A good example is this infographic created by Wilson Electronics and pitched to Mashable:

In addition to generating the story itself, Wilson Electronics got quite a bit of social media mileage out of the infographic (2,840 tweets, 2K Facebook likes, 879 StumbleUpon posts, 75 LinkedIn shares… just from the Mashable play).

Part of what makes this particular example compelling to reporters and lends to its traction on social media (aside from its provocative content) is that it pulls from multiple data sets,  which makes the data more robust and adds credibility.

This is an important evolution. In the beginning stages of social media adoption, brands tend to be simply concerned with establishing a presence, tapping into the trend. In this phase, social media executions are chaotic, ad hoc — typically don’t accrue to anything. In pockets, processes and best practices begin to develop; however, in most cases, these practices tend not to be adopted consistently across the organization. Then, inevitably, come the ROI questions. To address the ROI question, organizations have to define standard business processes, examine objectives and map outcomes.

It’s typically somewhere between maturation out of the ad-hoc phase and into the beginnings of process that companies begin to see the delta between the vision and the reality and come to us with the HOW questions.

• How do we organize?
• How do we prioritize?
• How do we create and manage content?
• How do we centralize measurement?
• How do we establish and manage governance processes?

Many of the companies we speak to face a common challenge: social media is executed in silos with little integration or centralized management. From the audience perspective, the net result is a chaotic experience, with little engagement, often lacking in follow-through and inconsistency in messaging.

The solution starts with the establishment of a centralized governance body within the organization which is charged with social media governance — something we might call a Social Media Center of Excellence (SMCoE). This SMCoE team represents a unified integration point for internal stakeholders and also oversees content strategy, ensuring consistency in messaging, experience and engagement among external audiences.

Similar to a modern newsroom model, the SMCoE represents the editorial board and news hub at the heart of the operation. In this context, stakeholder orgs — such as PR, Marcomm, Business Units — are analogous to the news bureaus responsible for the creation of content. Content flows into the hub from the bureaus, where it is reviewed, packaged, published and managed.

Once the SMCoE team is in place, an organization is far better equipped to engage effectively on social media and achieve desired outcomes. Processes and workflows are adapted to suit the real-time demands of social media and governance roles are defined for efficient, actionable decision-making.

What this looks like from the outside is a brand that engages fluidly in conversation across social media channels. The brand builds its follower base organically and is able to drive narratives that are genuinely interesting and generate buzz. It participates in existing conversations in a way that is relevant. And if you engage the brand on one of its social media channels, it responds to your query or concern with the speed and authenticity that an individual would.

Has your company achieved social media actualization?

Over on my Facebook page I’ve been playing host to a weekend-long debate, which has evolved into a discussion worthy of it’s own blog post. The question: Are we dumbing down as a culture?

Cited: 3 dueling op-eds:

1) Does the Internet Make You Dumber? WSJ, Nicholas Carr quotes the Roman philosopher Seneca: “to be everywhere is to be nowhere,” arguing that the hyperlinked structure of the internet contributes to a persistent state of distraction which, research indicates, hampers deep thought and, along with it, retention of information and absorption of knowledge.

2) Mind Over Mass Media, NYT, Stephen Pinker argues that new forms of media have always caused panics (the printing press, newspapers, television, paperbacks), but such panics fail reality check. The oft-bemoaned perception that we are dumbing down as a culture is not supported by evidence to the contrary, such as the modern output of scientific innovation.

3) Does the Internet Make You Smarter? WSJ, Clay Shirky references historical disruptions in culture fueled by new media evolutions (the Protestant Reformation, fueled by print) to illustrate the pattern of initial break-down of cultural/intellectual norms followed by an explosion of new creative outputs which raised societies to a new level.

The debate sub-streams:

1) To what extent does media contribute to the dumbing down of a culture? Or does it? Or is it the symptom of a dumbed down culture? Evidence to support the “dumbing down” hypothesis is seen in the insipidness of so-called “Reality TV,” the political and cultural extremes cultivated by and reinforced by news agendas (FOX) and the 24-hour news cycle, and the persistent distraction we suffer from as a result of our hyperlinked, short-form internet and social media behaviors. Does media fuel this, or is it merely a mirror reflecting the culture as it is? Or is it a distorted mirror, reflecting culture at the edges?

2) Why are there so few culturally- and politically-meaningful comedians compared to two to three decades ago? Who are the Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor of today? (John Stewart and Stephen Colbert of course…) Is this evidence of a cultural dumbing down? Or is it evidence simply of the business-minded Hollywood machine which has optimized to produce pulp for the masses rather than the edges?

3) And what about the role of education and critical thinking? One could argue that all three of the op-ed author’s arguments about the impact of the internet and social media on us as a culture are accurate – the internet, like all media, is simply an amplifier –widening the gap by which the dumb are becoming dumber, the smart, smarter. But isn’t it really an issue of critical thinking abilities and the willingness to apply them? Is this skill being taught more or less than a generation or two ago? (remember McCarthyism?) Does classical education or internet-enabled knowledge assimilation contribute more or less to one’s ability to absorb and [critically] process knowledge?

The meta: the medium is the message…

Interestingly, the discussion is in many respects an example of “the medium is the message” at play:

Living room —> Web —> Facebook. The conversation originated in my living room as a wine-sotted debate between my husband and our neighbor, crossed over onto social media when I opened my laptop to hunt down the NYT op-ed as my contribution to the debate, then posted on Facebook.

Internet-facilitated connection of culturally- and geographically-dispersed nodes. Once on Facebook, the discussion then drew in an individual from my hometown (whom I hadn’t spoken to in 20-years, aside from him friending me on Facebook), my husband (sitting across the room from me debating with me on Facebook from his iPhone), a martial arts buddy from across the country and a couple work colleagues from opposite coasts.

Alienation of “professional creators” by sketchy privacy and copyright policies. Meanwhile my neighbor exited the debate completely once he walked across the street and went home because, as a professional photographer, he wants nothing to do with Facebook and its questionable copyright and privacy issues.

So what do you think? Are we dumbing down as a culture? And does the internet and social media play a role?

However, drilling deeper into the execution process, how do we optimize the design, architecture and content strategy for social behaviors and user participation?

The essential 10 usability heuristics are a start, but I recommend another 5 specific to social engagement:

1) Participation continuum. Even the most active communities are driven by content created by a minority of the audience base. Most of us are spectators. When designing your community, ensure that pages contain a gradation of participatory content types that ranges from read to share to create.

2) Purposeful content hierarchy. When creating a site that contains a blend of editorial and community content, it’s all too easy to run amuck with mixed messages and content types and calls to action. The resulting experience for users is confusion and uncertainty as to what they should be doing or getting from the page. Even with a mix of content types, the intent of the page should be clear and cohesive, and primary content should be supported by – not at odds with – secondary and tertiary page content.

3) Participation-triggering. Pages should include both the functionality and content to support participation. This includes everything from basic functionality such as including “tweet this” buttons to more advanced functionality that allows users to rework editorial content (such as Chow.com’s “recipe hack” feature, as well as incorporating contests and give-aways and even simply asking the question: “What’s your opinion?”

4) Peer relationship-building. If the objective is to create a community, ensure that pages contain structures that facilitate conversation and engagement between peers. This includes building in prompts to encourage members to build out their profiles.

5) Multiple access paths. This is a usability fundamental, but one that is much more important for social sites, which often have paths from editorial content to community sections, but no path back.

Three simple lessons – common sense really – brought to you by Target:

1. Know your audience. Losties care about LOST, not your brand. If you must interrupt them at an inopportune moment in the program, be relevant to the content at least.
2. Be clever. You know we’re DVR’ing the show. And speeding through the ads. Of course we are. Weave in content from the theme and our trigger finger just might pause the FF for you.
3. Be brief. We write in 140-character bursts. Do you really need a full 60-seconds to make your point? No, you don’t. Succinct and to the point – powerful stuff.

Some of the factors critical to success we discussed – differentiating the iPad from its failed predecessor – include:

• Context
• Ubiquity
• Adoption (largely driven by social media)

We then broke into 7 groups to discuss the iPad’s impact on different aspects of business and lifestyle. Our group talked about Marketing.

Breakout Group #4: the iPad’s Impact on Marketing:

The apps. Of course, the first thing we think about is the apps. What are the apps like? Are they different from those we know on the iPhone? Our Group iPad Owner took us through some of the apps he’s been using, such as USA Today and the like. Much like those of the iPhone, but more consumable on the larger screen. But how are these being supported by marketing, advertising? Still through traditional disruption style ads.

Social transforms linear. One of the interesting features of the iPad as ebook reader is the way it changes text from linear to distributed. You can still read a text linearly as you would a print book, but you can also jump to chapters, or highlight text and then share it out across social media. So there is potential here for ideas to travel across mediums. No, this isn’t unique to the iPad, but the iPad has the potential to make the traditionally linear and static formats of books social.

Remember the sales funnel. Amidst the discussion of the apps and social media potential the iPad brings, the point was raised, yes, but how do people discover these apps and social conversations? Which is an important point. Because social media is such a shiny object to so many marketers right now and huge chunks of marketing budgets are being put against tactics that address only the middle and bottom rungs of the sales funnel. But awareness is important too. And while social media has the potential to generate awareness, it’s likely to be niche, and it’s not a panacea.

 Print, reborn. So within the circles that focus on the “awareness” rung of the sales funnel – most notably advertising – this is one of the conversation taking place: The potential of the iPad to revitalize the dying print medium…specifically, breathing new life into a hybrid platform that promises the large format creative scope that traditional print spreads allowed advertisers, but with the interactive and measurement potential of digital. There’s still of course the complicated question of whether the iPad – and the iTunes Store model – will help or hinder the publishing industry, and whether in fact anything can save so broken a business model, but for advertisers at least, the iPad offers a new palette for creative impact.

Push reinforces pull. The form factor and ease-of-use contribute significantly to the “pull” aspect of the iPad. Users lean in, form an intimate relationship with the device – and the content – as they do with analog media. The iPad is digital, but it isn’t a work space. The relationship users form with the device and content is reinforced by its push notification features. Our Group iPad Owner illustrated this point with an anecdote about his consumption of NBA content, which has increased substantially since he began watching it on the iPad. Because of push notification. This is huge for broadcasters, publishers and marketers who have been steadily losing audience share-of-time to the fragmented media space that is the web. The iPad push functionality suggests the potential to draw audiences back.

2.     Rethink your business model. What do you sell? You aren’t in the advertising business, nor the digital, creative, media relations business; you are in the INFLUENCE business. At Waggener Edstrom, we used to think of ourselves as storytellers and media relations pros. But the media landscape is changing, compressing – it’s more challenging than ever to get our stories told through branded media influencers. So how do we solve this problem? We encourage clients to think of themselves as publishers. Brands are media. What do we sell? We sell a destination, we sell content, we sell consulting to develop a process and workflow.   

3.     Don’t navel-gaze. Look around, learn from complimentary disciplines. Think like publishers, journalists, creatives, producers, PR pros, consultants. These disciplines are colliding. Think holistically. Don’t be the hammer that sees every problem as a nail. Think about the problem that needs to be solved (selling the product), and then think about all the different ways you can achieve this. Some are digital, some are traditional and most are a combination of both. Because audiences don’t live in media silos.  

4.     Don’t panic, the fundamentals still apply. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, and don’t go on a mad dash after the latest shiny object trend. Stick to your fundamentals. Who is your audience? How are they influenced? Where do they spend time? Answer these questions and then go back to #1.   

5.     Embrace the learning process. Don’t try to be an expert, be a constant learner. When we think of ourselves as experts we become entrenched in our space because we have a lot to lose. Let it go. Don’t try to get to the top of the learning curve, embrace the constant incline.

SXSW Day 1, I took the content path. The three panel series – which they called workshops (not sure I entirely agree with that nomenclature though) – boil down to this:

1. You need a content strategy. Let me tell you why. Because words are cheaper than comps. Because a cohesive UX requires a conduit between the designers, the copywriters and the brand strategists. Because effective message delivery starts with a good message architecture. And because messages across channels become disjointed without an editorial calendar to ensure consistency and adherence to message goals. Also, you want a social media strategy? There is no social media strategy without a content strategy. Content strategy is core to conversation strategy. Passionately presented by Margot Bloomstein. See her slides here.
2. Don’t be afraid of the scary spreadsheet, it’s here to help. Three streams of a product strategy are design strategy, technology strategy and content strategy. Content strategy is often the missing link. So how do you approach a content strategy? Four stage process: discover, design, develop, deploy. The majority of the discussion dug into the details of what the discover process looks like (“a really scary spreadsheet!”) – both quantitative/get the facts and subjective/assess the quality. Overall, the panel contained a lot of good content, but at such deep detail as to be more suited for a handbook than a presentation. Hope Rachel and Karen make the slides available. In the meantime, my stream-of-consciousness notes are captured here.
3. 90% of everything is crud. Particularly on the web. Bah.  According to Richard Ziade and Tim Meaney of Arc90, the state of publishing can be summed up by Sturgeon’s law. We are sacrificing quality for quantity. The art of composition – mise-en-scene in theater terms – has largely disappeared. The idea of assembling content around an editorial vision is also gone on the web today. All content is created equal, so it just sort of streams by. And far from the concept of an ambient content stream that we dine upon, we are in fact haplessly gorging ourselves. Why? As noted in the NYT article about why people share articles, people crave shared experience. So where do we go from here? Richard presented a series of “hopeful signs” to counter Tim’s “issues,” but they were tentative at best. Whither the editor. I think I missed the revenge part… perhaps that came in the form of our mid-session emergency evacuation? More details in my stream-of-consciousness notes here.

My 2cents: Content strategy is mission critical on three levels: process/workflow, social media conversation-building and user experience. The latter gets at Tim and Richard’s gripe with the direction content has been taking as print media collapses and content online becomes sliced into ever smaller pieces. It’s true that editorial curation is getting lost on the social web, but I would argue that it is being replaced by tools that allow us to self-curate, or to select curators in the form of those influence multipliers that we choose to follow. 

And we DO have the ability to control the flow through the pipes (though we sometimes forget). But we don’t have as much control over the aesthetic presentation of the content we consume. This is where I see the crux of the need – and the opportunity – for good content strategy. Not simply designing and filling the pipes, but structuring and packaging the experience of the content flow. Mise-en-scène.

My colleagues in our consumer team have an interesting discussion going regarding the Engadget vs. Gizmodo approach to blog comments. For those unaware, Engadget has  temporarily disabled comments due to a recent spike in trollish behavior; Gizmodo has responded with a post pointing to the merits of it’s somewhat more complex tiered comment system. Gizmodo concludes with an observation that the drastic measures Engadget is taking is a statement on the sad state of Internet commentary – abusive loud-mouths are getting the upper hand.

In explaining its position, Engadget notes: “Some of you out there in the world of anonymous grandstanding have gotten the impression that you run the place, but that’s simply not the case.”

Really?

The consensus my colleagues have come to – thus far – is generally that conversation is the essence of blogs. That it’s this feedback mechanism precisely that differentiates blogs from static news outlets. And that a strong community should self-moderate – if it doesn’t, then there’s a bigger problem than the individual rogues and trolls.

I think this also brings to bear a bigger discussion about the role of the blogger and the role of the readers within the context of social media. Is Engadget right in asserting that it’s the editors, not the readers, that run the site? Or as news gathering and social journalism opens up the playing field, is the role of an editor more of a social curator?