Hashtags and mentions in absurd abundance creating new circles of SEO/Marketeers dominating G+
There is nothing wrong with the profession, but please try to be less obnoxious. The mutual mentioning, the abundant sharing, over the top words like 'post of the day', 'gems', 'fantastic thoughts', 'brilliant insights', 21 tips to G+, university course of G+, all by fellow marketeer x (uninteresting post reiterating stuff we all know), a fantastic show (a boring hangout by three people generating at most five comments), etc.
Please people, there really is nothing wrong with your profession, but why overdo it? People dislike you for a reason and this post, although just an example, is indeed exemplary.
Join forces, join brains and change the persistent impression we get from SEO marketeers.
I know most of the smart people in this field and I'm sure you can do better. Now show it to the G+ community
Really as a profession or at least the non-shady members of it, don't you collectively see that you're ruining the image?
I have btw no doubt that a summary of week events can be useful, but do note the language. As professionals you don't need to sell to each other or do you?
So all these hyperboles are directed at the general G+ audience I assume, but why. All it does it ridicule your profession and estrange you from your own audience. In other words, it's sort of counter marketing. Why? #SocMed
Originally shared by +Mick Sharpe
Hotter than in July
What a summer this is turning out to be! I’ve waxed before about the increasing pace and anticipation here on Google+. There’s an ever growing buzz in the community, a realisation that this Google+ thing is happening, the promise being fulfilled. Exciting times to be a part of this unique network. So on with a selection of the delights from the last week.
Back in January +Mia Voss took the decision to rebrand her Social Media Power Chat as +The Mia Connect Power Chat to broaden the discussion topics beyond the confines of social media. Well, this episode Architecture & Interior Design (http://goo.gl/ugqE0u) demonstrates why that was absolutely the right decision to make. Some really interesting conversation from guests Chris Smith (come on Chris get yourself a Google+ account!), +Laurie Laizure, +leslie carothers, +Mitzi Beach, +Susan Serra, +Nazim Beltran and +James Dearsley. Multi-generational housing, developing for the rental market in the UK, planning for the baby boomers as they enter the retirement phase of their lives, changes brought about by the Millennials – it’s all here. As ever Mia has made the show even easier to consume with the comprehensive #timestamp post (http://goo.gl/aZ6GzP)
You may recall the first Paradigm Shift where +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales promised that framing would be the subject of the second show. Well here it is: Framing: Whose Semantic Frame Are You Living In? (http://goo.gl/wfUILs). Alex and +David Amerland get deep into the topic. Very interesting viewing if you are involved in any kind of marketing or customer relations. Actually it’s very interesting even if you’re not! +John Ellis provides the flawless production. [last minute edit: Alex came back to the comments post event with some fantastic thoughts. Be sure to take a look]
+Yvonne Heimann took the hotspot on +Zara Altair’s Midweek Zap – Connect Tech (http://goo.gl/SCI7C7) giving some solid advice when setting up your self-hosted WordPress site. Topics covered include setting up the connection between your site and your Google+ page or profile, multi-device compatibility, automation with IFTTT, scheduling your content and embedding YouTube videos. I’ve been impressed by the Midweek Zap – take a look and see if you might become a #Zapster.
Glass in the Class is one the shows I really relish – great guests giving just that little bit extra in the more intimate setting. This show Who Cares about Relationship Building? (http://goo.gl/kD98rd) featured one of my favourite plussers +Gina Fiedel (it must be the web developer gravity well that draws us together). +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales does a marvellous job encouraging some really insightful commentary from Gina about relationships, art and web design. Another hat tip to +John Ellis for the excellent behind the scenes work. Go and watch this 30 minute gem now!
You’ll know I’m a big fan of Google+ Business Spotlight (http://goo.gl/GEfdsg) – the show that showcases real life business use of Google+. This week +Stephan Hovnanian and +Ben Fisher invited +Yifat Cohen to talk about how she uses Google+ right now. Yifat really gets the platform, relationships and business and I never tire of listening to her share her knowledge and experience. A very interesting section on the ROI of engagement and quality followers in the middle section. Yifat really shows why she is everyone’s +G+GoTo Gal. Top job guys.
Giving, giving and more giving
You’ve got to be impressed with the amount of quality content shared freely here. A couple of examples caught my attention this week. First +Daniel Futerman came to the end of his 21 Google Tips series with a look at Google+ itself (http://goo.gl/yh9Q1T). I really appreciate it when people go to these lengths to give something to the wider community. Well done Daniel.
If you’re looking for a quick link to all 21 tips +Denis Labelle has created another of his fantastic list posts for the series here (http://goo.gl/Kep21u). Thanks Denis.
That consummate blogger we all know and love, +Mike Allton, has wrapped up no less than 40 of his most useful Google related articles in this megapost Google+ University (http://goo.gl/yz9pwe). There’s a lot of useful reading in this list, emphasis on lot! You’ll want to bookmark this one, or share it to a private community for later viewing. (That was from post no 11: How to Save Google Plus Posts for Later Reading by the way). Many thanks for the fantastic resource Mike.
What’s in a name?
If you’re wondering about the potential impacts of the relaxation of Google’s real name policy then take a look at +Wayne Brett’s Reactions to Google+ Name Policy Changes (http://goo.gl/8RGw0u). Wayne has drawn together the important posts on the subject from +Yonatan Zunger, +Kristin Drysdale, +David Amerland and +Iblis Bane as well as adding his own thoughts. I don’t really see any major impacts on the way we relate to each other on this platform. The culture of considered and respectful discussion is firmly established here and will no doubt remain strong.
Where is Google going?
+Todd Hartley is putting out an incredibly useful series of discussions Where Google is Going & How to Position Your Business! (http://goo.gl/TUJPJw). I have to confess that I’ve missed the first two but intend to catch up this weekend. In this full thirty minute show +David Amerland shares some thoughts on how business can take advantage of the Google ecosystem to deliver goals. I must congratulate Todd for the format of this show, really tight delivery, in discrete blocks (just ripe for future golden nugget mining!) The ever helpful +Marilyn Moore has made a catch up incredibly easy with this fabulous #timestamp post (http://goo.gl/VxPV5W). And almost #automagically here is episode 4 Getting Ahead with Hangouts on Air (http://goo.gl/FZXmn6) featuring the master of Hangouts +Ronnie Bincer. I’m conscious that this post is getting long so I’ll just say this is well worth watching.
+James Dearsley’s The Midweek Marketing Mix (http://goo.gl/YiZNGf) continues to hit the sweet spot with its mix of expert commentary on the marketing topics of the day. +Joshua Berg, +David Amerland, +kara wood, +Jim Banks and +Daniel Hare. Covering Semantic Search developments and Hangouts with a lot of discussion on identity and voice search, MozCon, Tweet indexing in Google, the latest in SEO including the increasing importance of mobile, and email marketing. There is something of interest for everyone. +The Digital Marketing Bureau has provided the excellent #timestamp summary of the show here (http://goo.gl/V7eEi4)
I always take every opportunity to listen to +Ana Hoffman (coffee = sense in my book!). This week Ana was the guest on +Wade Harman’s Relationship Marketing show sharing Tips To Drive Blog Reader Engagement (http://goo.gl/T5uZCT). As you would expect building strong relationships with others is essential to help validate your content and amplify your reach. Ana gives an overview of the development of her own site and the steps she took to get noticed. Excellent inspiration for blog owners.
A fresh look at paid search
It’s been a while since I’ve done much with paid search so this week’s Digital Marketing Excellence Show surprised me with just how many changes/improvements have taken place. In Paid Search: Mastery of Strategy and Execution (http://goo.gl/nrILbL) +Eric Enge and +Larry Kim deliver some top information at breakneck speed. Segmentation, remarketing, targeting strategies and lots more. I’m going to have to watch again just to let it all sink in. Take a look and see if you need to freshen up your paid search strategy.
And in the red corner…
The gloves were off (almost) in Social Proof – The Ultimate Showdown! (http://goo.gl/DxCcp6). +Stephan Hovnanian took the referee spot as +David Kutcher and +Dustin W. Stout go head to head looking at the pros and cons of social proof. A lively discussion both in the show and the comments looking at the numbers game (is it relevant or just ego massaging?), testimonials, reputation and relationships. The consensus is that social proof is a positive when it’s earned. If you rely on the numbers alone, perhaps artificially inflated, then there are some interesting caveats raised in this show. Well worth a viewing.
Thinkers corner
Ever increasing demands on time are given the #MarkoKoolAid treatment in The Stolen Moments of an Accidental Writer (http://goo.gl/jwi6qV). +Bruce Marko explores his own development as a writer and the time that writing stole from other perhaps more necessary tasks. It’s that eternal conflict that most of face at one time or another when trying to justify our online activities to others, most importantly to family and friends, and ourselves. I relish this type of post, not only for the totally immersive writing, but for the compulsion to take that long hard look at our own situation. Thanks Bruce.
+Teodora Petkova explores content and coins a new term in Creative Marketing (http://goo.gl/PHFR8I). Looking at our inner drive to create Teodora takes us on a journey that encompasses the world's oldest profession in Ancient Greece (yes really) and Charles Jencks’ Garden of Cosmic Speculation in Dumfries. A wonderful piece.
And finally…
It’s the next episode of #AmyTV. I look forward to every new episode. They are perfect examples of how to get your message heard in this Attention Economy. This episode AmyTV#25 Getting Your Business Message Across Loud and Clear (http://goo.gl/4niVlg) is highly entertaining and certainly delivers the message loud and clear. Nice job Amy.
Have a great weekend wherever you are
#WeeklyRoundUp #WeekInReview #Google+
#BitingedgeFridayFavourites #MicksPicks
You're speaking my mind.
Longer term it's a good sign, at least they're beginning to take it seriously.
Crap, and you called me wordy.
This is a #WeekInReview and it's not "exemplary" at all. I admire +Mick Sharpe for expending so much effort into this, every single week. Posts like these help a lot of people to keep up with the "things" that happened during the week inside and outside a niche and – most of all – post like these connect people and knowledge.
Right on +Max Huijgen
I'm with +Bernd Rubel on this one, sorry. And appreciate the fact someone took their own time, unpaid, to watch content I produced and cite it in a round up like this. And that he's brought other people's content to light that I would have otherwise missed, which I would like to watch and connect with those people.
My own content notwithstanding, curation like this is high value curation.
+Stephan Hovnanian you are one of the people from which I expect so much better. Really as a profession or at least the non-shady members of it, don't you collectively see that you're ruining the image?
I have btw no doubt that a summary of week events can be useful, but do note the language. As professionals you don't need to sell to each other or do you?
So all these hyperboles are directed at the general G+ audience I assume, Correct?
+Max Huijgen thank you, firstly. And just so I'm clear, you're referring to the comments and reshares, not so much the text of the post?
No, text of the post (and of course the spread, it reached me through mulitple shares) +Stephan Hovnanian
+Max Huijgen okay, thanks. I understand where you're coming from now. I suppose that's feedback assumed more at Mick than myself, although the sharing part can get frustrating, I've dealt with that my end when there are G+ updates coming at me from every angle 🙂 So point taken on that front too
I sometimes think it's a g+ clique, with the same people sharing each others posts, plussing and mentioning into the bargain, and commenting what a fabulous post it is – and then when you read the post it's actually average, or a rehash of something from way back.
And it is that part of it that irritates me more. A mundane post is a mundane post and when I see lots of sucky plussing, thank yous and mentions by the leading lights, it's just like, STFU.
But TBH, they are shrewd and I could see that their plan right from the start of g+, was to corner the market and become these big g+ experts as part of a wider buisness plan.
I do feel better now. Thanks Max. Same time next week?
I couldn't agree more, +Max Huijgen. I noticed this trend really early and distanced myself as fast as I could. The circle jerking is taken to an extreme level, and the self promotion feels very forced.
It's too bad since some of the nicest people I met when I joined were central to building this fake influence bandwagon.
+Paul Wooding Well, let me try to answer these last comments in an appropriate manner.
The "cliques" on Google+ are called #circles (http://goo.gl/Fi2PMi) and #communities (http://goo.gl/2G91Xc). It's quite understandable that you +1 and share posts of the people in your circles (http://goo.gl/Fi2PMi) and communities (http://goo.gl/2G91Xc), because usually you follow them because you like their content, their writing style (!) or even them, personally, in general.
These posts may reach you through mulitple shares because a few people managed it to create a certain "network density", that becomes quite obvious if you have a look at the #ripples (http://goo.gl/2jYDtJ) of a post.
If you have a look at the ripples of a few of +Mick Sharpe's #WeekInReview s like for example "Still Cooking (http://goo.gl/vNIzj8), "Virtually blogging" (http://goo.gl/nHLl1j) or "Midsummer Madness" (http://goo.gl/PekTTb) you could see that these post are NOT only shared by the usual suspects.
But, obviously, if you stumble upon these sort of posts regulary, you seem to follow at least one person who thinks that these posts are worth a share or a +1. You don't have to follow this one person, and in addition G+ offers you the possibility to put people in a certain circle and lower the "loudness" of this circle in your Home Stream.
★ Lame Comparison ★
In Real Life, you don't eavesdrop behind the hedge and then walk into your neighbours garden to tell him that you're not interested in his conversations, that he has to shut up, lower his voice or change the topic of his talkings or the diction.
★ Advice Of The Week ★
Ignore it, build a noise-insulating wall or change your setting. Or: be louder. Create better content, that is shared more often by more people, establish better and more valuable connections and – please – stop whining about what others do.
★ Edit: i added special characters and a bold subheadline to the last paragraphs to emphasize that i'm one of these self-proclaimed big g+ experts and all my posts (and comments!) are part of a wider business plan.
I'm really glad someone wrote this because I've been having similar feelings lately. It's somewhat interesting, to me, that I only had this show up because +Max Huijgen was in a circle share I accepted years ago but I believe this is the first time I've commented on one of your posts.
I think most of my thoughts have already been expressed by either the post itself or some of the comments but I'll think some more on it and be reminded by the notifications of additional comments I'm sure will follow.
Though I could be classified as a marketer I generally use G+ as a social tool and rarely, if ever, for business so anyone who wants to look at my stream and rip apart my content is more than welcome to 🙂
This is an informative post, but it looks like it's for marketers, by marketers. From the perspective of someone who uses this often, I'd suggest to maybe take a more casual stance. It's like I've stepped directly into the Nike warehouse, when all I want to do is see about a good pair of sneakers.
+Max Huijgen While I see your point and agree in principle, it is not a problem that has affected me at all. The only share of this post I have seen was yours, and I have seen no others similar to it.
To avoid them, uncircle the sharers, or put them in circles that are set not to appear in your Home Stream.
The remedy is indeed uncircling. What really triggers me is that the post and the comments treat this as a specific G+ phenomenon. That brings an extra dimension to this discussion. Content on G+ is very G+-centric, unlike LI, TW or FB. That annoys me even more than what +Max Huijgen describes. What am I doing here anyway!?!
Amen, and I am one of those people!
Very true +Max Huijgen . I simply delete these self-publicising and unqualified charlatans from my stream. They are the Dross circle of G+!
Like +Bernd Rubel and +Stephan Hovnanian, I find this particular round-up the most useful in terms of my own interests. In fact, it's the only such one that I ever share, because it almost always encapsulates some of the most interesting (to me) discussions going on.
A hundred things float by in the stream every day that don't much interest me. I just keep scrolling.
I don't hold it against either the authors or the people who share, because those represent their interests and likes. I don't have to share them or interact with them or pay them any attention if a particular one doesn't happen to interest me personally.
I scanned the shares of the original article to see why people would share it, what they add to it to make it their own, and whether they're doing that every week. In which case I wonder: should their followers circle the original author +Mick Sharpe themselves or not? I'm afraid they'd all start sharing the weekly weekly, reinforcing +Max Huijgen 's nuisance.
Also I noted that +Ben Fisher added the following suggestions:
"I take this a step further by suggesting this:
1. Go back to the shorter format
2. Startup a blog
3. Start an email subscriber list
4. Take this format and make a blog out of it
5. Collect leads
6. #getpaidtobeawesone "
Clear directions, I think. Sounds like normal behaviour on various platforms. I know that G+ is different so I won't go into that, but point 6 struck me in particular.
It touches a serious systemic fail that I feel we're struggling with. Not everyone is awesome enough to get paid. Those who are, have a hard time earning money, facing the massive competition that's working for free.
How do even the best quality creators stand out without using hyperboles, back-patting and "I'll-share-yours-if-you'll-share-mine" strategies? I think Ben Fisher has a point. Every quality contributor should consider Ben's suggestions. It's a way to separate the professionals from the wannabe's – and a possible route to monetizing talent. It's OK to fund Google with content contributions but that shouldn't go at the cost of talented creators.
This type of behavior is not restricted to professionals and SEO/marketeers. Unfortunately, it is at the core of G+ and its users. It is not the SEO/marketeers that cause this, it is the users themselves that trigger it.
As a hobby photographer, I follow a lot of photography related people and communities. At the same time, I am not someone that is so in love with my own voice that I have to spout stuff at every chance I get. As a result, if I post a photo in one of those communities, I generally get zero feedback, zero reshares and zero +1's. At the same time, I have actually seen people posting a photo that was out of focus, motion blurred, speckled with so much chroma and color noise due to extreme high ISO you could barely see anything of what was a totally uninteresting and boring subject with bad composition and get literally hundreds of +1's, reshares and comments. Due to the oohs and aahs you'd think he'd made a photo of the second coming. All because the person in question was a serial poster and moderator of the community.
Now, I am not saying or suggesting I am the greatest photographer in the world, or even a good one. It is however extremely demotivating when you post something good, or genuinely think it is good, and consistently get zero feedback on your posts while at the same time post whores posting crap get shared and plussed the living daylight out of them. Most people, at some point or another will just say fuck it, and stop posting.
I am fully aware that engagement is the key to success on social media. I can tell immediately when I have been actively participating in discussions such as this, as my follower count will go up. However, engagement is not nor should it be a measure of quality. Unfortunately, on all social media, the users reward quantity over quality each and every time, which immediately results in behavior so eloquently described by +Max Huijgen above. And understandably so. I don't like it, but unfortunately that's how the game is played.
In the end, social media is essentially a 3 tiered system. You have the original (quality) content creators that know how it works, you have the crap content creators that know how it works, and you have the groupies following them both, sharing and defending them with vigor regardless of what they post, essentially doing the legwork. Everybody else is irrelevant. Sad but true, imo.
+Gijs van Dijk Aiming for a lot of followers and plenty of feedback can be a fine sport. Some people constantly adjust their content and interactions to maximise the number of followers, and if that makes them happy, good for them.
Personally, I try to produce material I would like to read myself. A lot of people clearly prefer to read other things. Some people would like to read my kind of posts, but they have not found mine. No worry. My posts are there, if they look for them.
There are people who read and appreciate without ever replying or even clicking Plus. I know from other sources that I have some of those lurkers. As long as I like what I post myself, I try not to worry about potential followers too much. Nevertheless, I of course appreciate whenever there is a sign that others happen to like it as well.
Many thanks for your thoughts +Max Huijgen
This is why I enjoy Google+, we can all share thoughts, ideas and viewpoints without the conversation degenerating into a bar room brawl.
While I have no need nor desire to defend my writing style nor to be critical of others I do want to address the +mentioning. When I first came back to Google+ in earnest one of the most useful features for me was the ease with which new people could be added to your circles both from their avatar link in comments or directly from +mentions. Hence the +mentions in the body of the post are mainly for the benefit of readers who may want to circle the post authors and event participants (or visit their profile).
Within the comments themselves the +mentioning may seem gratuitous but I find it incredibly useful to prioritise my notifications. With a +mention I get a mentioned you notification, without I get commented on. Now admittedly I will eventually view all notifications but it helps me and, I'm sure, others manage their online activities efficiently.
I am sorry that you have been troubled by the shares of the post. Of course I have no control over who shares the post nor how you manage your circles.
Actually I would like to address uninteresting post reiterating stuff we all know. Sure we all know it, but every week there are more and more people arriving here who don't know it.
Vive la différence and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Hi +Mick Sharpe good to see you don't take it personal as it isn't for me. I could have picked another post as an example
The writing style with all the hyperboles is not unique on G+, to the contrary so it might be the only way to be / get accepted in SEO circles.
However as a group +Iblis Bane +Bernd Rubel it seems the hyperbole is a waste of mutual time and a source of annoyance for others.
Sure +Gijs van Dijk +Anton Theunissen uncircling helps the recipients but it still leaves us with an extremely damaging image of a group of skilled marketeers.
Maybe the target group, the actual customers, love this style , tone and hyperbole but I find it hard to imagine.
Prospects are in the market for socmed and on a market, shy marketers don't sell, even if they have more knowledge, experience, feeling for marketing – heck even the ones who learned how to spell correctly.
+Max Huijgen In your point of view it's a hyperbole, in other people's point of view it's passion, excitement, spirit, affection, sentiment, authenticity. In your point of view it's a waste of mutual time, in other people's point of view it's conversation, sharing of knowledge, courage, being "Social" in general, a reminder, a way to show respect for somebodys work.
No, this isn't probably "the most beautiful sunset/woman/cat/car/book/film/diet on earth" and no, you're not deep, a critic, a journalist, an author, a photographer, an artist or an actor – first of all you just have internet access.
Is it hyperbolic? Who cares, let's be happy that people have a passion for something at all. And let's be even more happy that people share this passion with others, whether you can "identify" with that or not.
Should we all try to lower our level of
annoyancepassion to the lowest common denominator, just to please an undefined crowd of "others" which is obviously both attracted and disgusted at once? Why?+Max Huijgen The only thing I want to put out there is this. The mentioning in a post is important, as it does ping someone that they have been mentioned. Point in fact, I would not have been made aware of this post unless +Anton Theunissen had mentioned me. ( Thank you for the compliment btw Anton ).
I am glad he did, as I discovered a great conversation. I am a follower of +Mick Sharpe and applaud his efforts, his writing style and admire the time he takes to curate, and keep people informed.
To the point of your post;
It is normal behavior though, that if you are +mentioned and find the content to be of quality, that you will comment or re-share if it resonates with you .
One other thing, one of the things I like about G+ is that people do genuinely use words like, awesome, great, brilliant, fantastic ( insert whatever nice word you like here ) because that is how they feel about it. And, more importantly, they are being thankful and giving someone praise. What is wrong with giving praise, when deserved?
I think the world is made a better place when we let someone know they are doing a good job.
I do understand, that it can appear to be a click of people, but that is because we all share common interests and have different audiences.
I would encourage you to look at it through the lens of, people being grateful for what they are receiving, not doing things just for marketing sake.
Re, the problem of seeing the posts from multiple people, the best way to get around that ( for me ) has been to organize everyone into appropriate circles and then tune the frequency of posts for the home stream.
Hope you have a fantastic weekend! ( and I do mean that )
Maybe G+-ers like Max would like G+ to be in a different league, of a different quality, more factual, more truth seeking, more scientific. More on content, less 'awesome'. Reasonable discussions with intelligent people. Even when it's about marketing.
I resonate with that (thanks for the term +Ben Fisher) – and not just with respect to G+. All over the web there's plenty excitement, energy, enthusiasm.
[paragraphs deleted, too negative on socmed in general and a high tldr risk]
The infrastructure and interaction of the matured social media are based on reinforcing positivity. There are no options for -1, thumbs down, etc. on G+, LI, FB. (I truly think that in the long run this is a crippling aspect because we also need negativity to develop. Where are our natural enemies?)
So that leaves us +1, awesome, brilliant, fantastic, mindblowing, mustread, viewchanging – all valid reasons for sharing… It's either that or it's just quiet. It's the nature of the (sharing) game. You can't expect anyone to share a post with the recommendation: 'ok, I read it, it's nice but if you skip this one it will not ruin your life'.
So +Max Huijgen, I suggest you try to get over it, build a hyperbole-free circle (beware of euphemisms 😉 and allow yourself some relaxing moments in there. See how that works out…
The problem +Anton Theunissen is that the self-publicizing SEO and authorship ranking charlatans are only here to leech off our quality content. A G+ with only Circles of Drossness , Join My Follower Collecting Business Community For $750 , Digital Pyramid Academy $1,000 Membership simply wouldn't exist if G+ was simply an online Reader's Digest or Watchtower magazine.
One more thing +Max Huijgen Of course it is a typical marketer thing to exaggerate wording, sharing, plussing, mentioning etc.
Marketers simply know best how to raise attention and how to exploit the available techniques to the max in order to get their word out. It might not result in your preferred conversational tone though.
Marketers do have a profession that is heavily interwoven with socmed-activity, as opposed to most other professions. The majority of them simply can't afford to keep whispering at the sideline. Up to you to find the marketers that you would trust to help you in your business communication.
These G+ "marketers" are self-appointed +Anton Theunissen and haven't been interviewed or examined. We call them unqualified "chancers".
Hyperbole is exaggeration for effect +Max Huijgen. 😀 A perfectly legitimate writing technique which has fallen on hard connotations these days. 😉
As for the echo chamber effect, I'm afraid that's inevitable if you follow several people who have the same interests. I suspect the only way to avoid it is probably to change of manage your circles differently…I haven't managed to overcome it myself, but it doesn't bother me much as I mentioned.
+Anton Theunissen, surely there are groups out there that are more "truth-seeking" or "factual?" I suspect that, to some extent, this too can be affected by how you manage your circles. In other words, follow and engage with only others of similar mind?
The beauty of this platform for me is that there appears to be multiple niche's that people can cleave to according to their wants and needs for it. Nobody has to read, or even see, anything they don't want to. (Of course there is risk inherent in that approach to my mind, but the option is there.)
(Disclaimer…for all my talk about circle management, I don't actually do it. 😀 I follow relatively few people, and don't usually even bother filtering my view by circles.)
This thread turns into a discussion about circles, circle management, the abuse of being "granted" to be part of a circle or extended circle.
I'd like to add that everyone who is not satisfied with his stream (and circles) is able to use the explore and search functions of Google+. If +Russell Davison is interested in engineering in general, he's free to search the keywords or click one of his own hashtags.
https://plus.google.com/explore/engineering
The result is, so far as it is possible, a list of "truth-seeking" and "factual" posts that even looks like a stream. If that's not good enough, you obviously choosed the wrong platform for your interest.
If you complain about the quality, you didn't understand the function of the filters and algorithms of a Social Platform in general. You pull the content to your stream, it's not pushed like an Facebook advertisement or a popup.
Obviously it's still easier to blame the tool than to learn how to use it.
+Bernd Rubel , I'm fully aware (after 3 years) of which buttons to press and I object to people using G+ for self-publicity and MLM.
+Russell Davison I'd like to know the difference between "people using G+ for self-publicity" and Business Consultants who use their profile to emphasize their knowledge in a certain niche where they obviously earn(ed) their money. #SelfReflection
The platform is many things to many people +Russell Davison. We cannot control how they use it. Only how we interact with it.
+Bernd Rubel & +Iblis Bane , G+ is media for social use. It is not a platform for charging people $100 or $1000 on how to collect followers with the false promise of financial reward. It sullies the whole G+ concept.
Additionally +Bernd Rubel & +Iblis Bane , if the engineers, lawyers, and artists left G+ just to the MLMers, and paid clubs then it would close overnight!
+Russell Davison I bet you already had commenters who told you that investments in Renewable Energies are a "false promise of financial reward" … so much for that.
Collecting followers is very easy and i would never charge anybody $100 or $1000 for that advice. I'd just link to your profile on +CircleCount and show them all the #megaball and #hyperball circles that share your profile:
http://de.circlecount.com/ch/p/+RussellDavison
But i could tell others how (and why) to avoid to be part of these circles. I could show +Max Huijgen how he could find the profound and thought provoking posts he's obviously searching for. Or how he would be able to reach the right persons with his quality posts and how to increase the engagement. And how the "Social Use" of a platform like Google+ is done right, how to understand the algorithms and filters and social aspects. And how he wouldn't need three years to find the right buttons.
You advise people in engineering, others advise others in social networking. Your work is not more important only because there's a spinning windmill on a field (that produces the energy for the devices people use when they are on G+).
Neither you nor me will save the world. Calm down. The time for My-work-is-more-important-than-your-work is over.
I agree with you on both those points +Russell Davison. And part of what I see here is marketers trying to come to terms with that. But there will always be people that can't. Which is why what is most important is how we react to and deal with it.
Thanks +Iblis Bane.
You assume much about me +Bernd Rubel and tell us things we already know about +CircleCount . Have you anything to contribute?
+Russell Davison You know, others don't. And if i "assume" much about you that is not true then it's only because your profile on G+ is not unambiguous.
My contribution to your life, business, career, relationships or social networking would be that i could tell you how to build a better, clear profile, but obviously you are not interested or you don't need a better profile.
Others do.
Fair comment +Bernd Rubel [high five]
+Russell Davison [just fighting for a "better" G+, in a different way. High five]
I work in both digital education and marketing but quite honestly it has got to the stage where I am almost afraid to mention the word ‘marketing’. I know and am very friendly with many of these people here on G+ and I realise they have to make a living. (I have to make a living too and it’s tough times) But I agree with your main points +Max Huijgen there is a really bad overkill here on G+ in recent months. I don’t mind the curated posts (some excellent stuff there worth reading) but the constant barrage of top tips and Hangouts is just boring.
Now just one useful G+ tip (!) from me: put all the marketers in one circle, turn the volume right down and they won’t show in your main stream.
+Eileen O'Duffy I agree with you on the tips, especially the beginner ones. And while it isn't a defense by any means, I know a lot of people who make their living via social media still need to have "kindergarten level" content for their own audiences that are newer to the platform. I get that, even if it isn't my own personal style (I'd rather stay at the "high school" level, or at least frame the beginner stuff with application by people and businesses, so the tip becomes something less conceptual and more tangible/actionable to the reader).
The only trouble I see is when said content gets shared like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread…you're preaching to the choir at this point here on G+, best promote that stuff somewhere else.
To help +Eileen O'Duffy , a person qualified to call themselves a "marketer" must have read the complete works of Michael Porter, Dale Carnegie, and Philip Kotler. If they haven't then they are simply amateurs who are calling themselves something that they are not. They have no concept of branding, competition, selling, channels, market share, market forces, marketing strategy, harvesting, divestment, and rivalry. I've read too many dreadful posts in the name of "marketing" from marketing land and I laughed my head off at dozens of recorded "marketing" hangouts. Luckily, for the amateur marketers, the other hangout participants are only there because it is raining outside.
+Russell Davison that's a bit extreme IMO but I see your point: there is way more to marketing than social media, social signals, SEO, etc. Just like there is more to web design than installing WordPress (sorry twenty-somethings, it's true). And since so many companies fail to see that, they flock to whomever has the ability to attract their attention.
Thanks +Stephan Hovnanian . I had to be blunt because these amateur marketers don't have any marketing experience beyond the limits of the very narrow channel of social media. They copy their social media idols and haven't a clue what marketing is all about. Amateur marketing in social media looks so easy that millions attempt it but only a few hundred succeed, earning more than $100 per month.
+Russell Davison that sentiment is exactly why I gave G+ a shot about 2 years ago. I remember it vividly too, it was a promising title on the Harvard Business Review's blog about things I wasn't doing right with my LinkedIn profile. I needed that one, but alas, it was the same five tips that I'm sure you could rattle off the top of your head (and they apply to Google+ too). Much greener pastures and actual learning going on over here, I think b/c the platform features act more as a catalyst for such things than other platforms.
+Russell Davison While, on the other hand Michael Porter, Dale Carnegie, and Philip Kotler would fail tremendously in Social Media if they wouldn't have read "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson, "Google Semantic Search" by David Amerland, "The Tipping Point" by Malcom Gladwell or Google+ Pro Tips by +Stephan Hovnanian 😉
Oh, and like him i see your point.
I wouldn't put Chris Anderson, David Amerland, and Malcom Gladwell in the same league +Bernd Rubel and, having read some, I am disappointed with the conviction with which some of these social media/internet authors place upon the importance of "Webmaster Tools", meta data spaces before commas, back-links, page rank, etc. I say this because Google sometimes, in videos or articles, state quite categorically that it doesn't matter two hoots if your keyword has a space before the comma (David Viney) or the rank of the page you link to/from is crucial, or the keyword density must be between 2.5% and 3.5%, or the keywords must appear within the first seven words of the first line of the first paragraph. Google, obviously, say very little about their user numbers or algorithms. That then makes it party time for the charlatans to sell their snake oil cure-alls for low follower numbers, low engagement, etc. But why? Why would anyone pay to get more followers? More followers don't put more dollars in your bank account. It's just a vanity thing.
+Russell Davison I don't think in "leagues". Knowledge is much more granulated than five, ten, twenty or fifty years before and – metaphorically speaking ahead – a comma can be the reason or the solution for a significant problem that has an impact on the fail or success of a company or a state.
I. personally, would call even Johann Wolfgang von Goethe a "marketer" because his Theory of Colours has a big impact on Marketing down to the present day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
One thing never changes: learn how to use and understand your tools. If Porter, Carnegie or Kotler wouldn't be able to use and understand "Webmaster Tools" nowadays or if they wouldn't at least know somebody who would be able to, they would fail. Others, who have the ability, could gather more data, more accurate data, deeper or better insights, conclusive coherences that could confirm or disprove Carnegies assumptions or Porters strategies.
In this regard, the "fame" of Porter, Carnegie or Kotler is – beside their scientific work – based on the fact that a lot of other people follow them [this time: not metaphorically speaking]. They are leading authorities, because their knowledge and because they as a person are accepted by a significant number of relevant people in their niche. They influence others, especially other influencers and multiplicators.
That's exactly the way how Social Platforms work for marketers. If you're selling books, speak on public conferences, teach at a university or post on your G+ profile – you use a medium to transport your message, no difference at all.
Just as long as we keep things in perspective +Bernd Rubel and recognize that social media is just 10% of the channels of marketing. That's why many of the big companies pulled out 3 years ago. There are many more profitable ways to promote and sell cars, clothes, computers, food, and homes.
+Russell Davison Yes, of course, there are still many more profitable ways. But i'd like to know how many cars, clothes, computers, food, and homes were not been sold because the company pulled out three years ago. Or how many dollars where wasted in short time advertising campaigns or voucher codes because the company had to compete with their rivals on the price instead of, for example, their "brand", image, authority, thrust, customer relationship, response time, client satisfaction, …
But their "brand", image, authority, thrust, customer relationship, response time, client satisfaction +Bernd Rubel are more cost efficiently transmitted though channels other than social media.
TV and print buys have long been more expensive and less cost effective than social media, +Russell Davison , you've made good points but we're starting to go around in circles. Agree to disagree? Maybe just to look at things in a broader sense (which we'll all agree on)?
As you well know +Stephan Hovnanian , any business adviser or social media guru is only engaged if he/she can provide a 500% or 700% ROI. So, if you charge a client $10k then your services should result in an increase in the client's service revenues by $50k to $70k within that 12 month accounting period. If the client is selling a physical product then the $10k fee should result in an increase in $150k to $200k. And, a money-back guarantee should be provided using a banker's order. Anything less than this performance is frowned upon.
+Russell Davison I don't sell ROIs, i accept bets on my knowledge.
Understood +Bernd Rubel . ROIs are the traditional way of convincing a client why they should give you money for business advice/social media. If a guarantee isn't offered then the fee must be insignificant or the reward greater than 700%.
+Russell Davison I agree ROI is the main goal and most marketing advisors will build this into contracts. I’d a nasty experience a few years ago where I’d agreed to a commission basis only based on revenue and increased sales. I had helped a client treble his revenue over 12 weeks and because it all looked so easy he didn’t bother paying up. There are nasty people in all walks of life, not just marketing.
That is a bad experience +Eileen O'Duffy . If it's a new client and the amount is significant then it's best to pay a bank for a guarantee based on agreed performance. There are bad clients who will abuse honest suppliers. A trebling of revenue after only 12 weeks is a fantastic result. You obviously know what you're doing and can express your business benefit in dollars, instead of intangible followers. Follower increases are offered by hundreds of thousands of "me too's" in Asia and elsewhere.
+Russell Davison It was actually a good friend of mine and I didn’t think I needed the lawyers or the bank but sin scéal eile, you live and learn.
+Russell Davison The air you breath is also (quite) intangible, but how do measure the "increased" ROI of a day on the coast compared to the ROI of a day at the corner of a heavily trafficked street?
What, if
mya marketer's knowledge is "priceless"? What if only one out of ten thousand followers is the biggest deal of your entire life, the jackpot? Does this increase or decrease the ROI of the other 9999? Or were they just worth the effort? What was the "follower journey" until he reached you and – most of all – could you at least try to influence this journey, like a lighthouse?It's a bet. Some try to mark the cards, some try to rig the dices, others "play" with a serious strategy, it still remains a game. Sign a contract with Britney and she'll shave her hair. Sponsor the LA Clippers and hand Donald Sterling a phone. Post something on Facebook and see how it's shared by Larry Page on G+. Be a rapper, found a streaming service and be bought up by Apple.
Your point of view of marketing starts at the very end, the measurement. Good marketing starts when there is nothing to measure at all.
Oh +Bernd Rubel , I was taught to be cautious and don't give my money to people who just tell me that they are good. I need proof or a guarantee, if they underperform. I am typical of all self-employed people.
+Russell Davison Just the opposite on my side ;-). I'm a freelancer and if someone says the evil G-Word i'm immediately out. This word was countlessly abused and mouseprinted, like "pledge", "Sorry!" or "Made in Germany". I trust in my gut instinct and my brain, not in guarantees.
Will read this thread in detail later… in the meantime, how about general Social Media ennui…? 🙂
plus.google.com/112964117318166648677/posts/iBM7xUHm2gg
Pretty sure criticism is an effective marketing strategy. You guys think +Max Huijgen was hired by +Mick Sharpe ?
I'm thinking (a boring hangout by three people generating at most five comments) is Hyperbole, but I've only caught a fraction of the ones curated. I did enjoy that fraction though, and I've circled +Mick Sharpe because he catches stuff I'll enjoy that I miss.