Depending on how this one goes, I think this is my second to last or last post *ever* haranguing on, or thinking this deeply about, Facebook.  Blue in the Face makes one look crazy, especially if no one is listening… and beyond the simple fact that I may be wrong, and happily eat humble crow as I become more aware….. I do see some meaningful interaction on Facebook.  It takes some time, and for me it took *opening* my network.  This concept of a “closed” network seems bizarre to me, and it limited real, meaningful interaction, the likes of which I remember from IRC or topical boards.

You have seen me talk about this in regards to Hospitality Brand’s respective Facebook Pages, and the lack of real interaction… even when they are done well. When it comes down to it, there are some problems with the way Facebook Pages work.  This post is, to some degree, a slapdash missive of a rebuttal to this post about the Top Ten Facebook Brand Pages.  There are 100′s of those “top 10″ posts, but it’s a good post with some interesting thoughts… and they are the perfect pages to “pick apart”, so to speak.  I want to ask some questions (that I don’t have any answers to) that result from crunching interaction numbers, informally, as well as gauge what it means to have a “fan”.  Hopefully it sparks conversation?  I also want to delve into why there are real challenges for creating that meaningful interaction Facebook Pages.

Before we start looking at the nature of these brand page interactions, we need a little background on what Facebook is. First, Facebook’s narcissism problem is duly noted, and it means that Facebook users will wear a brand Page like a pair of Chanel glasses or Dolce purse.  In the Facebook universe, where interaction is “me” first, the network later, much (not all) of brand interaction is selfish, opportunistic, and all for show.  It isn’t at the brand’s convenience (nor should we expect consumers to act like that), so much as being an emblem for the consumer, and not something they expect to have a real relationship with.  In fact, I talk passionately about how bizarre “hiding streams” is within Facebook, and how that effects the way we post, the attention we lost, and the importance of curating it.  For example, the above “top brand pages”, while researching this article, had this post, right by the brand name:

I think it might suggest, based off the “Top Ten Brand Pages” article, that we need to look at how we interact with our communities.  It’s only one example, but at least they said something.  If stats are right, 70-90% of other people didn’t say a word and just hid their wall posts from view, forevermore. Another reason I won’t be posting much more about this Facebook nonsense: I sound like a broken record, stuck in a rare groove.  But as I have said before…. People are just understanding the crisis of perception in social media: it’s not about the “me”. It is about everyone else. In general, no one gives a hoot about your photos of dinner, your baby, your vacation (not to be dour; just grumpy hyperbole to pilot an idea into the harbor).  It makes people look arrogant and self absorbed – back to the narcissism study.  Of course, there are *many* *many* Facebook users that are *not* like that, and you are probably one of them.

Those who spend time on the meta level of social tech (IE not the ones who respond, when you are looking for a conversation, with “internetz iz serious bidness”) are definitely not the ones passively or flippantly interacting, nor the 70% who are simply “lurkers” or people that do not actually interact.  That data is from Forrester’s Groundswell, a book I suggest you pick up.  This recent article talks about 90% non participants who exist to consume information, and links to this article has data on the idea that 90% lurk. As I mentioned in a previous post, “lurkers – we know you are out there eating our posts” Social media works best when it is about EVERYONE else… real communication, real collaboration.  For example, you should be able to view this thread from my profile.  Instead of talking about me, I asked what they did. There wasn’t just *more* interaction, but it was personal, meaningful, and more robust than one off comments on viral videos like “lol” or “That’s great”.

The “Like” button is an activity and concept that I can wrap my head around, but it becomes incredibly frustrating when you realize Facebook’s attempt to hook itself into the framework of the internet leads to the single most passive social interaction that has ever existed, and that’s going to be an issue for brands and pages.  At least, it might make us take stock about what we really know about Page usage, and if it’s better to sit silently, curate attention, and post only when vital.  Allow people the pleasure of brand advocacy, and comment and follow up when necessary…. but it may be that our forced excitement and expectation in using these tools is putting off our consumers. If everyone focused on the network, instead of, naturally, being more self interested… think of the level of real interaction that would create between people, brands, and one another?

Herein lies an obvious problem, of whether it is my place to even suggest that people should change their underlying instincts or natural patterns in how they interact.  In fact, I could be trying to yoke a powerfully ingrained genetic compulsion.

One person is simply a node… and nothing else. If Oprah or Ashton dropped from Twitter, all that would happen is that the network map would fill itself. People do not matter… it’s the network that matters. It’s about the multiple nodes, weak ties, and flow of ideas and communication…. and one node could disappear without a blip. Cancel your facebook account and see how much it actually effects your network.  An important issue is that, if you start hiding streams in Facebook, in my opinion, it may make the network unstable, or at least, less meaningful.  Weak ties are less obvious to the network, and this PDF (following link autodownloads) of Granovetter’s “Strength of Weak Ties” article has some pretty amazing conjecture about them being markedly important in regards to Network Science. It’s a big problem even judging how many eyes on your page.

As soon as people realize this, we will start using social tools in a more intelligent and organized way.  To defer potential conceit on my part, I want to remind anyone reading this that you are likely ahead of the curve as well, and I am unabashed in suggesting that users need to mature somewhat before these tools can reach their potential.  The Read Write Web login debacle might be proffered forth, yet again, as evidence of Facebook, or Google, users’ relative dimness as to how to use the internet.  Of course, the point can be said is that it’s Google and/or Facebook’s fault because they need to be able to explain this stuff to users.

These social conversation tools are the single biggest shift in human communication in history, and people are taking photos of amuse bouche or retouching a vacation shot to make other people jealous…. the same other people who aren’t actually looking at another person’s page because they are quite busy acting like a star on their own page, hoping people notice *them*.  Facebook’s potential competitor from Google is tentatively named “ME” – well played Google. Is that deliberate, guys?

I wouldn’t spend my time on this, but I am somewhat irked that everyone has shrugged their shoulders and said, “I guess Facebook is as good as this will get,” and are, again, allowing FB to hook itself into the framework of the internet.  It’s a difficult proposition for me.  It’s quickly becoming bigger than a monopoly (a linked article that comments on the fact that the internet is *incredibly* well linked, interactive, and stable *outside* of Facebook).  If Facebook becomes the internet, some form of public utility that is not removable from the architecture of the internet, that is a big problem. It stifles creativity, and competition cannot exist in an uneven market like this.  Even with a smattering of bungled launches or app experiments that have gone viral (like Wave), Google needs to knock it out of the park with the competitor.  I am not so sure someone is in the position to really compete.

I have some ideas for Google Me… maybe it’s simply my own network I am talking about.  Could you imagine a social network based off of proximite geo-community, hyperlocality, and topical interests…. rather than some wholly arbitrary closed network that allows you to conntect to 20 year dead contacts that are as arbitrary as having a locker near them in grammar school?  If anyone wants to help build it, inquire within.  I sure as hell can imagine it. =) But the real point isn’t this complex new science of networking, nor is it the immediate issues with the existence of Facebook. It’s the existing interaction and community that is really happening around these brands.

Let’s look at Jones Sodas first, since we unfairly took a one in a million negative comment that I barely caught upon their profile.

So in this one snapshot (which is hardly enough to make this a proper study) – the first post has .0001003 / .01003%  likes, and .0000522 / .00522% comments.  What is a normal impression, or what is expected of 90% non contributors?  The second post has .0003772 / .03772% likes, and .0001164 / .01164% comments. I only include the percentages, because there is a HUGE difference between .037% interaction vs how people sometimes look at a number that small..contes. 3.72%.  It’s the former, and that’s tiny.

At the time of my post, Redbull has 7,957,179 fans. Pardon me for not having it in this picture.  That’s about the population of London or Chicago.  The two interactions showing have interaction rates (this is not even a standardized metric, by any means.. but it illustrates a strong point) as follows:  #1 = .0003777 / .03777% “likes” and .0000269 / .00269% commented.  #2 (sex sells) =  .0005072 ‘likes” and .0000387 / .00387% commented.

I was going to go through this for the entire list of 10, but you may understand my point (that I am, sloppily, beating into the ground).  I will do one more, as I already did Burt Bee’s interaction info on Twitter, as well.

At the time of posting 9,084,488 people “liked” the Oreo fanpage.  In the above, .0005586 / .05586% liked (a little more than one twentieth of one percent or 1/20%) and .0003344 / .03344% commented, the second posting was .0001671 / .01671% liked and .0000216 / .00216% commented.

I think you get the point…. even the most successful brand pages are creating interaction and real community involvement that is such a small percentage of their supposed community, we have to ask how this actually works?

I understand it’s a distribution channel, and you need to be available to guests and consumers that wish to interact with you on their own terms in their own comfort zones…. but numbers this small are almost impossible to fathom.  The way people are prostelytized by brands, I, personally, would imagine interaction levels much higher… at least into whole percentage points.  Is this Facebook’s fault?  Is this something greater involving the crisis of perception in social media?

More questions: Is having a contest that garners fans on your page a good measure of a potential consumer?  Are you attracting consumers that like contests, or consumers focused on the quality of your brand?  Is gaining a fan more important than interaction and community?  When you discount on a Facebook page, are you giving back money to a branded consumer that was already prepared to pay full price? These numbers are similar across the board, and I see endless smaller brand or hotel pages that don’t have a powerhouse of a community to energize.  Should we spend our time on this?  Should we spend our time on this …. *yet*?

Henry Harteveldt’s sage wisdom was so simple and zen:  ”Give it time.”

The Twilight Fan Page on Facebook has over 12 million fans… that’s the population of Calcutta or Los Angeles.  But, interaction levels are about the same, as they are for all major brands.  Crunch the numbers yourself, it’s fairly easy.

I am not claiming this to be a bona fide metric, but it begs some very important conversation.  Is this simply a wiki page for your brand advocate’s to show off their incessant narcissism – more about how you make them look & feel, rather than wanting a connection to a community?  If that’s the case, how much energy and time (and labor dollars) does a hotel invest on this brand advocacy versus legitimate conversation?

My main question is this: (as I sit and panic, and quandry, and furrow my brow):

Are numbers this small to be expected?

In the world of hard to track impressions and marketing measurements that dp provided a modicum of data and guidance (however skeptical I always am) – some people have said, “so what, who cares, it’s to be expected”.  But numbers *THAT* small?  Is that part of the Pareto Efficiency, or does the principle come into play (if you believe in that)? I am not saying you shouldn’t be on Facebook with a page, but what are we trying to do? This isn’t meant to be about misery or confusion, but I would quite like to see a conversation struck up about this.

What do you think?  I would love to know!

ED Note: A couple new articles in the past few days.

70% of FB users that have “liked” your page do *not* consider that permission to market to them.  Hey… I am on your side. That’s just idiotic.

And there are other “virtual crumedgeons” out there… fairly intelligent ones. In that link, the Economist reviews Jarod Lanier’s new book “You are not a Gadget”.

It’s nice to know that the 100% solar, 100% off grid Wilbur Hot Springs has seen this market opening up for some time… the unplugging escapists.  They highlight a number of fascinating New York Times articles here, and make a case for backing off a bit. Your brain on computers, indeed. See you at Wilbur.  (Full disclosure – I put that piece together for them).

Ed Note (7th Sept 2010):

Chris Brogan’s “The Coming Social Crash” article is interesting… about the impending mass step back from all these overwhelming tools.

But I stumbled on this today, and thought it was far too relevant to not attach.  I love the analogy of the story of social networking… but “Have we lost the plot in social networking?”  Some of the questions raised in that article are profound.  Can you really be #1 simply because you *are* #1?  How long is that model going to work for them?

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.

I am a hotelier that is attempting to simplify our lives as SMO, CRM, etc.

With all these accounts and things to keep up with, I want the simplest method of updating and keeping my fans up to date with our news, events, offerings, and great pics, etc.  I was boggled as to how to best manage this, considering we are constantly posting one article to multiple pages and sites.

So… for now… this is the best practice for syndicating and streamlining your SMO work.

1st – use yahoo pipes to grab any aggregate content you need… meaning flickr photos, etc.  There are a lot of things to build and use here, and I am still learning, but it is simple to – at least – create automatic feeds for photo uploads and other information.

2nd – take all possible feeds and mayhem you have created with yahoo pipes and parse those feeds into twitterfeed, so that all content you are interested in (external corporate blog, tags of flickr pics, etc) is fed into your twitter account.

3rd – Siphon the single twitter RSS feed into your FB page by importing it through the “Notes” settings.  Notes posted through the RSS are, SEEMINGLY, posted to the wall so that all our fans and followers are able to see them.

therefore… any tagged photos, blog posts, newsfeeds, press releases, etc can be fed from pipes into twitter, therefore creating one RSS feed that will distribute *all* aggregate data through the RSS for your twitter page.  Taking that and embedding/importing it into your Facebook Page means that you only need to post on twitter, publish your blog articles, and make sure all these connection are up and working.

NOW.. correct me.  Is this the simplest and most elegant way to manage content, push content, and create less work through simplicity?  Let me know!

Most of you don’t have the time for this, but I know some of you are still somewhat alien to the idea of social networking and the more knowledge we have, the better we can utilize the tool.

Why Facebook Pages are important:

These “pages” leverage our brands in multiple ways. In regards to general optimizing of the website, the more our page and our links exist throughout the internet, the higher our page will bump (pardon for being simplistic). But the other side of it is that these pages target consumers MARKEDLY well… and we can get into an ad campaign later that is cheap, and incredibly specific down to keywords like “eco-hotel”, specific regions, and more. In that sense, instead of the ad appearing next to any random facebook account, it appears next to people that have relevant accounts, potentially increasing our conversion rate.

As for the pages….. since I published them, they have already been getting considerable hits without any effort *at all*. Meaning some of these pages have gotten up to 20+ page views simply for existing. In fact, Fiji has somehow picked up fans. It is remarkable really. I am going to do some very low level advertising experiments with this, and will follow up by the middle of next week.

Why Facebook is important?

Facebook is a place where users are constant “endorsers” of products in front of their friends as the targeted audience: a music video, a political figure, a local café, etc. A user “fan”’s the page, and their friends in their network see this, converting more users into your network. It can allow previous guests to touch base with staff or other guests they met, keep up to date on the resort, or post pictures and stories. It allows other people to simply wait for the right offer to visit, or fantasize from their cubicle.

What is truly incredible is that, for no fee, you can send out a “status update” to all your fans… specials, important events, etc… and it goes on their “feed”. This is important, as email is possibly in the beginning of its decline (this is another discussion entirely), and the ad will appear directly in front of their eyes, rather than hidden in an email they can ignore or throwaway.

It is also important to think of the size of some of these social networks, and the effect that one popular kingpin individual can have on the community at large. We begin looking at social networking members as individuals with high or low “equity”. The “high equity” group leaders are someone worth targeting in hopes they lead their network in the same direction.

The real impact of facebook is that it spins around the ad model where you force feed consumers endless advertising, and you target the people that want to be known as endorsers of your product. In fact, the way that hotels are going, and most businesses in general, print media is rapidly declining. I have a lot of reports with evidence that supports this. Like Here!

With this “individuality” model, endorsing specific products highlights a person’s style of individuality, bolstering their equity within their group, helping them become a more important figure for that network (including more profile hits and overall social interest, making that individual become highly desirable to interact with). In the end, you don’t have to approach them in the traditional sense with advertising…. The consumer is starting to come to us as it will benefit their standing to be part of *your* network of hotels, etc. When your brand is solid, and your social standing is good, facebook users become unaware that they are advertising for you in a personal effort to set themselves apart as an expressive and individualistic user. In essence, humans are now the vehicles for your brand, and will errantly act as walking billboards reaching more people than any traditional print media could.

————————————————

I have done a lot of work on facebook. Here are the links.

Facebook is a closed social network, but these business pages appear in everyday google/yahoo searches.

Look at them, and if you are part of facebook, please “fan” the page. If you have anyone you know that is on facebook, send these to them (cutting off the below explanation please). Upload videos and photos if you have them.

I wanted to keep this short, but a concise explanation of these and why they are important appears below.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Passport-Resorts/31208562731

PASSPORT RESORTS

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Savusavu-Fiji/Fiji-Islands-Resort-Fiji-Vacations-Fiji-Luxury-Resort-Hotel-Eco-Resort/104677890056

JEAN-MICHEL

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Big-Sur-CA/POST-RANCH-Big-Sur-hotel-Big-Sur-lodging-Ventana-Mountains-Eco-Inn-Spa/32703496590

POST RANCH

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sonoma-CA/Sea-Ranch-Lodge-Sonoma-Coast-Hotel-Dog-Friendly-Inn-Mendocino-eco-hotel/31281769323

SEA RANCH

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sausalito-CA/Sausalito-Hotel-National-Park-Lodge-San-Francisco-Hotel-Sausalito-Resort/32504522793

CAVALLO

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hana-HI/Hana-Resort-Maui-Hotel-Maui-Lodging-Maui-Resort-Hawaii-vacation-Maui/32495359821

HANA

It might be the most important marketing tool in the history of business.  This is what I would like to talk about.  I bailed on facebook a couple months ago as demonstrated here:

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-i-just-deleted-my-facebook-account#uGX2fLe0NIteKu_XQVWZhg

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-is-facebook-beacon-evil#-NineORULvGb3hM778Ltdg

Well now I need to do it for a couple reasons… one is that it may be killing email.  For real.

http://memebox.com/futureblogger/show/674

http://mashable.com/2007/08/20/facebook-email/

So that is one reason.

But another is because I need to *understand* this thing from a business end.  It is quite rapidly changing so much of business and marketing.

SO…. here I dive deep back into the fray.  I have a couple accounts… one that is for experimenting, one that is me, and one that is a business account.  Here are some things I have noted within the first couple days:

People will friend you because you are a friend of a friend.  This is interesting.  The larger the networks, the better the advertising possibility.  If you could successfully get the contact list of a successful facebooker, the leverage there would be astonishing.  I assume, at some point, you will hear of facebookers selling their contact list to a corporation.  Very unethical, very under the table, and it might have already happened.  Think about the Obama page.

Speaking of Obama, Facebook groups as well as the newer facebook pages are INCREDIBLE.  The marketing potential behind those are epic, and get into a philisophical conversation (more on that soon). I note that many hotels or groups have pages and groups on facebook.  Both are incredible, because it offers an opportunity to directly connect to consumers who *WANT* to be branded.

It is astonishing the level of transparency in regards to consumers… the fact is that advertising is almost expected and welcomed as long as it is witty, impacting, and earnest with its effectiveness while being self aware.  But this leads to a remarkable issue.

Marketing took this default position in the past as creating a rift… or as marketers like to say “need”.  The idea was to create this imperative need in someone, so much so that they might feel less human or capable of competing in their social circle without said product.  Whether it is targeted at the insecurity of growing old, or filling our technolust driven by the marketing machine….  marketing was dehumanizing and robbed people of self worth.  I strongly believe this to this day, but now things are changing.  I am not saying that it grants reprieve to the cynicism embedded in any job that starts with “here… convince people they want this”, but I am saying that it has flip flopped.

The individual is only defined by the brands it wears on its social page.  People define themselves with branding and marketing.  People squirm in their own skin and rejoice at the opportunity to wear Dior, or Persol, or Chanel.  People are voracious to prove they are cool with buttons, patches, labels, logos, and advertising.  Even if it is some modern pop culture subgroup like hipsters or burners, they wear their anti-brand as a brand.  It gets co-opted to a significant degree.  There is a moment you cannot tell if you are talking to someone who started a trend in response to the dehumanizing consumerism, or if they are the response to the marketing trends of consumerism co-opting an explicitly regurgitating this trend.  It has happened with jazz vipers, hippies, punks, and so on.

The startling issue is that the majority of consumers are no longer passively accepting marketing like a car whizzing past a route 66 staggered billboard  ad campaign

The aspect of modern marketing being that consumers are endorsers for your product or brand… WILLINGLY wearing this as if it were an emblem on their clothing.  The Generation Z kids are not only “me me me”, but they are quite willing to leverage their “individuality” for the opportunity to be memetic “endorsers” of products and brands.  Think about that….

The facebook user becomes nothing more than an empty vessel to fill with your marketing efforts.  There is a certain point that the user is solely defined by their brand loyalty that they constantly advertise.  Whether they review a restaurant on yelp, buy something on Amazon, listen to something on Pandora, etc….

It is fascinating, and incredibly important.  In university, my degree in communication went into the idea that information is somewhat autonomous, and the information is the meme, while the human body simply a vessel to transmit these memes.

Think of that…. that information is what is truly alive.  In this sense, brands are what are memetic.  In fact everything is a brand… your name, your facebook or yelp account.  It all ends up representing you and reflecting on you… and people carry this brand image of who *you* are with them.  But what astonished me is that this ethereal, subjective theory could be viable.  I just thought it was something chatted up in dimly lit rooms at 3am over a smoky haze of forced intellectualism.

If facebook (as well as the users themselves through passive acceptance) turns users into “endorsers” or walking billboards (http://www.linkedin.com/answers/marketing-sales/advertising-promotion/advertising/MAR_ADP_ADV/126511-10096762?goback=.ahp), it will be an interesting commentary on what creates our individualism. Are we willfully decieving ourselves into thinking, antithetical to Fugazi’s “You are not what you own” line, what brands we consume is what defines our individuality?

Or is it too late?

We will be happy and focused on the 10 people we know and are happy vacation photos, while all this meta-marketing and meta-advertising is loosely orchestrated in a way that we aren’t even paying attention to.  We will live and die, our facebook profiles will go dormant…

But in 10,000 years, someone might purchase something at Nordstrom’s due to your review.  Or possibly buy Chanel sunglasses because on your spring break you looked… oh…….so…. chic.

Shit Bill Hicks was right.