Alert Blog Reviews

While I just read this over at All Things Digital I am still scratching my head (which means I am typing with just one hand, so if this reads slow you’ll know why). AOL tends to be in the news in the past year or so more about whether the business will survive and how will it look when it is pushed out of the Time Warner nest officially in December. Why today would be any different I don’t know but the news from AOL is how they are asking for 2,500, or one third of their work force, to volunteer for a layoff. AOL, which has already told investors that it will spend up to $200 million firing a good chunk of its staff, has now told its employees. It is looking for “up to 2,500 volunteers,” CEO Tim Armstrong told his staff today. That’s a third of the company’s payroll. The voluntary layoff program begins on December 4, a few days before the company spins off from Time Warner (TWX). If the company doesn’t get enough volunteers, it will axe people on its own. Ok, so in this crappy job market you are asking someone to either volunteer to move on or just wait and see if they will be told to move on. What I didn’t see was what would make that kind of move better than rolling the dice and hoping that you don’t get axed? In other words, if there is any doubt in an AOL employee’s mind as to whether they would survive this what is the advantage of volunteering. Is there monetary incentive? I’m a little baffled. Of course, if you look at it from the business side this is the kind of news investors like to hear. In a gesture of “I’m suffering too” Tim Armstrong is not taking his bonus in the neighborhood of $1.5 million due him this year. All of the cynics in the crowd can chime in on that one I am sure. I have no comment but here is Armstrong’s take. “As a member of our team and the person who takes accountability for the results of the company, I am making the decision to forego my 2009 bonus. That decision is a personal one and is not a sign for the future payout of the overall bonus plan for employees.” So what about AOL as an Internet business? What about what this will look like moving forward? With ICQ on the block and MapQuest as well what is AOL going to be offering the market place when it is asked to stand alone other than 2,500 more folks with AOL on their resume when looking for work? It might be interesting to hear from the MP crowd as to what their view of AOL is in the Internet marketing space as we approach this new phase in the company’s history. Let’s hear it.

Read this article:
AOL Asking 2,500 Employees to Fall on Their Sword

Oh, how I wish this was a cool YouTube video that could go viral. But it’s not. Instead, it’s some pretty interesting research by PostRank on how reader engagement in blogging has evolved over the last three years. Not so surprisingly, trackbacks as a means of joining the conversation have dropped off in favor of taking the discussion to Twitter or other social sites. Over the last there years, trackbacks have dropped from 19% of total engagement to 3%, while social networks have soared from

Continued here:
The Evolution of Blogging

Yesterday, Twitter started to officially roll out its own retweet function that has been the cause of some serious consternation from the Twittersphere (or whatever silly term you want to apply to the Twitter community). Before we go into any detail please note the following and make sure you filter your reactions through the most important piece of data that you will need to know about this whole thing: you don’t have to use the new function. You can do whatever you want with regard to keeping your version of the status quo or adopting Twitter’s new retweet function. Also, this is not the final product as Evan Williams points out in his explanation of this overly controversial move by Twitter . Overly controversial? Yup. While this can be viewed as a fundamental shift in how Twitter is used it’s not like some heavy-handed edict has been passed down to the users of Twitter in a “it is what it is” manner. No, it’s just another option. If you feel the need to complain even knowing this piece of information then you are likely to be the lottery winner that would say “Gee, if only I had won it last week I would have had more”. In other words, you probably complain about everything. Back to the story. TechCrunch sums up the changes as follows If you do happen to have it now, here’s a few interesting notes about the new feature (at least on twitter.com): First, there is a new Retweets area in the right side bar. This allows you to see “Retweets by others”, “Retweets by you”, and “Your tweets, retweeted”. While the UI for the main homepage retweets can be a bit confusing at times, this Retweet area is laid out pretty nicely, as it is easy to see who exactly retweeted what. Second, as co-founder Evan Williams noted today, there is an easy way to turn off retweets from individual users. Simply click on their profile and make sure the Retweet logo (the circular arrows) below their name is not highlighted green. This means that it’s off and you will not see Retweets from that user in your timeline. That’s great for users who go overboard with the feature and muck up your stream. Third, if you do hate the new Retweet way, just don’t use it. Nothing is stopping you from still using the “RT …” syntax. The new Retweets simply give you an easy way to highlight something to your followers with the click of a button. I HIGHLY recommend you visit the Ev Williams blog post for his complete explanation of the who, what, where and why of this change. Otherwise, this truly is what it is. Twitter has simply recognized that their third party developer and user system has created something of value. They are now trying to corral it in the best way they know how and leaving it open for debate and use. It’s actually that simple.

Originally posted here:
Retweets Will Never Be the Same …. Unless You Want Them To Be

We could spend all day every day telling you about the latest and greatest flame out in the traditional media world. Every day a newspaper or magazine or some other bastion of the “old world media order” goes away but that gets kind of old. I would even go so far as to say that we on the online side of the world have gotten a little cocky and maybe receive a little too much joy from the tumble of the old media outlets. As a result it is possible that we clump all of these properties together and make a broad (and likely incorrect) assumption that eventually there will be no room at all for the traditional delivery of newspapers and magazines because everyone and everything will be online only. Not so fast says the new owners of BusinessWeek magazine, Bloomberg LP. Fresh off their namesake’s election for a third term as New York City mayor (congrats to Mayor Bloomberg) the company has announced some plans for the magazine that has a very unique place in the business and marketing world. Mediaweek reports Bloomberg’s chief content officer Norman Pearlstine revealed the plans for BusinessWeek’s future direction during an employee meeting Nov. 3. He said that Bloomberg would increase the number of pages in the magazine, upgrade the paper stock, double the story count and expand its global coverage, according to a source who was present. That’s not a “shrinking violet” approach by any means. While it remains to be seen how such an aggressive expansion of a traditional magazine will play out I think it may be a good move. Many who read the magazine have been slower to adopt the ‘online only’ mentality. In other words, they are older readers but who have money and influence so they are still very desirable. Sure they won’t live forever and eventually the printed version may have to go away but why ignore the market now just because everyone and their brother proclaims the death of the printed word every day? Is it possible that pundits may actually be wrong or at least a bit over zealous? Oh dear, not that! What about the online side of the ledger? It’ll be there and it will be a mix of the old ‘free content’ model and the new ‘pay wall’ approach. As for the Web, Bloomberg plans to keep most of its content free while creating deep, vertical content areas that paying users could access for roughly $100 a year. Sounds like a smart idea. Cover all of your bases. Make hay while the sun is shining. If done correctly traditional media outlets have more opportunities for revenue than ever before albeit a potentially short window of opportunity to take advantage of several delivery options due to the disparate make up of today’s business news consumer. The final indication that Bloomberg sees opportunity is the tact of actually charging MORE for the magazine subscription and adding Bloomberg to the magazine’s title. I have to admit that I think that this may be one of the few traditional titles that could pull this off while establishing itself in a high end market that marketers will love whether it’s in print or online or both. I am looking forward to seeing the new BusinessWeek and watching this model go up against the News Corp.’s ‘pay for it all’ mentality. Who do you think will win or is there room for both?

The rest is here:
Don’t Stick a Fork in All Traditional Media – It Ain’t Done Yet

There’s not much going on in the internet marketing industry this morning. I suspect everyone ate too much candy. While they recover from their belly aches, I’m going to do a little “belly aching” myself. I’ve noticed–as have others–that there’s a growing number of people referring to themselves as social media “gurus,” “experts,” and “geniuses” (OK, maybe I made up that last one). What’s interesting is that many–note, I said “many” not “all”–of these self-labeled gurus have achieved nothing more than fame for being famous. In other words, peel back that first layer and you discover that they’ve not actually accomplished much in their social media guru career. In fact, many of them remind me of Lovelace from Happy Feet. He was in the right place, at the right time, and managed to convince his peers that he was a wise and gifted seer. The same goes for many social media penguins. Sure, they have lots of Twitter follower, but that’s easy to do–when you follow everyone back. Yes, they share lots of links, they speak at lots of conferences, and are the first person to whip out their iPhone at a Tweetup. But, ask them about their business successes and all they can offer up is that they helped such-and-such to “engage” their followers, or added a 1,000 friends to Company X’s Facebook fan page. Whoop-de-doo! Where’s the increase in revenues? Point me to some of your client successes. Heck, show me where you’ve personally made money from your social media skillz! Not that there aren’t any social media experts out there. Of course there are, they just don’t go around telling others how connected they are. They simply roll-up their sleeves and get on with it. They are in the trenches. They’ve used Facebook to add actual dollars to their bottom line. They’ve created a blog that increased the number of newspaper mentions. They’ve measured a decline in customer service costs because of their Twitter account. In other words, they’re so busy making social media work for them, they don’t actually have time to care about becoming the Mayor of the local Starbucks on Foursquare. So, why am I writing this? As I said, it’s a slow news day. OK, seriously, why am I writing this? Because I see far too many people that are the real experts in social media, but feel dejected, deflated, and despondent, because they don’t have 100,000 Twitter followers, don’t speak at the latest “we’re all great social media pros” conference, and don’t get the recognition from their boss–let alone their peers. So, this is not so much an attack on social media gurus, but a pat on the back and an “attaboy” or “attagirl” to those of you that have much to show for your efforts–even if the only Twitter List you’ve made it on, is your own. You’re doing great. You’re as much as a guru as anyone else . Keep at it! As I write this, I’m fully aware that the above is in some ways no different from the “SEO snake oil” commentaries I have been quick to attack in the past. If you feel that’s the case, go ahead and attack this post. But keep in mind, if you have the time to critique this opinion piece, you might just be one of the ones that I’m talking about. Those that are truly the social media experts are busy building their business, so don’t have time for debates such as this. PS. I am not a social media expert or guru. I just try to get the job done.

Go here to see the original:
Don’t Read This, If You’re a Social Media Guru

By Nathan Hangen of Making It Social . Follow him @nhangen . When I look at my Twitterfeed, I see that a lot of people are spending time talking about themselves. I get that…I really do, but let me ask you something. How many people on Twitter do you really pay attention to? Of those, how many of them talk about themselves more than they talk about others? If my guess is right, I’d say that the percentage is less than 25%. So why is it then, that people feel they have to talk about themselves in order to convert you into a reader or a customer? Do the right thing It isn’t because it works, we know that already. No, I’d venture to say that it is because they are mimicking the behavior of others. They see everyone else talking about themselves too so they think it is alright. Either that or they are afraid that people will not notice them unless they broadcast their talents like an ad agency. And it is OK I suppose, unless you want to really make a difference. If social media ROI is your concern, you’ll have problems using this approach. I know it sounds like a contrarian perspective, but if you really want to get people to like you on Twitter, then you need to like them first. Aside from the celebrities, most of the Twitter power users are people that spend time giving away information and ideas. They prop you up and make you feel like your voice matters. This works because people don’t want to hear about you…they want to hear themselves echoed in your words. Even if you don’t mention them by name, they feel connected to you when you share a story that helps them. In my time using Twitter, I’ve found that I gain the most influence, which I measure as RT’s, replies, and brand mentions, by talking with others instead of talking at them. One of the ways I do this is by constantly scanning my feed to find new ideas and inspirational stories. I keep what I call, “a portfolio of game changers,” and I like to tell other people about them. Lend a helping hand I don’t want to sound high and mighty here, but let’s face it…it feels really good to help other people. Oddly enough, when you help people on Twitter, you will often see the most return. This isn’t to say that you should only help others to help yourself or that you can’t talk about yourself at all, but I’m a firm believer in authenticity. Share what is good and hope that your content is strong enough to stand on its own in a similar fashion. You aren’t going to sell a bunch of ebooks on Twitter unless they are good. But, if you are a great designer that people have never heard of before, they’ll notice you a lot quicker when they see you offer to help with a problem or by answering a question of theirs. Listen and learn If you simply take the time to respond to the needs of others, they’ll be there for your time of need. It really is amazing how quickly a true talent can be found when they become a window for ideas, rather than a wall. Use Twitter to engage with the people in your niche and let your blog or website do the talking for you. Take it from Zig Ziglar himself…people like those that listen more than they like those that talk. If you can spend just 50% of your time on Twitter as a helping hand, then I can guarantee that people will start to notice you. At that point, your work needs to do the talking, but you already know that. [Image: Aidan Jones on Flickr ] © 2008 TwiTip Twitter Tips . Twitter – The Art of Influence Related posts: How to Effectively Listen On Twitter How to Make Twitter Less Like Listening to One Side of a Phone Call for Your Followers Personal Brand – How to Build Yours In Twitter

See the original post here:
Twitter – The Art of Influence

You’re already careful about what you say on Twitter, right? I mean, you read my advice on reputation management, so you know not to go around tweeting defamatory tweets in the name of “fun.” Right? Good, then I never have to worry about you getting in as much trouble as Larry Johnson of the Kansas City Chiefs. What did he do? Er, only threw out some gay slurs on Twitter–costing him a one-game suspension and about $600,000 in lost earnings! Agent Peter Schaffer said the game check and other lost revenue would amount to about a penalty of about $600,000 for the former two-time Pro Bowl player…Coach Todd Haley and first-year general manager Scott Pioli have repeatedly said they are trying to build a new culture and a new attitude for a struggling franchise, which has sunk to the bottom of the NFL and that disloyalty will not be tolerated. Mashable has the offending tweets–in case you’re interested. I’ve seen much worse thrown around on Twitter, but this should be (yet another) warning that just because there are few rules in social media, you shouldn’t be reckless with your words. The next time you go to tweet something ugly, ask yourself if your boss would be mad if he saw your comments? Would your mom be disappointed in you? If the answer is yes, think twice about posting. Your penalty may not be $600,000, but you could get fired–or worse, a stern talking-to from your mom!

Original post:
Defamatory Tweet Costs NFL Player $600,000