Matt Baril

I've published a post on 5 of the 10 Social Media rules I find the most ridiculous and I've received some comments, feedbacks and questions via this blog as well as emails and facebook messages. One point in particular seems to be more controversial: Add Value. I thought I would shed some light on what I meant and why I'm finding this point to be even more ridiculous than when I first put it on the list.

The first problem we run into, is that it's very difficult to define value. I looked up the word "value" on the online Merriam-Webster dictionary and here are the 2 definitions that seem the most appropriate:

1. Relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price> <the value of base stealing in baseball> <had nothing of value to say>
2. Something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable

I used the word "value" as define by the first point and I meant that you don't necessarily have to blog about things that have an utility or are important and I gave PostSecret and The Onion as examples. I would even go further and argue that you should not focus on adding value if you want to grow an audience or your followership. The first reason being that you cannot compete against 10,000 other blogs or the NT Times, and no matter what you blog about, odds are that a hundred blogs have already posted something about it. Another reason would be the ridiculous amount of information available out there makes content a commodity. Why do you fill up the tank at Shell instead of Husky or vice versa? Proximity? Coincidence? Why are you reading this blog rather than another one? Proximity (we're friends)? Coincidence (Google search)?

What We Can Learn From Borat

To me, Borat is the ultimate experience: stupid, disturbing, awkward, pointless, but dangerously funny and definitely memorable! I'm sure you've heard people quoting him on an almost daily basis with "Very nice! How much?" Or maybe it's Bruno, the main character of his latest movie: "Dolce Gabbana, Hallo?" Borat has had a big success and can count many fans and followers, yet I would not say that its success comes from its content. There is no real content: no script, not real story line, no actors except Sasha Baron (the actor for Borat and Bruno). You don't learn anything nor do you feel a better person when finished watching the movie. Yet Borat is amazing.

I am no movie expert, so I will not attempt to explain why it's been a success, I'm sure you can find other blogs for that. But one thing I know is that value as define in the first point above (worth, utility or importance), is not part of Borat's movie. It could however fit the second definition and be "desirable" I guess, but then the problem is that everything can be desirable to anyone. And if used that way. the word "value" loses its sense since it can be anything to anyone.

My take on this, is that creating a unique experience, being memorable, being different, leaving your visitors flabbergasted is more important than adding value in its traditional definition. We can think of groups, singers, movies, tv shows, books, blogs that don't have a high quality content, but are still great and amazing. This doesn't mean your social media strategy should be to be pointless in your posts and publish junk. The point is to show that the experience is at least as important, if not more, than the mere content. In this era of over-information, people are not looking for more information or more value, but for a unique and memorable experience.

If you're interested in Social Media, you've most likely come across many blog posts on dos, don'ts, and "rules" about Social Media. I find these very interesting, because there seems to be a general consensus on some of these "rules" even though there are very successful blogs that don't follow any of them. Here's the first part of a two-part article of 10 rules that I think come up the most often in blog articles and which I hate the most. My point is not that all Social Media rules are ridiculous, but that rules are made to be broken, and you shouldn't pay too much attention to them.

1. Publish often

Publishing often has the advantage of giving your blog a better ranking on Google as well as giving you the edge as far as first impression goes. What it doesn't give you though, is high quality content. When you post an article every day, you can't have thought it through all the time. I followed high profile bloggers such as Chris Brogan and Seth Godin for a few months, and these people post every single day. Although these 2 bloggers deserve kudos for the hard work they do and everything they have contributed to their communities/tribes, they can't keep up with great articles indefinitely by publishing everyday. We could also mention the kind of sacrifices it requires on a personal level to write 7 articles a week, for free. You can also read an interesting comment from Mike who raised an interesting point about posting less being not so much of an issue with RSS feeds nowadays in a previous post here.

Famous counter example: As an example Dosh Dosh is a successful and influential blog that publishes rarely, but has top quality content and long articles.

2. Engage people in a conversation

Most people follow you or comment on your posts with the hope you'll follow back or that their comment will draw traffic to their blog. This is not true 100% of the time, but I'd say the 80/20 rule would apply here: 20% or less of your followers are real fans and create 80% or more of the valuable and relevant content such as questions, ideas, links, etc. Trying to engage a conversation is a noble cause, but it won't happen by itself and it's most likely to take a lot of time before you're having a real conversations with your "fans". Keep trying to get as much feedback as you can, but if you're like 80% of us, replying to your fans won't take you all day.

Famous counter example: Seth Godin doesn't even allow comments on his blog which basically kills the idea of having a conversation and he still runs the most read blog on marketing in the world.

3. Be available, all the time

Chris Brogan is a blogger I really admire and who has done a lot for his community and he's probably the most available person in the world, which means that he sleeps 4 hours a day. He will try to reply to all the emails, tweets, facebook, friendfeed, linkedin, etc, he can possibly receive. I can't imagine the burden of having to be available all the time and the different consequences it can have on your personal life. I'm a strong believer in First Things First (affiliate link) and the power of prioritizing your life based on your roles (parent, employee, friend, son/daughter, etc.). Not everything that is urgent is important, and if it's not important, it should not get your attention.

Famous counter example: Let me reuse the Seth Godin no comment example here and make sure your read this blog post about what happens when you unplug. Someone also brought up no-tech Sundays, an idea I love and that I sometimes do.

4. Publish short posts, or break a long one into many smaller posts

I think it really depends of the audience you're targeting. I find my "true fans" to read all my posts even the very long ones and I've actually had more success with my longest posts. I have short posts for new comers and longer posts for regular visitors who know me better and have read some of my previous posts. If you publish less often, but try to have a higher quality, then length becomes almost irrelevant.

Famous counter example: Let me use Dosh Dosh as an example again, you'll notice that the typical post is much longer than average blog post.

5. Add value

What does that mean anyways? It's by far the most overused expression in Social Media right now, there is no article you can possibly read without having the words "adding value". First of all, I wish I knew what they meant by value here, and second of all it seems to be derived from business value. I believe a blog is all about experience and no so much about the value you add, but the emotion you can create. That might be the new direction my blog will take… hhhmmm

Famous counter example: One blog that has been very successful and which doesn't, in my view, add value is PostSecret. It might be argued that it entertains, but I don't really see the value it adds. Another blog that could be arguably added to this list is the onion (22nd on Technorati ranking) who reports humorous fake news.

As I'm working on a post that touches on 10 of the many based-on-nothing Social Media rules we can found all over the blogosphere, I was wondering what your take was on this. Which one, of the following 10 so called rules, do you think deserve the first place for the most irrelevant, ridiculous and wrong rule? Feel free to express your many feelings in the comment section.

The poll has been closed. See the poll archive to see the results of this poll.

I'm finally reading The Long Tail, Revised And Updated (affiliate link), yes I know it was about time, and I realized Anderson explained very well, and in economic words, something I've been fascinated about and which I used a lot for my 28 business ideas: aggregators. After reading Anderson, I think I've come to a better understanding of the true power of aggreagtors for building communities, as well as its power for new potential ventures.

Aggregators are great for many reasons and they benefit everybody, people who create them, people who use them, and even people who get their content aggregated. Aggregators filter part of the junk out of the useful stuff and most importantly, they help build communities. But aggregators are only one part, and here is what I believe is a better overview of where aggregators fit in.

Anderson says 3 things have made long tail economies possible:

1. Better access: This is provided by new technologies such as Internet, cloud computing, cheap hosting, cheap Internet access, etc. New technologies have empowered your browser and it allows more people to easily reach out and connect with you.
2. More stuff: Here the aggregator comes in handy as it is its job to fetch the most relevant products/services/information and deliver them to you.
3. Filters: If you have no filters, it means you have an easy access to a great deal of stuff, which by definition will be mainly useless to you (it's an aggregate of niche products that don't appeal to the mass). You need tools to filter out what's not aligned with your tastes and a good CMS (Content Management System) will help you do just that.

What Anderson doesn't say however, is that once you have content, users and filters, you've created a platform. From a business perspective this is a very good news, because you can build a platform with little resources: a hosting contract, a domain name and a CMS (drupal, magento, joomla!, etc.) and you're good to go. The keys will be to find your niche and build up a community, two things that are easier said than done.

For the skeptics, there is definitely a strong business case for a platform, because you're adding value by offering a large selection of sorted products, connecting people with similar tastes to one another, and creating more value from the users through reviews, ratings, recommendations and word of mouth (free marketing). It also means that you are getting rid of the less profitable and more difficult part of creating innovative great content and focus on building a community around your platform and its products/services. It reduces risks in two ways, on one hand the initial cost is lower than a typical venture that creates content or goods, and on the other hand, a platform can adjust to new tastes much quicker since it can easily scale up its catalog.

To conclude, a good example of an international company who has been very successful doing just that is Amazon.com. They've even been a step further by offering what Anderson calls an Aggregator-for-hire. They basically offer other vendors to use their platform which means they don't even have to bother fetching content.

I've recently found my niche and I'm working hard at getting a platform up and running. Do you have yours?