This Argophilia post by Phillip Butler starts the conversation: Who is the big bad wolf of hotel marketing?  Simply put, there isn’t just one –  OTA’s, Franchise Fees, Internet Marketing Fees, Booking Engine Fees.  This is one leaky ship.

Here is my response, but I am more interested in what all of you have to say?
—

Great read. Thank you much. =)

I always thought of the OTA’s as something that filled the gap during the off line to online distribution evolution. They were a stopgap solution. They are now becoming unnecessary, and getting in the way of commerce because they are becoming obsolete, where they used to promote some level of commerce for our industry. Distribution has changed… and their role will phase out. It won’t be in the next 5, maybe 10…. but this will all change. I adore how people revile when you suggest the guy on top won’t be there forever.  The fact is, nothing is forever, and new paradigms unfold.

Another big bad wolf, on top of franchise fees? Ridiculous internet consulting firm charges by hourly consulting model.  Buuteeq is doing some good with simple pricing plans… it makes a lot more sense, and you aren’t nickel and dimed for the internet marketing group’s mistakes or on the job training.

Lastly…. commissions to booking engines. Including the franchise fees, as well… Engines like Synexis get promoted by franchise and flag brands, which then take a cut. It’s incredible how much money is lost to an engine that simply helps facilitate online booking. Eventually, the hotels will realize the money lost can be recouped quickly by building and designing a proprietary engine of your own, off a template, for the hotel to own, outright. That can save 20K – 100K+ a year.  I imagine a management group could justify the development fees to an owner group, based solely off the last 3 years of annual or commissionable fees that the property made to the booking engine company.

Would anyone have any idea how much it would cost for development of a competent template, and simple engine with solid UI – that includes a mobile component? Is that $100k or more?  I know… you can always spend more. =)

This is something I have done in the past – talking about the history of hotel systems and amenities, and where we are today.  It’s likely horribly self indulgent, as well as terribly boring…. but coffe is such an afterthought, in so many situations, it deserves, at least, it’s own post.

We can start with my background in coffee:  I drink it. I drink quite a lot of it. I quite enjoy it.  I have a burr grinder. The burr grinder changed my coffee life.  As counter-intuitive as it is, I now understand why artisan roasters refuse to sell ground beans.  ”But the market is there for it”, my simplistic free market capitalist economy mindset cajoles my caffeine addled nerves… but self respecting roasters know their bean isn’t honored by letting it die a slow and lonely death as a tired ground in a depressing bag.

So… this is where we engage my hospitality mind, and wrestle with my pragmatic operations side, vs. my guest experience and brand equity side.

My last installment about the history of hotel minutia rambled on about hotel telephony: from PBX to modern software in place of hardware, and how it went from revenue stream to bungled system, all the way to how it exists today – a glorified in-house intercom (which marketers try to dress up with LCD screens, ad nauseum).  The story of coffee, however, might not be as interesting… especially to those tech & social fans who follow me (other than the giddy, amped ones who just placed another order for more caffeine related products from think geek).  To those fans – hopefully my rollicking, coffee fueled post will be the little bouncing ball over the karaoke lyrics.  Have fun.

I)  Thoughts from Paul Burditch, owner of an excellent Luxury Hospitality PR & Marketing company, Burditch Marketing Communications, in regards to hotels in San Francisco, and a decision *not* to allow dogs at a property:

Travelers who come from all over the world know San Francisco to be a dog paradise – it should be given certain treatment so that it is welcoming, & visibly warm & fuzzy feeling.  If dogs are not allowed, we will have a responsibility for a fair explanation of *why* we do not allow dogs, especially in light of the entire industry moving that direction.  Most San Francisco hotels allow dogs, and the national parks and Golden Gate National Recreation Area are one of the most popular places for dog walkers & dog fans in the city.  Dog owners who stay nearby will see many dogs on the trails, or at Crissy Field, and throughout the park system.  This might not only have negative PR implications, but it will be a negative impact on those that see dogs throughout the city, parks, and out our back door.  Almost all hotels in San Francisco allow dogs including the top boutique companies Joie de Vivre (ed note: kaput), Kimpton and luxury properties like Ritz Carlton, Four Seasons, St. Regis and others.  San Francisco is one of the most dog friendly cities in the country, with the parks being a perfect place for dogs and owners to enjoy. To not allow dogs is going against the bigger trend in dog policies here in San Francisco.  A no pet policy is antithetical to the prevailing opinion of most Americans and pet owners in the country today.  There are 78 million dogs in the U.S. and 39% of U.S. households own at least one dog. With the abundance of dogs throughout SF and the parks, a decision to disallow pets will have obvious negative PR implications.  At this point, it’s almost assumed that they are allowed, and “no” is never part of a good guest experience.

II)           FINANCIAL DATA:

At one unnamed property: “We’re at $24,475 in dog fees through October YTD.  It’s a one-time $75.00 fee (most fees are much less, but balanced against the full cost of dog sitter or kennel if guest were to leave them at home), regardless of length of stay.  The audit report only gives posting totals, so no way to track Room Night production.  I’d make an educated guess of 550 – 600 total Room Nights YTD.  The total doesn’t breakdown evenly when divided by $75 because we had a few in there we only charged $50 because their res was already OTB when we changed the fee and a few we charged $100 because they had more than 2 dogs. It is our opinion that these guests would have stayed elsewhere with their pets, and we would have lost the room nights.  This does not account for incremental revenues. [ed note: this is from a peer who doesn't know I am posting this. It's anonymous, but if ANYONE has ANY concern at all re: financial disclosure, I will take this down].

Incrememental revenues = selling branded or logo’d hotel merchandise to dog owners – whether homemade local treats or a rubber ball with your brand stamped on it.

III)          Articles, info, data:

a)    Tripadvisor Pet Travel report.

“In a TripAdvisor survey of more than 1,100 pet owners in the United States, nearly half said they plan to travel with their animal within the next 12 months.”

b)   Pet Friendly Travel  – via Bella Dog magazine, also talks about airline fee frustrations, and more:

The majority of pet owners surveyed (61 percent) said they travel more than 50 mi. (80 km.) with their pets at least once a year, with 38 percent of those pet owners stating that they travel as often as once a month with their pets.  Pet friendly travel still is almost exclusively for dogs, with over half of the pet owners (61 percent) saying that they choose to travel with their dogs (33 percent of pet owners travel with their cats).  (Source:  Bella Dog magazine)

c)    According to the U.S. Travel Association:  “Pets make great travel companions. Over 49 percent of U.S. adult leisure travelers consider their pet to be part of the family and 18 percent of U.S. adult leisure travelers usually take their pets with them when they travel. (Source: travelhorizons^TM, July 2009”)

d)   Forbes: pet friendly hotels were due to market forces demanding it -

Why the change of heart? Travelers with pets are a huge market, and one that is untapped at the luxury level. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Travel Industry Association of America, there are 62 million dog owners in the U.S., and 29 million of those hit the road with their dogs in tow. The latest American Express Leisure Travel survey, released in October 2003, found that 13% of its respondents described an ideal vacation as one that is “pet-friendly.”

e)    Hotels Dogs Travel (via HotelMarketing.com) -

The nation’s pet boarding industry has figured out it doesn’t take much persuasion to get pet owners, often guilty about dropping their dog or cat off at a kennel while they head off on vacation, to pay extra for pampering: In the last five years, spending on pet services including boarding and grooming has more than doubled to $2.5 billion, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association in Greenwich, Conn.

f)     Hotels renting pooches to guests without dogs via Time.com

These days, the coziest hotel trend has nothing to do with plush mattresses or comfy slippers. It’s about catering to guests who had to leave their furry, feathered or finned family members at home. This spring the Fairmont in Sonoma, Calif., added a dog to its staff, a chocolate Labrador named Zeus who is tasked with such things as welcoming guests in the lobby and going on hikes with them — or what is referred to, in corporate jargon, as “interactive guest appreciation.” (I have seen this in many JDV hotels as well. This trend started after studies showed that petting a dog or having a pet around reduces stress and increases health)

g)    Fairmont’s doggy ambassador delights guests (same as above, but more info)

h)   “Top Dog Hotels” via USA Today (same Tripadvisor rankings from above, but a little more about the hotels and amenities)

i)     Recent press release for Bernardus in Carmel Valley via SF Gate PRWire (the fact that someone does a press release is typically because the new amenity has relative strength or equity to the brand and bottom line)

j)      Kimpton’s Argonaut with their “Howl-O-Ween” dog costume contest (something that drives room nights and community around Kimpton property)

k) 15% of people are allergic to dogs (not including the 30% of asthma sufferers who are allergic), while 40% of people own dogs. With stringent cleaning methods (or just normal ones), i have yet to hear of an allergic person with a problem inside a room, let alone ever knowing whether they had been place in a room previously occupied by a dog.  For those truly allergic, they usually mention it, and it’s never an issue to accommodate all those concerned.  What’s more, hotels have been dealing with chemical sensitivity and allergies to things like down, etc, for years.  One more thing won’t be a major impact or operational issue.

l) Dogs that travel with people are typically incredibly well behaved, and often better and more quiet than children.  We also know weight limits are not necessary, because a) most large breed owners don’t travel with their pets, and b) a chihuaha can do as much, if not more, damage as a larger breed.  But if that rare bark is a concern to owners, remember  that acoustics won’t be an issue – a crying baby is louder than a dog in most acoustic tests: http://www.controlnoise.com/storage/dBSoundproofingChart.pdf

IV)         Conclusion

We have seen a lot more conversation on an internal industry level and an external marketing level because it has become so much more popular in recent years.   Opening without a pet-friendly policy, only to allow it later, would create PR issues because it is difficult to recapture initial interest after telling people that you are not dog friendly.

Observing and mulling all the above data and information, it seems pretty obvious what the right choice is for your guests, and your hotel.  Any complications, of which there are few and it’s very rare, is what needs to be discussed further.  I have a couple dog policies I can share, if you need them…. but overall, we feel strongly that a pet friendly policy should be approved for any hotel looking to drive revenues and capture new markets.

Hope this helps guide the decision making process.

Here’s an article on Room Key, the hotel brand search engine.

Upshot (summary via TNOOZ):

Choice Hotels International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Hotels, InterContinental Hotels, Marriott International and Wyndham Hotel Group have combined to establish the joint venture under the leadership of CEO John Davis, founder of the Pegasus hotel distribution and technology service.”

And here is Barb Delollis from USA Today with a Facebook post that sparked some awesome conversation.

This is my commentary from that Facebook post (which, as it happens, is by far the most interesting post I have seen on Facebook in years, and no… not because of my response).

I am excited about Room Key for many reasons…. I hope the below is succinct but helpful in understanding why this is an exciting move forward…..

It’s not a better solution, but that’s okay. It’s a flawed solution that has monopolistic traction – and this entry from Room Key is simply the start of their traction. It’s like Google Plus vs Facebook….. just because Facebook has more traction doesn’t mean it’s a better option.

It’s all new tech, and layered diversification coupled with competition in the early decades of online travel distribution means that the booking process is exhausting and varied…. one site has not, and will not, *EVER* serve *every* single on of your needs.

If you can honestly say you book solely on one site, and one site alone… more power to you, and that’s a rare thing – a branded OTA travel consumer. Travelers that use OTA’s are deal shoppers, so the idea that they would use one site and stick with that due to loyalty is odd, when it’s myopic only to consider one site with the scores of other’s available. A real travel consumer isn’t going to stick to one OTA, and that process of shopping around has become somewhat of a liability…. and an exhausting one. In the last 5 years, the only thing that OTA’s have done is to train the smart revenue managers to yield such that the best available rate is *ALWAYS* directly on the brand website…. in this, you maintain as much rate integrity and control of inventory as possible. That being said, the gestapo like extortion and bullying from OTA’s like Expedia has backfired, and savvy travel consumers are starting to be trained that the best deal is ALWAYS on the hotel website. OTA’s know this, and they are losing consumers due to it.

Room Key is a brand new product that is put together by some of the biggest players in the hotel industry ( Hilton Hotels & Resorts, Wyndham Worldwide, Choice Hotels, Marriott Hotel, InterContinental, Hyatt Hotels as well as Pegasus), and it’s a new product that is *BRILLIANTLY* devised, the UI is quite easily the best online booking product that exists, currently (although KAYAK’s mobile app is stellar). It is filling a sorely needed gap in a crowded space – a simple, concise, uncluttered way to easily find hotel rates and book without the pain of being upsold on value ads and overwhelming options. The OTA’s like Expedia or Travelocity are dinosaurs, and this new option is filling the space that travelers are clamoring for.

I understand your comments about being a consumer, and wanting the simplest option – what you are forgetting is that OTA’s had a chance to offer the simplest options for booking, but have failed in an overarching attempt to increase revenues by destroying any functionality or user experience on their sites. This is all new technology, so the best travel experience hasn’t even been developed yet. Just because one of the OTA’s has a monopoly doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for the consumer. This is the first attempt at our hotel industry to create that experience.

Room Key is coming at the right time – it mimics Google in a light user interface that is concise, simple, and clean.

The other side of this is how Google will lay waste to the uneven and disjointed online travel world -

Google Search + Google Travel + Google Flight + Google Hotel + Google Plus (in searches) = dominance & sheer terror for the existing landscape of online distribution.

WHAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaT did you say???

The power of Groupon’s success has surely been due to the happy consumers rambling on about the score they just made.  You can’t go anywhere and not see it.  The crisis of perception is that everyone is beside themselves with how “cool” coupon sites are, but only regard them from the perspective of being a consumer. Stop being selfish, and think about these poor businesses. Everyone seems to be in a mindless consumer mindset when they consider them, and especially when they sign on to participate in them; all the proselytizers are consumer advocates or discounters. I don’t know one thoughtful business person that finds them to be anything but frightening, even if deemed necessary (and in hospitality, they never are necessary). They can surely bring business into an operation with low to no overhead, huge margins, or zero variable operational costs…. but to businesses like hotels, it’s a losing proposition.  Please, check your giddiness at the door – and hope these coupon publishers are a fad, because if they are not we are in big trouble. Whether you scored a good deal on Living Social is moot, so put on your business acumen hat… and let’s explore!  This post is meant to be a simple, accessible cautionary tale to Hoteliers and the like.  I am not covering entirely new ground.  But, I rather have something for us to refer to than having to explain my dour skepticism to each person incredulous as to how I am “missing the biggest thing ever”.

In fact, I wouldn’t mind being known as that one guy that stopped the entire hospitality industry from participating in any form of online coupon site.  At least, realize the impacts.

Search “Is Groupon Killing” in Google, or simply click this link.

Do you here a ticking sound? Is that for us or for Groupon?

[Leafing through pages of Google results] Leeeet’s seeeeeee….

They are killing brands, retailing, local food, restaurants, photography, and more. Whether this is hyperbolic is beside the point… the issue is that you can see significant duress about the long term efficacy of these coupon sites.  People are talking about the drawbacks of coupon sites much more often, and deeply considering the short term gain versus long term costs.  In fact, I don’t have to wax endlessly, for once, because a gentleman and scholar from DAVIDID Blog…. nailed it succinctly.

“But if marketing is defined as increasing perceived consumer value in service of increasing sales at a profit, we need to look beyond Groupon’s short-term sales impact, and ask how it might be influencing perceived brand value.

On this matter, we have serious concerns.  Groupon, and its ilk, unfortunately is training people to expect a coupon on most anything.  And that means that unless people find a deal, they’re less likely to buy at full price, preferring to wait until the next coupon cycle.  This applies to current customers who are used to paying full price, and new customers who would now never dream of paying full price.  The result:  More and more people will be trained to only buy on deal, which, of course, diminishes the perceived value of a brand both short and long-term.”

In fact, it can be even simpler when you consider this article about Groupon becoming the online Walmart that kills small business.  ”The ratio of consumer savings vs business profit can kill small business“.  Math, of course, is known to be frustratingly honest.  This has been quite apparent with Groupon’s expansion into Europe, damaging small brands.  The New York times also comments on Groupon altering and destroying proper retailing, while other people muse about the crush of business that they can’t manage (more Groupon vs restaurants commentary here and here) - but I don’t want to stray too far from my original point:

A discount seeking non-branded consumer is not your guest.

If you ask me, it's not that uncertain, but it is surely a dead end.

If you are considering doing an online coupon, please do some research and find out if any of your competitors or professional peers have information regarding how their coupon went. In fact, the buzz and excitement is leaving us blind, so that a “successful” groupon customer might not realize all the associated costs. A restaurateur breaks down the costs in this article, “5,772 new customers — how can I not love Groupon?”, and the results are unnerving.  I do not understand how we were able to become this intoxicated with the shiny new toy, but the long term costs are even more problematic than the short term costs, which are, funny enough, also problematic.

The one thing for sure is this: someone looking for a deal will not become branded as they are already branded for the deal. Post stay, they won’t come back to the hotel, because they will be disgusted with normal rates. Groupon, Living Social, and other coupon advocates will claim that standard rates are a barrier to entry, and the coupon will allow for someone to experiment prior to committing to a brand or standard rates.  If this demographic exists, the onus is on the coupon sites to demonstrate newfound brand loyalty due to original Groupon-style sales.  That is a very meaningful measurement that equals equity for coupon sites, and would, in all likelihood, sell a hotel on a deal like these coupons. But it’s simply not likely, and I haven’t heard of these scenarios. I think it’s more selling and wishful thinking than careful logic on the part of Groupon and their clones.  But these Coupon Sites were never about the business side of things.

A consumer using any of these coupons will simply go back to the branded coupon site and buy the *next* hotel deal. Brand doesn’t matter to them, which is why they are shopping via a coupon site.  The deal is the brand. They won’t be your guests.

In fact, this article suggests a few ways that Groupon is going to kill your business, and one aspect is that you will become branded as a discounter.  Is that healthy for your year end?  How about 5 years from now as the economy strengthens? Will you get the rate back you gave up during the 2008 recession by discounting to no end?  So you don’t have to continually jump off to new links, I will repost the 4 concerns from the prior linked article:

1. You may always be fishing for customers.

2. You may be branded as a discounter.

3. You will get finicky and demanding customers who suck.

4. It conditions people that price is the only benefit.

The fourth comment is also vital.  It alters your pricing model, and suggests that your brand experience has no equity. Coupons destroy perceived value in your rooms. It immediately destroys the original value of the room to the Groupon user (would you pay 2x the rate you paid for your last stay?  No. No one will.), and it will confuse a branded guest, as well.  If a guest is branded and paying rack rate, then a coupon either means i) they are angry that their brand would distill their hotel stay by allowing a specific demographic water down the experience (in a way, it’s subsidizing rates so that rack rate guests pay more for a lesser experience… please explain how that might be fair?), or, possibly worse – ii) the branded guest who would have booked at full rate is, literally, given free money by the hotel.  I have friends who were planning a reunion at a specific property who found a coupon for the hotel they planned to book.  That’s 2 for 1 that was going to pay rack rate.  Smart business?

In summation – Coupon Sites like Groupon, Living Social, and the others impact your business by:

a) attracting non branded deal seekers who don’t know you, that won’t be back at full rate, which then may re-establish your brand as a budget, discount brand.

and / or

b) handing out your profits to branded people that would have paid rack rate who stumbled upon the deal.

On the right path.

Pro coupon site people ruffle at these comments, but I haven’t seen any meaningful metric from Groupon or clone sites that suggest a decent percentage of guests become branded, loyal fans. In fact, what I *have* seen are relaxing, healing spas with cooler toting cheapskates, or deal seekers causing endless headaches and complexity for well positioned, established brands. Your rack rate paying guests don’t take half the energy than these critical, troublesome deal seekers. A generalization perhaps, but often seen in practice.  Just ask the desk or prop level ops people how they feel about it.

Yes there are plenty of wonderful coupon site users – I can be one of them at times.  In fact, the only way I use these sites now is to wait for a deal of a brand I already patronize.  I am simply waiting for a business to give me free money.  That’s nothing but damaging to a brand.

I leave you with these cautionary words:

It’s not a good investment. For some businesses, it may work short term, but it can also hurt long term.  For hotels, it simply doesn’t make any sense.  I hope it’s a fad, but stay far away – because if the coupon craze is here to stay, it’s going to redefine the economy of your business.

Lot of sleepless nights ahead for Groupon

Thanks for reading, now go tell your GM or DOSM.  Do it now!  If you still don’t get it… good luck out there.

A ghostly voice:

Consumer privacy issues are a “red herring.” — “‘You have zero privacy anyway,’ Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company’s new Jini technology. Get over it.’”

That was in 1999.

Subsquently…. resultingly….. These privacy conversations kill me. If one wishes for privacy, one shouldn’t leave the house, nor ever go online.

It is completely within the best interests of a hotel to protect a guest’s privacy… we go to significant lengths to do so. To suggest otherwise is misinformed and ignorant.  It is the hallmark of our success, among other things.

This issue isn’t about a hotel’s sensitivity to privacy. The issue is our current preoccupation with the concept of privacy. No one has any idea what “privacy” means. We have relative freedom, and our lives are relatively unobstructed and we are able to do as we please. But leaving the house – you are subjected to the largest shift in communication history, coupled with modern technological achievements that have, together, completely negated the concept of privacy. It doesn’t exist anymore. In fact… younger generations shed it as a by-product of the lifestyle they seek… a reminder that, shortly, it simply isn’t going to be an issue for people that will be controlling the world soon. How can we really expect any privacy, anyway?

It’s a fun conversation about a word few people really understand…. but whether or not we need to be sensitive (hotels, in fact, are sensitive) is moot. The point is that privacy is ending, and to some extent we are willfully giving it up as a biproduct of being able to access these amazing tools of the internet age.

Think about apps…. how much did you think about all the permissions you granted those people to access your app for free? Sorry to say, that app isn’t free:  you are releasing your privacy as payment. It’s happening at an increasing rate, and it’s soon going to be an arcane conversation for future pondering. It really makes me laugh that these people are on Facebook, posting constant information, and worried about privacy. They worry some professional acquaintance will see something off color, when they have completely given their entire lives worth of information to facebook…. talk about a crisis of perception.

Hello Nero, your fiddle is lovely. I think it’s a lyre, but history is vague. Also, Rome is burning.

Facebook isn’t free. Privacy doesn’t exist there… there’s equity in your information. Why else would it be valued at 50B? So we give up privacy constantly. In exchange for ESP like connection to friends and supercomputer like access to facts and answers…. I give up much, happily.

When the concept of privacy was far more quaint.

But if I can go to a website and spend $30 and know someone’s address, info, etc… I just can’t imagine anyone really taking privacy seriously. Mcnealy was right in 1999. It’s the nature of our culture cannibalizing itself. It’s not a hotel that people have to worry about.

It’s not big brother. It’s us. We are what we fear. Big Brother is every single one of us with a camera and being in the right place at the right time. What reasonable expectation of privacy would one have when everyone is connected to a camera that immediately uploads online? Our police cameras can’t compete with the aggregate real world social net that is taking down people, and corporations, and governments and nations.

Hotels, arguably, are among the most sensitive organizations in the world when it comes to respecting all levels of it’s guest’s / patron’s privacy. It’s not our responsibility, however, to be blamed for the growing pains involved with the greatest shift in human communication’s history.  Unfortunately, until we resolve these issues…. everyone will grimly fantasize about being important enough to be stalked. It’s not that I am that cynical, it’s just that I know we may not be *that* interesting.

It's not big brother, it's us - the sea of anonymous watchers.

Until we realize this, we impede the advancement of a more ethical, and humane, human population.  I am sorry your petty, arrogant privacies feel threatened.  I already mentioned, unfortunately, that in the grand scheme of things… none of us really matter. In light of that, let’s celebrate our connections and stop babbling about meaningless issues of ego.  Let’s advance….  see you there.  Until then, you are stuck arguing about lost concepts from vestiges past.  Evolve.

Currently, the best way to do this is to team up with a leader in news, events, and analysis in our industry - EyeforTravel.  In preparation of their 12^th annual North American Travel Summit in October, I plan to interview a handful of their speakers.  It promises to gear up our understanding of what to expect from the conference, as well as engage the panelists on a deeper level. I am sure you will find these industry leaders to have profound ideas and impacting conversation on your professional life.

The one topic that is certainly on everyone’s mind right now is how to effectively run a social media campaign in the travel & hospitality segment. Figuring out the best person to interview, in this case, came naturally.  The obvious choice was to reach out to Shana Pereira, the Regional Director-Americas for Tourism Queensland.  Tourism Queensland and Shana are responsible for the “Best Job in the World” campaign.  For those that don’t know about it (specifically all 7 of you), the “Best Job in the World” was meant to find a caretaker to live on an island in the Great Barrier Reef, get paid $110,000 to do so, and the only stipulation was the need to write a weekly blog (which you can find here, a site I suggest you visit only if you are prepared to be depressed about being at your desk). The campaign was a smash hit, runaway success, and Shana has some insightful, amazing things to say about it: what they learned, how it changed them, and some ways you can apply these same principles to work for you.  If you want to learn more about what Tourism Queensland does in social media, you might appreciate the enthusiastic interaction on their Facebook or Twitter pages.  If you can’t jump off the article (and frankly why would you), I will include some photos here to give you an idea of where we are talking about.

An Interview with Queensland Tourism’s Shana Pereira

Thank you for taking the time to chat with me today! If you don’t mind giving my readers a chance to know a little bit more about you and your background, I would appreciate it.

“Previous to my Tourism Queensland life, I worked with a wholesale travel company called Stella Travel Services.  Prior to that for the Northern Territory Tourism Commission here in the US, as well. So my experience comes from marketing icons, like Ayers Rock, but also with a commercial aspect – marketing with the specific goal of conversion.  My career here in the US started in 2003, and so social media, whilst it was in existence, wasn’t primarily used for a commercial company to spread it’s word.  So my background was really focused on marketing but with the purpose of driving sales, vs brand marketing or PR marketing.  I was very much focused on tactical conversion.”

And it sounds like you hit the ground running when you started with the “Best Job in the World”Campaign?

“I started with Tourism Queensland in 2007, and early 2008 was the planning for the ‘Best Job in the World’. My experience was not social media marketing or PR campaigns. I didn’t have any experience in that world at all; not in the sense of conversion.  I knew how to use it, but did we use it as a business?… not really.  So it was very interesting the adaptation that I personally had to go through to be able to be ready to launch something like the “Best Job in the World”, which was “ginormous” and had major parts where I didn’t have much experience. [laughs]  It was very overwhelming, and very, very humbling.”

“The biggest key to that campaign is that the consumers are king.  It reiterated that even more than we ever thought; a brand is not something that you launch, it’s your reputation. People already know your brand whether you are owning it or not [laughs]. It’s not something that you create… and social media heightens that whole experience. So for us, focusing on the Great Barrier Reef, and letting consumers know about islands throughout it was really important. There are so many questions about the Great Barrier Reef, and the campaign was engineered to answer those and help the consumer work through the process of being interested, but not knowing how to experience it.”

In this, Shana & Tourism Queensland could reach out to their niche audience that already existed, but couldn’t find the right access to the Reef.  Queensland Tourism understood that you aren’t trying to convince people that aren’t interested in the barrier reef so much as connecting with and reaching out to people that already are aware of, and identify with, it.

“That was our biggest lesson, I think.  That’s what we went into it with… there are billions of consumers out there that could be our target market globally, but only a couple of million that visit the Great Barrier Reef in any given year.  The operators that we have that support touring the Great Barrier Reef – many are eco friendly and conscious of environment.  So there is a very minimal impact on the reef itself.  So we had a model there that was in place to attract tourists, but protect the environment.  So having that infrastructure behind us, I think we were ready to enter this world of marketing with significant cut through, and it helped us spread the word as fast as possible. In social media, that is the key: You can’t shove a message down the throat of the masses who don’t want to know about it; it has to be something they are already interested in. The surprise at the end is your target community can be huge, but still very targeted to a specific interest that is a common thread amongst the consumers.”

“Finding commonality is vital… When you are able to find that, your community will organically grow itself around that message.  The key is in turning niche products into volume without losing the niche; if that is your specific target market, it will always be “niche”, however you have an opportunity to find more people by grabbing the advocates FIRST… who then propel the brand beyond our reach.”

“In regards to the Best Job in the World, the question was ‘Why is this the best job in the world?’.  It is because it is on the wonder of the world: 1,200 miles of Reef and 1000′s of fish, turtles, etc.  It became an incredibly successful campaign because it coupled people who were interested in Jobs, as well as travel in general; then layering that with this natural wonder of the world… it hit our community so positively.  It brought a new attention from job seekers and travelers.  Connecting with an existing niche community helped propel it into a successful campaign.“

What was the underlying strategy for the “Best Job in the World Campaign”?

“The process start to finish had three different angles or strategies. The concept was built underneath how we would distribute the message, target the traditional demographic for visitors, and how we would convert the people in amongst the PR buzz to actually book a trip.”

What ends up being the long term measurement of success of “Best Job in the World”?

“Our creative agency at the time developed the concept, but there were a myriad of elements we needed to talk through: how to launch in multiple countries, how do you control the messaging, the translation?  How do we stay focused in converting this into actual travel numbers, and people buying a trip.  Of course we wanted people to apply for the job, but our major focus and goal was to get more attention and have more people have this experience at the Great Barrier Reef. When we launched we knew it would be more of a PR effort vs. paid media campaign, but from first day we had no idea what was going to happen, to be honest. We can easily say, from day before launch to day after, we were completely different people overnight, personally and professionally.  We had to move quite quickly and nimbly… some goals set for 12 months out happened in 36 hours. [Editor gasps].  Yes!  Goals in regards to visits to website, applications accepted, etc.  Then we asked, ‘what do we do know?’ [laughs].  We went through a phase of 3,000 clicks a minute in first couple days of launch.”

“The long term return on investment was measured by visiting numbers to Queensland from international markets, and visitors spent. That is the best measurement year over year.  It obviously isn’t about giving away one job, but rather letting the eyes of the world focus on us, in middle of their winter, letting everyone know “YOU COULD LITERALLY BE HERE”. It wasn’t about being someone ‘special’ – it was literally that anyone could be there. The job could be had by anybody *and* you didn’t have to wait for the dream job, but could immediately book and have this experience on vacation.”

(In fact, The Best Job turned out to be a real job after all.  A wonderful, brilliant job… but in the 6 months, Ben Southall, the winner, did 200 interviews. Ouch & Wow. I personally rather go on holiday.)

How has the campaign altered and existed over time, and how has it effected your traditional marketing?

“The launch of the ‘best job’ was a PR message that went global, that ran alongside the normal tactical campaigns.  What we saw was that modern social media impacted traditional marketing in positive ways.  Organic interest grew in traditional print media, etc. Each of our tactical campaigns were heightened.  Because of social media, people had heard and seen Queensland in the first 6 month period, and interest organically grew, and we instantly saw results in parity with that marketing.  We also leveraged the “Best” tagline in markets around the world, because people had heard of it:  ‘Best honeymoon, best diving’, etc. Lastly… it grew our social media immensely.  When you Google ‘Best Job In The World’, you will see applicants and others still talk about it. Now we have another channel we can market to regularly.”

The fervor of traditional media “falling” seems premature.  Social Media isn’t going to replace traditional marketing, in fact, this campaign proves they work together incredibly well.

“The way we launched the “Best Job” campaign in the U.S. was through a Reuters news article.  We launched a social media campaign through traditional media, so it’s very, very integrated. You definitely have to be integrated into both of the worlds. How we use social media is basically a new distribution channel. We also work with traditional media who uses social media to research topical and relevant news… In every campaign we look at PR, trade engagements, such as travel agents, airline partners, wholesalers, and social media.  So, yes, it’s literally another distribution channel.”

“I wasn’t aware of activating PR or social media, and I was handed this new campaign, where they said ‘Have a think about it.’ [laughs].  So we are really proud of how it rolled out.  It grew organically after the launch, but was VERY strategic over time – there were 4 phases of media engagement.  In the end, the social media buzz gained enough momentum to have Oprah interview the ‘Best Job’ winner, Ben.  So again, it’s reciprocal and integrated tightly.  In fact, whenever the Oprah episode runs, we measure it to be about $500K in PR value each time – with new people engaged each time, as well.”

So why did the campaign work so well?

“It worked because it’s genuine… it’s real. It isn’t about creating need with a forced message, but connecting with people that have a need, and connection, for your brand.  ‘This is truly a place that is unlike anywhere else in the world’ – a specific message that everyone can relate to.  Everyone has a job, needs a job, and even if they are in a job they are open to learning about new ones.  You sell a dream, sell a connection, sell a relatable experience.  When you can find what’s relatable – ‘what is that void in people’s lives? What is the one thing this product fills in an emotional sense?’ – it takes off.  What’s more is that you are visible to the world – you are open, listening, anyone can contact you.  That is scary, and changes your professional culture. It’s not a process that people are ready to jump into. But I guarantee whatever industry, hotels and airlines to washing machines, if they represent a genuine emotional fulfillment to a person, they will stand out. It doesn’t need to be large companies, anyone can do it. Even though we are 2 years into the ‘Best Job in the World’, I still get goosebumps talking about it because it’s a true statement, and something I am incredibly emotionally connected to. It was really because of the reiteration from millions of consumers saying ‘I WANT THIS’, and ‘YOUR PRODUCT IS UNLIKE ANYTHING IN THE WORLD’. It can be achieved on all different levels, and you don’t need millions of dollars.  The overall cost of the 12-month campaign was 2.1 million Australian dollars, and we reached every corner of the world.  If you get people talking about your product on your behalf, it organically grows.  Success isn’t a numbers game, but real consumer interaction.  We are all on limited resources in this day and age, and you really want to service people that want to hear from you.”

“The timing of the campaign was also important; it was selling a dream. I was literally in an interview where Hillary Clinton was talking about jobs on the decline, and then I go on talking about not only a job, but a dream job.  The reason it got so much coverage is that it was a great opportunity that gave some hope; an affordable, do-able, life experience you shouldn’t have to put aside just because of this global crisis.  Our whole industry was at a standstill, and everyone quickly became aware of us because of these connections, and we were reaching out to these specific and targeted audiences, which happen to be large and vocal.”

Since you have social media figured out…. What’s next?

“So I am all for it now.  I am a renewed person, and love social media networks, but we do use them in a calculated manner.  You need to make sure not to misuse the social media databases…. if you start overly marketing to your consumers, or sending wrong messages, you will lose the interest of the group. You need to treat these databases as human beings that want legitimate connections. If I have opted in to hear about a Ford Focus, I don’t want Ford sending me information about SUV’s, etc.  You will immediately lose my attention in that case.  You need to treat these connections with respect, as humans.”

“For Tourism Queensland, we are now always working on campaigns like this. As with the ‘Best Job’ campaign, it takes a number of months to get a campaign going.  Ben has been touring and talking about his experience, to this day.  The Best Job campaign was never defined as a “campaign”, so much as a message that would run the normal course of its natural organic life. We have also created ambassadors in specific countries who love Queensland.  They are passionate consumers that are thrilled to be given the opportunity to represent and share about Queensland. People want to hear from real people, a peer, or fellow traveler; a genuine, unbiased opinion. I am not too sure the travelers want to hear from me [laughs].  In fact, by the time they get to your site, they have decided.  You can only be there to support the process and reach out to them.  So we will continue to support the organic growth of the message as long as it is ‘alive’.”

What is your goal for this conference?

“Whenever we do these sort of talks, my goal is to have 2 or 3 things that everyone in the room can walk away with; I like to leave the group with at least a couple implementation strategies that we can apply, that don’t cost too much, and that they can actually see some kind of result from.  Too often you sit through these talks and you get to the end and you go ‘That sounded great, but does it apply to me? How do I apply it to me?’.  We want people to understand some of the things we learned through our process, so they don’t have the same learning curve.  Something we learned, especially for hotel properties:  it’s about the experience of your hotel, and how you verbalize that experience.  For example, we have learned it’s VERY difficult to have a large fanbase for a particular brand, unless you have huge dollars.  But how do you relate the story of your hotel, so that people know the underlying experience?”

“You need to layer this message so that it connects with that audience.  Finding a way to relate that message to our everyday lives and instantly put us somewhere else is important; to relate to a customer’s day to day, and find out how it fills a need for that person. We travel & marketing professionals are all very busy, and want to make best use of each other’s time.  The more we can help others, it organically happens that we help ourselves.  This conference is part of that.”

Thank you for your time.  It’s exciting that Eye for Travel has been able to level the playing field by connecting so many intelligent, learned professionals that are sort of starry eyed saying “We don’t get it, it’s amazing, let’s converse and help one another learn from each other”.

“Yes, and it’s a moving learning.  I don’t think we will ever totally get it.  I think we just have to support the process, because it’s just so fluid.  I don’t think it’s something that we’re supposed to wrap our heads around as a marketing professional. It’s more about looking at it from a consumer point of view and what would you want to hear, and what would you click on.  It’s very, very interesting.”

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! =) There is so much more for you and your organization to learn about.  ”The Best Job in the World” has a “BEST EVER CASE STUDY” – a complete and all-encompassing documentation of the entire process, start to finish.  It includes a Video Case Study as well.  The amount of data, results, and solid ROI info you can garner from that site is, to say the least, impressive, and I encourage you to spend time learning from their experiences.

Shana Pereira from Queensland Tourism will be speaking at the Eye For Travel North American Travel Distribution Summit in Chicago, the 13^th & 14^th of October, 2010.  You can look at the agenda here, and a list of all the speakers here.  It includes 4 separate focuses within one conference:  Online Sales & Distribution, Revenue Management, Mobile Travel & Tech, and Social Media Strategies. Register here, or contact rosie@eyefortravel.com for more information.

I don’t always have stuff hit me, but it hit me today.

So I hadn’t figured out why Tripadvisor’s Restaurant Reviews had recently, so vigorously, taken off.  For those of us in hospitality who are aware of our brands online, it was hard to miss.  It is vital to stay on top of all conversation, reviews, and mentions, and whether through Google Alerts, or a random internet search… you noticed restaurants began to get reviews on Tripadvisor. It’s not really a surprise, and it is a completely natural direction for a travel site like TA.  But, where there wasn’t even an option to review or add restaurants until a couple months ago, the frequency of seeing reviews pop up is gaining momentum. MASSIVE momentum… and it seemed like it had to be larger than the Tripadvisor user base. I really noticed when some of our restaurants were ending up with as many, if not more, reviews than Yelp. I hadn’t been able to figure it out, but when I just added one of our newly opened restaurants to the Tripadvisor database, it used *FACEBOOK CONNECT* to populate the information about the restaurant, meaning the database lives both in Tripadvisor, where people can review it natively from that site, as well as inside Facebook as an application called “Tripadvisor Local Picks”.

Uh oh Yelp.

Yelpers can be attention seekers, but the platform of Facebook is the mecca of ME ME ME. If there is one thing a Facebooker is going to enjoy doing, it’s share their opinion – *ESPECIALLY* to their real live network of people who may be affected (or forewarned) by a review. It is obviously a natural part of networking, community, and connecting.  Oh.. it also vests itself in ego, and the desire to establish equity in social status. Go figure… but it never hurt, that while recommending a nice romantic restaurant to a friend, an ex fling sees your exciting life.  I am certainly not claiming this to be me, but the fact that studies have been done on detecting narcissism through facebook profiles, it’s certainly something that exists.  Here is another article that goes a bit deeper into social media and ego.

This means that, alongside the Tripadvisor user base populating restaurant reviews, we now have unwitting Facebook users contributing content to that database. You have a 400 million person population casually being redirected to Tripadvisor to help add content.  But this content generation is happening *from within Facebook*. This app makes it so that FB users are not leaving the site.  This reinforces the travel industry understanding that we can no longer create community when competing with communities like Facebook.  If Tripadvisor is learning this, and allowing off-site content generation, what do you think of your small community?  You need to congregate where people already exist, and reach out to them where they are online, not where you wish them to be (cue $100,000 website laden with bulky flash and slow load times).

In the meantime, you may have noticed Facebook searches being populated with hotel listings, and other brand names in wider internet searches. If a 400 million user population gets used to searching brand names and businesses for reviews, and information… that is the beginning of some powerful commerce. What’s more, Yelp could quickly become irrelevant under the crushing weight of Facebook’s population eager to add content for Tripadvisor, whether they know what they are doing or not.  It has been suggested that Facebook users don’t always know what they are doing (warning: hilarity ensues. Yes I know I have posted that a couple times.  It is too funny).

The way these two are dancing, I could see a marriage in the future. I think they want to date for a bit, but they might become a bit more popular than some of the other options out there. I am not saying Facebook could acquire Tripadvisor, but I am wondering what Google is going to do now that Yelp is off the table, or if that is something that might be revisited? Facebook and Tripadvisor paired could become a brutal force against Google’s plans, not to mention OTA’s like Expedia.  As for Yelp… they might not even see it coming.  Opentable reviews have already legitimized the review process in a way that Yelp has not been capable of.  Reviewing for friends, family, and network in a Facebook model creates more legitimacy still.

As always, I might be missing something. I know FB Connect works with Yelp in some ways, but I don’t think you can generate content from within a Facebook app?  There is so much to consider, I might be off.  But it’s always fun to watch this stuff develop. As always I promise to keep you posted. =)

http://millvalley.patch.com/

It is a REALLY interesting new content distribution model for community / municipal news… sort of like the old neighborhood rag (of which many still exist in paper form, like the Sunset Beacon in the Inner Sunset of San Francisco, etc).  It will obviously include some incredibly relevant local advertising, specials & deals, etc with topical, specific content about that city (and it’s surroundings) in Marin.

It’s a great idea, and I am surprised it has been more popular yet… but AOL is doing this ALL over, and I bet it’s one news model that actually works. It will be like a small town bulletin board of relevant info.  Instead of the dying model of distributing massive amounts of national content into a boiler plate layout that is then branded for smaller cities (IE national news written on a non community level that is then branded into specific markets), this will be producing content that is markedly relevant and vital to the community the site publishes too.  It will finally create a relevant content distribution model that will quench the locals needs, while still allowing them to consumer national and international news from their existing pillars, which are still fighting confusedly about why they are crumbling.

Just like the telegraph didn’t kill the newspaper, and just like the radio didn’t kill the TV, or social media won’t kill traditional marketing….. this model finally understands that two models can co-exist side by side.  In this case, the models that are still struggling won’t impact this new approach in any way, and it is likely that we will see more of these grass roots approaches to impacting, relevant news to a geographic area.

Well done AOL. Can you believe you are ahead of the curve? Cheers and good luck.

And if the upshot of all this means I can find the police blotter quicker, easier, and more consistently for a quick chuckle every couple days… solid.

I like hypercommunal news a lot. Hyper-locality, hyper-relevancy, well I am just hyper.

There is a big discussion going on about the equity of attention in social media, and that curating attention is more important than posting information.  Curation is a fine line, and studies have shown that curation works better through less posting of more pertinent info, than more posting of one-off links, stories, etc.  Social Media is becoming quite good at capturing attention (think contests, PR stunts, promos, or other gimmicks), but maintenance of these relationships is becoming more important, difficult, and confounding.  If you look at Groupon, Homerun, and other coupon services (like San Francisco’s SF Gate deals that just started) – it isn’t hard to build a network so much as keeping that network interacting, which is the real challenge.  These coupon services are ideal examples: People will sign up for a specific offer (relevant to their interests), then react like the rest of the email offers (which they opted-in to) are part of their “daily spam regimen” (delete, delete, delete).

It is important to step out of your world as the business using social media to reach guests, and think how users of social media would like to be reached.

So… Facebook Pages, over-posting, and hiding streams.

We need to address this issue about how people use Facebook, versus how businesses wish people would use Facebook.  There is a fast growing problem that fledgling social media enthusiasts & page administrators are not aware of; although, they are encountering it daily in their happy-go-lucky power posting of relevant information for their hotels.

There are less eyes on your Facebook page than you realize, and you are losing more all the time.

It is a universal gripe…. even though no one truly enjoys Facebook, we need to be there as a business simply because that’s where potential guests are located, and that’s where we can perk up our ears to listen for mentions about our brand, and grow when we encounter advice or commentary.  Firm ROI is secondary to our experimental presences on Facebook profiles and pages.  Some are, in fact, successful in driving incremental revenue to outlets, some achieve positive brand building, some act as help-all concierges, some operate as ombudsmen, and still others have zero idea what they are doing or why they are there.  But businesses know they need to be available to their potential clients, even without a mitigated plan.  I think this is where a slight disconnect occurs for the business (and I have a whole post about this coming up):  People think it is about the business using social media (YAY! We’re HERE!), but it’s more about the availability of the business for the consumer.  More precisely, it’s about being available, but not being intrusive.  The way some people post on their Facebook Hotel Page, it’s tantamount to pounding on your guest’s door all hours of the day with little bits of information.  It’s overwhelming, and it is off-putting.

There is one simple fact, and it’s that the way you want consumers to use Facebook is *not* the way that Facebook users are using it. Yet.

We all know that Facebook is buggy, and for some businesses and neophytes, figuring out all of the settings and controls must be like wading through syrup.  For business’ savvy enough to realize you need to reach your audience where that audience chooses to congregate (chat rooms, groups, Twitter, etc), it isn’t made any easier by Facebook, and their lack of interactivity or ability to create real commerce with people.  Connections happen, and they are wonderful to see develop, but people are still reticent to have any real interaction with “business-as-commerce” versus “business-as-brand”, which is obvious in Facebook’s positioning with the ease of “liking”.   The throwaway simplicity of “liking” a brand at this point is meant to identify user profiles for targeted ad marketing, and not to promote any real deep interaction with the brand page itself.  Meaning, people are quite ready to “wear” a Facebook page brand as they would Gucci sunglasses or Prada bag, but they are not ready to transact with the brands themselves.  A lot of feedback from Facebook users is that business page posts still have the “feel” of being “spammy”.  With that in mind, we are already fighting an uphill battle in seeking out ways to connect with Facebook users that are fans of our specific brands.  This becomes precarious, however, because many businesses over-post pics and info in an eager and noble attempt to share their services/products.  This can actually drive people away.

Of course, the logical way a social network would remedy this is to have the brand advocate user “unfriend” or “defan” a page.  That way, a business page could use data exhaust and user actions to help learn in real time about what they do well, or what they might be doing wrong.  This works quite well on Twitter, and their are even Apps built on the API that allow users to find out precisely what they did that lost, or gained, followers.

But leave it to Facebook, a company obviously more concerned with user-experience less than the monetary value of those previous “likes”, to create the ability to “hide streams”.  It isn’t Facebook’s concern that a page isn’t curating attention, so much that the user enjoys a brand.  To Facebook, liking the brand is more important than telling the brand they are interacting poorly.  Once a Facebook user has chosen to “LIKE” a page, they will do almost anything to maintain that superficial connection for ad-model demographic targeting reasons.

Leave it to Facebook’s closed, corrupted environment to allow disingenuous networks; instead of Facebook creating meaningful networks of truly interactive partners, they have allowed users to hide streams, so you can be part of a network without really interacting with it. For those that are completely unaware, the option exists within Facebook to “hide” a stream, be it a page, an app, or person.  This is wonderful if you are sick of Foursquare check ins or Mafia Wars updates from friends, but it violates a vital aspect of social media’s earnest and transparent attempt at communication, and interactivity.  When a “stream” becomes overactive (constant updates, possibly via RSS or blog feed), or hyperactive (admin posting multiple links rapid fire, attempting to batch process relevant content for the hotel)…. users are hiding your stream.

This is a problem – not just for businesses, but for Facebook, as well.  Facebook is creating vast, HUGE false networks, or at least connections without interaction.  I don’t mean to be glib – but doesn’t it strike you as worrisome that a vast community of people isn’t really that much of a community at all?  I know it’s a vague concept, but how much trust will you stake in a network based off of false pretenses? The network that is supposed to connect everyone in the world is doing more to create a completely “tromp l’oeil” experience in regards to social media – it looks more like a network than it really is.  In the simplest terms, this is going to come back to bite Facebook big time, and they will have to make some decisions about hidden streams in the future.

The entire aspect of being able to be friends with people, or like a page, with the ability to “hide” their stream is disastrous on the effect of real networking, communication, and building potential commerce from within Facebook.  When your stream is hidden, you have no idea that it has happened.  When a Facebook user hides your posts, they still  “like” your brand, and are associated with it….. *WITHOUT EVER SEEING YOUR CONTENT*.  You disappear from their eyes, and you now have “phantom fans” who don’t interact with you.  Of course, Facebook made “liking” something inordinately easy to do, a couple months ago.  But in accomplishing their social graph concept, it further dismantles meaningful communication and interaction in lieu of passive, meaningless brand identity meant for ad-marketing, with zero regard to relevant idea exchange.

So, when users “hide” the stream, they still look like fans, but they don’t receive your posts anymore. Facebook, or the fan, doesn’t alert you, nor are you informed in any way.  The business, as a result,  has no idea they have been “hidden”, while the Page’s fan count will remain constant.  It’s been happening for a lot of business pages, and it’s becoming a problem for people that don’t understand the interaction people expect from a business, versus the interaction a business wants (wishes) to have with their clients.  If a business can’t learn from their mistakes, how will this experience improve for the people involved? If a user can haphazardly “like” at the same time as “hiding” those people or pages, is that really a relevant connection?

Your hotel may have 1000 fans, but what if 100 have hidden you? There has been so little conversation en masse about this “hiding” phenomenon, that I can’t accurately gauge what percentage of “like”-fans end up hiding pages, but in every day conversation about Facebook, in an extensive group of acquaintances, it seems to be a very common, and very popular, activity.  That’s scary.  If it’s a commonly known function in Facebook, you could have 30-70% of your audience not listening anymore.  That’s really scary.

Frankly I find it markedly cynical, and disingenuous.  If I had any clout, I would ask Facebook to stop it right now, and not because I don’t like being able to hide things in my own stream.  I love not seeing any of those apps populating wall, but it does make my decisions to “follow” and “like” pages less meaningful, and less legitimate.  If I couldn’t hide a feed, would I really fan a page, if I knew I were meant to legitimately interact and communicate with that brand?  Would the brands be intelligent enough to know how to court users, or captivate them enough so as not to drive them away?

I have had some success with how I manage interaction on Facebook… I post a link occasionally, but save most of the meat for a blog post which includes events, commentary, relevant google alert posts, comments, info – and then let that blog post feed into Facebook.  It is a whole bunch of posts / links in one single post.  That way people can access and interact with it if they want, at their leisure.  Instead of the links coming across their wall as one post at a time, they all sit in one place for the guest’s convenience.  One post with 20 links seems to be received much more favorably than 20 links posted once at a time.  Remember, this isn’t about you or your business force marketing or pushing your brand onto Facebook users; this is a place for you to be available to potential guests. Don’t get carried away.

If you overpost, you risk becoming irrelevant without having any knowledge or metric from Facebook to see how you are doing, or what you can do to curate the attention necessary to strike a balance.  Attention, in this new “economy”, is equity.  And curating the attention is now your sole job.  That’s interesting – because in our rush to curate attention, a lot of us forgot to ask how, precisely, to do that.  In an eager rush to share exciting news about your hotel, you may be losing eyes without having any say in the matter.  The only real option is to patiently fence sit, and be a skeptic.

My thought is to be patient, and ride out this precarious situation.  For the time being, Facebook users are hesitant to interact with businesses; when it becomes more acceptable, *then* get more interactive with your fans regarding products, selling, etc.  For now, we want to curate, and maintain, this attention.  The best way to do it is by being calculating, and to some extent… quiet.  At least make sure your formula = less posts + better content.

I, unfortunately, don’t have any answers.  It’s simply something that has been on my mind, and it’s not a conversation people are having on the implementation level of social media.  There are the tech bloggers yammering about equity, curation, & attention, but businesses have a way to go before they understand this aspect of Facebook.

This may change…. FB may cement itself and people will eventually get used to it as a vast & interactive portal, or it could fall apart under poor management and lack of acumen in development of the business pages side of the site.  Most Facebook users are still stuck in the concept of a private dialogue between close friends, where Twitter has evolved into a more interactive real world community.  It is sorely obvious that Pages…. are…. yet…. another…. slapped together…. on top of old architecture…. idea…. which Facebook threw together because they were worried about losing brands to Twitter’s opt-in propensity for real commerce.  Pages weren’t thought out in any real detail, and as these problems begin to mount, FB will need to make some serious choices about how to fix their site.

Until then….

This specific issue is why I organize most of our relevant links into a blog that lists all the information, pics, stories, etc.  Other than that, I reply to people’s comments and responses on the page. I post natively whenever possible, for reasons which I will address in a subsequent blog post.

In the end, this is less about Facebook, and more about you and your business page.  We are a captive audience to Facebook’s shortcomings, and it is a necessary evil for the time being.  In thinking about how you use Facebook Pages for business, you may want to consider the above; especially if you are one of the Pages that continues with a rapid-fire, staccato-like posting of brand mentions, deals, articles, press releases, etc….

It’s time to rethink your eagerness versus effectiveness on Facebook Pages.  Of course, as I write this… all I can do is wonder about Facebook’s effectiveness, overall.