement. What would you add to the four steps?

More info: Twitter basics and best practices link database is here

Thanksgiving as a kid vs. Thanksgiving as an adult

I was going to do a post about things that I am thankful for and include stuff like my friends, Twitter, brunch and my iPhone. Instead, here is the Oatmeal on Thanksgiving as a kid versus Thanksgiving as an adult:

The best time of day to Tweet

Testing Tweriod to discover the most follower-heavy times of day to Tweet

This week, I tried out a tool that was new to me--Tweriod. It's a diagnostic tool that determines when most of your followers are online to help you choose the optimum times of day to Tweet for best exposure and engagement.

It's a pretty simple tool, although the analysis takes a day or two. It turns out that most of my followers are online between 1:00 and 4:00 PM on weekends and 2:00-3:00 PM and 4:00-6:00 PM on weekdays.

Weekdays:

 

The combined chart:

Conclusions:

This last bit of information is actually quite helpful, as I've never been sure when is the best time to schedule content to post over the weekend. I do schedule posts for the weekends, and I usually set them for 10:00 or 11:00 AM, thinking that some folks sleep late and then check their feeds. I've been following Tweriod's weekend diagnostics for the last week, and I'm seeing more RTs and mentions during that time frame. Huzzah for using metrics to inform content post timing!

Money, courtesy of XKCD

A more thorough infographic on money there has never been

My notable:

• in the Thousands section, the cost of the items in "If I Had a Million Dollars" would buy you in order to win your love ($263,330)
• The combined net worth of the world's 1, 210 billionaires (the big yellow box at the left of the billions section)
• World total liquid assets (in the Trillions section, something that I'll admit I can't quite comprehend)

The Beginning of American Internet Censorship: SOPA Bill [INFOGRAPHIC]

Who hasn't got a bit peeved when her content got scraped without credit on someone else's site? But broad internet censorship isn't the solution.

It's Infographic Saturday, and this one is a little scary.

The Beginning of American Internet Censorship: SOPA Bill [infographic].

Getting down and inspired at TEDx Rainier 2011

Last weekend, innovators, entrepreneurs and technologists gathered at the University of Washington for TEDx Rainier and for a dose of inspiration and enlightenment. This is the stuff that stuck with me from that day.

Last weekend, I took a bus on a cold, rainy Saturday to the University of Washington in order to expose myself to new ideas, unknown science and a wealth of inspiration at the TEDx Rainier conference.

Tweet

TEDx is one of many worldwide, independently-organized TED events. They are organized and staffed by 100% volunteers, and the content rivals that of the big TED. The goal? To gather of thinkers, entrepreneurs, academics, artists, environmentalists and engaged citizens working to design better futures. This year's theme was Gained in Translation: Ideas Crossing Frontiers.

This was my first TEDx event, and I was delighted to have the chance to attend after hearing so much about it from my hardworking social media friend, Jeris Miller.

It's hard to summarize a conference that involves so many new ideas, new facts and new topics. A few of my favorite quotes from the event:

Work, family, self. Pick two. You can't have all three. — Amy Jo Martin

Transforming our communities is less about our pocketbooks and more about the depth of our passion. Social capital is essential to our philanthropic DNA. — Paul Shoemaker

Like the Tyrannosaurus Rex, plastic bags leave a wake of destruction everywhere they go. — Chris Jordan

Too much reliance on philanthropy signifies a failure in capitalism. It's not the answer, but a sign of the problem. — Peter Blomquist

Relationships heal when we are willing to tell the truth and be vulnerable — Sarah Stuteville

A fundamentalist is essentially someone who knows how to get angry. — Andy Himes

Is your present perspective getting you the quality of life you want? — Jim Sorenson

Life’s biggest gift is our ability to better the lives of those less fortunate than us. — Adnan Mahmud

My memorable speakers

Every speaker had a strength, and some were more appealing that others. In particular, the afternoon session, chock-full of entrepreneurs, was deeply resonant for me. For me, the most powerful presentations were:

Surprise guest Rick Steves stole the show with his mind-blowing talk on the sacredness of diversity that world travel engenders. His entire talk was quotable; some of his most powerful nuggets of wisdom:

• Our dream is beautiful, but so is theirs.
• Travel wallops ethnocentricity.
• Fear is for people who don't get out very much.
• A government has to make a decision: tolerate alternative lifestyles or build more prisons.

Dmitri Christakes, a pediatrician and expert on environmental influences on early childhood, showed the graph of a travel pattern of a normal mouse followed by the travel pattern of a mouse after being exposed to "mouse-o-vision," the mouse equivalent of television, for several hours a day. The images were shocking: the first path was conservative and consistent, sticking to room corners as mice do. The second was a frenetic pattern that crossed the room in a style associated with ADD. This was most powerful visual I've seen for fast-paced cartoons causing ADD in children.

The Interfaith Amigos (Pastor Don Mackenzie, Rabbi Ted Falcon and Imam Jamal Rahman) gave a funny yet wise talk on interfaith issues, proving it is possible to be both devout and open-minded. Plus, they were the only speakers brave enough to break into song: "It's all one and I am as I am."

What about you? Which speakers and topics resonated with you?

Update 11-18-11: Jay Kimball also blogged about the event and included word clouds that his wife created for some of the speakers. Beautiful!

Good robots vs bad robots: two cases of customer service automation

Good robots versus bad robots: in customer service automation, there are winners and losers. There is good customer service, and there is bad customer service. What makes for a good automated experience versus an evil one?

Cross-posted to Spoken Communications blog

I write a lot about customer service for Spoken Communications, especially as it relates to the call center. And I get a little tired of the all-too-fluffy blog posts on customer service that give vapid advice (Smile when you talk!) or simply recount a bad experience to illustrate the fact that, in fact, bad customer service exists.

Tweet

We're aware that bad customer service exists and that good customer service isn't as easy as it looks. And one of the controversial aspects of customer service is the trend toward automation. Some users proclaim their hatred loudly and flock to sites such as GetHuman. Others... well, no one really sings the praises of a well-designed IVR or email 'bot, because when they are beautifully designed, they simply work as promised and let the user move on to focusing on more important tasks.

Over the last week, I had two experiences with automation in customer service. With one, the automation was evil: involuntary to begin with, and the organization prevaricated, blamed the user and required several inquiries and escalations to complete a basic process. With the other, the automation was so simple as to be practically invisible, anticipating the user's every need. What can we learn from each one?

Automation #1: Email list auto-add (Evil)

With the first experience, I was added to an email list for night club events taking place in the D.C. area. I'm unsure as to how I got on the list, since I didn't subscribe and the email in question is used almost exclusively for listener feedback from a podcast I produce. It's not even really my email; it's the show's email address. At any rate, I sought an unsubscribe button, since (a) I live 3,000 miles from D.C. (b) I don't frequent nightclubs and (c) I generally don't drink cocktails or spirits.

The first thing I did was seek an unsubscribe option on the offending emails. No such luck. But I was given the prominent option to forward to a friend.

So, grumpy at the extra effort, I was forced to email the organization to report the spam and to ask to be taken off the organization's list. What followed was a series of ill-mannered prevarications designed to make it extremely difficult for the user to be removed from the list. The organization responded, insisting that I use a nonexistant unsubscribe button. When I pointed out their newsletters not only do not have an unsubscribe button but that I'd never signed up in the first place, they insisted I had signed up for the list (!!)  and that they were unable to remove me. Only robots can add and remove customers? Evil!

My response pointing out the lack of an Unsubscribe option:

Their response - blame the customer for the automation mistake:

I reported the behavior to the organization's email service, as most services have regulations regarding spam and automated subscriptions. Also, it's unlikely that the organization was unable to manage its user list and delete users on request, and it did turn out to be untrue, as the representative at iContact was kind enough to point out: "As for adding and removing contacts, the sender does have those capabilities. If an iContact customer is claiming they are unable to perform this task please let us know so we can look into the situation."

After some discussion about the lack of an Unsubscribe button, the issue was resolved by the email service provider--but never by the organization itself.

What went wrong:

• Automating without consent. It is absolutely best practices not to subscribe a user to a list without explicit consent. Even if I had attended an event once, that does not equate to consenting to being added to an email list. Likewise, every email list message must provide a clear unsubscribe option; hiding behind "Update Email Address" is no excuse or substitute. And let's face it; it's a little sleazy.
• Arguing with the customer. I'm not a believer that the customer is always right; we're wrong all the time. But arguing is fruitless, especially with regards to simple transactions that occur every day. Best to make a polite apology and remedy the situation.
• Blaming the customer. Claiming that the customer's situation is her own fault is rarely helpful, even on the occasions when it is true. (Although in this case, it wasn't.) The best customer service agents err on the side of compassion in instances in which automation has failed. What most likely happened in this case is the organization either purchased or "borrowed" a list from some event organizer I had attended during my lst trip to D.C. and automatically added all the emails from it. In any case, moving toward a solution is better than placing blame on either side.
• Not solving the issue. I'm unsure why the organization insisted it was unable to resolve the issue even after its provider confirmed that it could, but I'm reminded that in the world of automated emails, one human being taking just a few minutes to provide service is all it really takes for a user to have a good customer experience.

Automation #2: Ordering delivery (Good)

In sharp contrast to the above experience, last weekend I had a seamless experience ordering a delivery dinner via the internet.

When I found myself too exhausted after a full day at TEDx Rainier '11 to make or seek food, a friend suggested 24hour delivery. I'm sure others use this site daily, but I almost never order food to be delivered, so I wasn't sure where to start! But the site made it effortless, seamless and simple, just as every customer experience should be.

First, I did a search for restaurants that delivered at that time of night near my location. Then, I checked the ratings and selected an Indian restaurant that had good vegetarian reviews. As it turned out, clicking on the restaurant name brought up an interactive menu, on which the user can click on items to instantly add them to an immediate order. Likewise, each item has the option to include special instructions, such as "extra ketchup" or "medium spicy."

Even better, after the order is complete, there is the option to review, opt to pay in cash in person or via credit card; there is even a spot for a credit card or cash tip and for instructions on getting in to the user's residence. In short, the automation on the site considered all possibilities, absolutely everything the user might want and the driver might need to ensure a smooth transaction.

And smooth it was! A receipt was delivered via email for recordkeeping, and the site has a humor-filled page of FAQs should something go amiss. In short, every need the customer might have was already addressed, so only the most bizarre of situations would merit contacting the company.

What went right:

• Anticipated customer needs. The automation worked because every aspect of the search, order and delivery process had been designed as if it were a science.
• Gave more information, not less. Instead of making it difficult to report issues or assuming the customers would call if they were upset, the site proactively listed the most common questions in a friendly, laid-back manner, undoubtedly reducing the number of complaints both to the retaurants and to the site.
• Provided the opportunity to give positive feedback. The site allows users to rate the restaurants and create a community feel rather than a top-down situation.

Two examples of automation: one email automation that banks on users being too lazy to notice the involuntary robotic subscription to complain and one e-commerce automation that anticipates and delivers users' needs to complete a transaction.

Customer service automation isn't evil; well-designed self-service experiences can be incredibly easy, stress-free and provide a better customer experience than even an interaction with a live agent. It's in the way the organization chooses to address customer needs that makes the difference.

Kicking cancer's ass with the power of community

For those who say social media is narcissistic and pointless, I give you the power of community. In 13 days, inspired and dedicated volunteers produced Seattle #GeekRoast and raised over $50,000 to benefit Nick Magnotti's cancer treatments.

Tweet

While geeks everywhere extolled the virtues of the palindromic 11-11-11 date, a group of geeks gathered at the Marriott Redmond Town Center to raise money, hope and spirit for 25-year-old Nick Magnotti, recently diagnosed with a deadly form of cancer. Even more amazing is the fact that the event was organized 100% by volunteers over just 13 days. The result? Over 280 guests crowded into a banquet room (donated by Marriott) to support young NIck and his wife Alyssa.

Donated silent auction items and prizes were piled high on tables; donated pastries were gobbled up; and geeks laughed out loud at gentle roasts. Even surprise guests Boba Fett and a storm trooper pitched in, offering to take photos with any attendee for a donation to the cause!

Primary organizer Peter Chee told the story of the rapid-fire event's conception:

Two weeks ago I sat in the office with Alyssa and said “I have a proposal, I’m wondering if you and Nick would allow us to try and do a fundraiser for you guys. Shauna and I were on the phone last night and we thought it might be good to do something different — create an event called Seattle Geek Roast and blend it together with an fundraiser/auction”.

What happened next was amazing. This is a testimony not to the ephemeral tools of social media but to the power of the human spirit and unquenchable desire to create and support a community:

After launching the website “www.seattlegeekroast.com” in two days (kudos to Savannah Bridge for designing the Seattle Geek Roast header), we created a volunteer page that had 37 volunteer positions listed on it and in less than 2 days we had nearly 30 positions filled.

In his excellent writeup of the event, Julian Michael recaps Nick Magnotti's story:

Nick has been diagnosed with Mucinous Adenocarcimona of the Appendix, which is a rare form of cancer typically found in patients in their 60’s and older. As a result of a late diagnosis, the cancer has masked itself without showing any obvious signs (as it is known to do) and has spread throughout his abdominal cavity. This form of cancer typically masks itself from visibility because it sits inside the fluids around the abdominal cavity nearly undetectable until reaching a late-stage nature, according to Alyssa Magnotti.

“This type of cancer cannot be beaten,” said Alyssa in a positive tone of voice, “but we’re gonna beat this for as long as possible!”

Normally the term Stage IV is reserved for type of cancer that has spread into the lymphatic system or blood stream. However, in Nick’s case, Stage IV means that his cancer is not contained within one organ and that it is technically inoperable, meaning a surgeon cannot make a 100-percent promise to remove all the cancerous cells.

It sounds ominous, but the community rallied in an overwhelmingly positive and touching night to show that none of us is alone. In particular speaker My Tam Nguyen, currently in the midst of kicking cancer's ass herself, shared some touching thoughts in her talk: “It’s when we’re at the point of living and dying that we learn the true meaning of life.”

  And then the bidding began. The highest bid was for a stay in Mexico, donated by social media sweetheart and tireless not-for-profit organizer Shauna Causey.

Everyone got in the spirit, both by silent auction bidding and by buying raffle tickets to win prizes outright. And the donated prizes were no slouches.

I was profoundly moved by the generosity of the community to come out for its members and for the individuals Alyssa and Nick who were courageous enough to share their story, their fears and their fantastic cockiness so openly with the community. As Jenni Hogan blogged, "Cheers to amazing people coming together to rally for others' causes."

Excellent photo collection of the event by Blandon Bleek photography is here. If you missed the event and want to donate, you can help in one of these ways:

• Write a check to “Nick Magnotti Benevolent Fund” and mail your check to Thinkspace, c/o Nick Magnotti Fund, 8201 164th Ave NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052
• Drop off a check at a BECU Branch and note it’s for the “Nick Magnotti Benevolent Fund”.
• Go to NCF Seattle and click on “Benevolence & Ministry Funds” on the right hand side of the website and find the “Donate” button next to “Nick Magnotti Fund”.

[INFOGRAPHIC] Saturday: Texting around the world

There are 4.2 billion texters worldwide. And some of them use SMS for life-changing and life-saving essentials.

Tweet

When I found this piece, I thought I would be linking to a series of posts on SMS messaging and SMS campaigns (and I still will). But that's really my Western-centric point of view at work. The latter half of the infographic really caught my attention. Texting is being used worldwide to fight corruption, detect counterfeit medication and increase income levels in Afghanistan, Ghana and Kenya? That I did not know.

Such simple technology. Such a world of difference.

Lazy brands will hate Google+ pages

Google+ brand pages distinguish +1 from adding to a Circle. Lazy brands will hate it because it will force them work harder for real relationships and communication.

Tweet

Google+ brand pages launched yesterday, and now the finer points of their use is being revealed. One distinction I mentioned in passing might discomfit brands: when users +1 a brand, it merely expresses a mild affinity. In order for users to receive brand updates, they must add the brand page to a Circle. Instead of a passing click, users must deliberately choose to treat a brand just like a friend.

Ooooh, lazy brands are gonna hate this.

Fast Company reports:

Google+ rips the “Like” button into two devastatingly separate entities. Show up at a corporate page, and you can give it a +1. That’s simple, it’s the digital equivalent of giving a storefront a thumbs up while driving by.

To see a company’s updates, a consumer will need to actually add them to a circle, which of course beckons the question, just how intimate do I want to be to Glade air fresheners? Can I really call them a friend? They sure aren’t family. Should I make another circle for Products I Purchase Every Two to Three Months With Clever Commercials?

Call it a hunch, but I suspect we’ll see a lot of people +1’ing their favorite products, and that’s it.

And perhaps that is for the best and is actually a more realistic of brand affinity than the Like button ever was. Brands may hate the +1/add-to-Circles split, but fans will love it. Think of it this way: on Facebook, many folks who have a mild affinity to a brand will Like it, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a strong love or affection. They most likely aren't glued to the page's updates and are unlikely to engage with the brand on Facebook unless the brand is providing riveting content.

Love not like

And that's the distinction. On Facebook, there is no Love, only Like. And I don't know about you, but I Like plenty of brands that I don't love. I never look at their pages and ignore their updates.

Google+ allows the distinction between a mild affinity for a brand (+1) and the desire to actually keep in contact with the brand on a regular basis (add to Circles). Brands that are only interested in bulking up fan numbers may look at this differentiation with dismay. However, brands that are interested in truly engaging with a smaller number of influencers rather than stacking up up meaningless Likes will rise to the top and find ways to enhance communication with their real fans.

Basically, this distinction means that brands will have to work for something beyond mild affinity. They will have to produce high-value content and regular engagement in order to merit being in a user's Circles. They will have to generate the same kind of relationship that a friend does--and that will be a challenge.

Which brands are up for this? Can't wait to find out.

Google+ launches brand pages

Google+ has finally rolled out official brand pages, at least for a few select brand partners. The question on everyone's mind: are they better than Facebook?

Tweet

Social media gurus, mavens, divas, strategists, professionals and plain old practitioners scrambled to Google+ this morning upon the announcement that the service was finally allowing a limited number of partners official brand pages. The Open for Business sign is out!

The service, whom many see as a viable competitor to Facebook, launched a little over 100 days ago and now has 40 million users and 3.4 billion photos uploaded. One of the early complaints about the site, however, was the lack of ability to create a business (or "brand" page). Google has insisted that only people could create accounts, with the promise that corporate brand pages were coming, and that they would be really great. 

So... are they really great? As a company, Google tends to do limited rollouts so that users can play with the product and help crowdsource new features, and Google+ is no exception. Over the last few months, Google has added over 100 new features to the burgeoning social networking site.

And today, the Google+ brand page is born.

Vic Gundotra, Senior Vice President of Engineering, introduced pages today on the Google blog:

So far Google+ has focused on connecting people with other people. But we want to make sure you can build relationships with all the things you care about—from local businesses to global brands—so today we’re rolling out Google+ Pages worldwide.

So... are the brand pages really great and worth the wait? TechCrunch reports the following features:

• You can place people into Circles, which lets you share content with specific sets of users.
• You can launch video hangouts, which lets you have face-to-face conversations with your followers. 
• The Pages work through the site’s mobile app. 
• Pages have both a +1 button and an ‘Add to Circles’ button. The latter is what permits the Page to start sending you updates. And the +1 button? It does essentially nothing, at least as far as users are concerned.

A few partner brands have put up pages, including the Muppets (who have a Hangout scheduled at 4:30 Pacific today) and Burberry, which created a magical animated GIF (you have to imagine the snow falling. Trust me; it's pretty). If Twitter is any barometer, that one distinctive feature sets Burberry apart, even in the early adopter crowd:

Social media savvy Dell also took care both to create a page and to blog not only about the page's mission statement but also about the basic use of Google+ for those not yet converted--a bang-up idea for a brand looking to extend its outreach to users.

So far, Google+ brand pages are merely potential. Brands can share content in a remarkably Facebook-like way... and that's it. So far, brand pages are lacking some of the features that give Facebook its value for marketers: the ability to add apps and the ability promote events and host event discussion boards. With any luck, the next 100 edits to Google+ will incorporate those functions.

I'm not ready to call these a Facebook-killer yet. But I'm curious to see what companies do with them.

Infographic Saturday: 6 common beliefs busted by science

It's Infographic Saturday! This Saturday, it's a little bit of fun mythbusting. I'm a huge fan of the show Mythbusters and love discovering that elephants actually are afraid of mice and that the five-second rule was created by people who just wanted an excuse to eat food off the floor.

Today, it's a scientific infographic: 6 common beliefs busted scientifically. It turns out that men don't think about sex constantly--just once an hour. Which leaves more time to read in the dark and worry about black holes sucking up the universe.

Created by: Online PhD

Klout robots profiling minors is seriously uncool

Klout is losing its clout with some seriously uncool stuff.

As far as Klout's influence metric goes, my general philosophy is this: it's a number. It's useful for a high-level view, but it's not the be-all and end-all, and it's certainly not something to be used authoritatively for hiring decisions. And I know I'm a little late to the game here; I've been tracking the kerfuffle for the last week, and it's finally gotten under my skin.

I wrote about the backlash to Klout's algorithm change that lowered many users' scores here, and others, including my technobuddy Dan York, have pointed out another issue: not only did the change affect scores for that day, but Klout also changed users' historical scores. That's right; there's literally no record that your score was ever higher (or lower) than it is now. Anyone who gets hackles raised at historical revisions will cringe at that little nugget.

However, on a recent episode of my favorite PR and marketing podcast, For Immediate Release, I learned something else a bit squicky about Klout: the organization automatically scrapes data to create Klout scores from all Facebook profiles, whether the user ever signed up for Klout or not. Whether the user is an adult or a child. Klout is creating profiles for minors, even if they only shared content within the walled garden of Facebook. Many think Klout went too far this time:

”Everyone has Klout” says the Klout home page.  What that means is that Klout will create a profile for you, whether you’ve opted in to be measured or not.  Once they’ve created a profile for you, there is no way to opt out or deactivate your profile.  Even if you don’t want to be measured, profiled, tracked or seen as endorsing their product.

The above is from a post from a parent who discovered Klout had created a profile for her young adult son, who never signed up for the service. The article also confirms that Klout profiles have been automatically created for kids as young as 13.

Open versus walled

Automatically creating Klout profiles for people with open Twitter accounts is different; it's a public network, unless the user choses to protect his or her Tweets. And Klout was quite Twitter-centric for a while. But personal Facebook profiles are by their nature limited to the user's opt-in friends, and even the privacy-deprived Facebook won't allow Google to search personal profiles.

So why is it now okay for Klout to create profiles for minors? It's not, and this behavior must change as soon as possible. I may put my entire life out there online, but I'm a firm believer that those under 21 have the right to privacy, and Klout has violated that.

A band-aid

As of November 1, Klout now allows users to delete their accounts. Having the option to opt out, however, is not the same as having the option to opt in. It should not be the responsibility of users to track down which services have created automated public accounts without their knowledge or consent. Klout is making an effort, but an apology would be better, along with taking responsibility for deleting the accounts of minors.

The Klout kerfuffle is another chapter in the ongoing story of both social media transparency and corporate responsibility. How can organizations avoid this in the future? First, insist on opt-in protocols for all services. Second, if you make a mistake, apologize for it and correct it immediately.

Where to post your status

This graphic illustrating which social network is best for which type of posting was all over Facebook yesterday. It seems like all the social media geeks and a few non-SM-geeks got a chuckle over the logic that was all too accurate. My favorite qualifying questions:

1. Do you want anyone to see it? ("No" response leads to Google+--ouch!)
2. Is it boring? ("Yes" response leads to LinkedIn. Again, ouch!)

However, as a follow up to the Google+ owie above, Chris Abraham has written an information-packed post on why it makes sense to use Google+. Abraham reports that Google+ was rushed out early as a response to Twitter cutting off access to Google for search results. The big benefit to using Google+, he reports, is search results:

For anyone that really cares about being part of search, anyone who cares even a little bit about Google’s search hegemony, there’s another benefit to participating in Google+:  search priority, search timeliness and search relevance.

As for the LinkedIn boring rule? Sorry can't help there--LinkedIn is for the run-of-the-mill stuff in my book.