What is Social Media? Advanced Facebook vs Twitter vs Google vs StumbleUpon Comparison
I love echos. There's a certain feeding 5,000 men with one loaf of bread kinna quality to them. Say it once and your words just get rippled across space and time -- literally.
I remember one echo. After a greuling 15 hour drive, a life threatening flash flood danger narrows wading, and a 6 hour Matterhornian climb to the top, I collapsed next to several small memorial monuments. One was about a boy who had fallen to his death. Another was about a woman who would forever be missed. One even had fresh flowers around it. I had finally reached the top of Angel's Landing in Zion UTAH.
If you crawled on your belly to peek over the cold hearted edge and you squinted, you could see eagles flying beneath you.
I sang a song. It was Running to Stand Still. And it echoed.
And echoed.
And echoed.
And echoe
And ech
And e
A...
Well, it wasn't always like that in traditional media. You had to run the same ad spot or display ad every 10 minutes or every issue for anyone to hear you. You had to generate your own echoes. Then, came remote controls. They ruined advertising. You no longer had to sit there and watch a commercial about fungal infections. This was a big deal in marketing ROI. It's that echo that costs so much to generate.
Social media not only lets the little guy have access to an audience, it gives the little guy the same access to that cavernous and precipiceous far above the treeline topography where everything you say can go and go.
Facebook vs Twitter vs Google vs StumbleUpon Comparison
So we've compared social media to conventional media. Now lets compare the various media within social media. There's Facebook, Twitter, Google (not social), and Stumbleupon. Each has their unique superpower. If you put them together, by the power of Greyskull, you've got Voltron.
It's true.
To consumate any deal, make any sale, you need two things.
1) Credibility
2) Rapport
If you're the foremost expert on shammies but I can't stand you, I'm not going to buy from you. Conversely, if you're my brother but you can't hold down a job, I'm not going to invest in your new startup. You need both.
Facebook
Facebook gives you rapport.
If you post a message on your wall, have you ever noticed that when you first login to Facebook, you get dropped onto the "Home" page? You do realize there are two main pages. If you post a message on your wall, it'll get posted into a stream of status updates on every single one of your "friend's" home pages.
The average user has 130 friends. So each of your messages gets just under 130 impressions. Why less than that? Well, that "home" page is only so long. If 14 of your friends post a message, before you get a chance to logon and read that stream, The earliest post gets pushed down to the next page. And when's the last time you actually clicked back a page in Facebook?
A message in facebook has about a 24 hour shelf-life. But since you have a lot of rapport, your CTR or click through rate will be fairly high if your post is relevant to your friends' interests. I've seen as high at 23% CTR!
EDITED: I just got an email from a client saying that everyone else he's talked to makes Facebook ads a mission crittical component of their strategy. I don't recommend spending a penny on Facebook ads. ZERO. If you're interested in why, message me privately at http://facebook.com/bob.wan.kim
Twitter
Twitter gives you credibility. In twitter, the average user has about 250 followers. I know. You've heard different figures. They are wrong. I am right. Here's why:
Only 19% of the users in Twitter still use Twitter. So, if you skim off that 89% group who only have 10 followers, your average jumps massively. But the trouble is, while every message is indeed blasted onto each of your Twitter followers' home page just like facebook, the remaining tweeple are far more active than your Facebook friends. A twitter stream's shelf-life is only about 1 hour.
So while 70% of your 130 Facebook friends are still using Facebook and a post has a whole 24 hours before it gets lost, in Twitter, only 19% of your 250 followers are still using Twitter and you've only got one hour before your tweet disappears into a plushly shag carpeted abyss (keeping the echo annology alive). Oh, and don't forget about the timing of your tweets. 300% more of your followers are online on Twitter after lunch than during. So if you tweet at noon, to your 250 followers, of the 48 people who still use Twitter, only about 1% of them will even see your tweet.
Yes. That's plush, high pile carpet on the wall and ceiling.
Finally, if you have a large follower count, people visiting your Twitter profile http://twitter.com/journik will think you're some kinna celebrity. So Twitter gives you credibility. But unlike Facebook, people find you on Twitter based on #FF and keyword searches. They don't know you from Adam.
NEXT: Let's add in Google and StumbleUpon. To be alerted when Google and Stumbleupon are added into the equation, just friend me at http://facebook.com/bob.wan.kim
PS... this is NOT saying that Twitter is useless. Twitter is much more powerful than Facebook in 3 respects. The readers who've become a marketing client of http://sparkah.com know exactly what those 3 things are...
PPS. an hour and a half after I sang that song on Angel's landing, some dude from Laguna Beach walked up to me panting. He said, "Don't sing. You're noise polluting!"
staff notes: metrics
rapport vs credibility
actual readership
visibility attrition time
peak visibility hours


How to Get Into the News Media and Pull Big Bloggers Like Guy Kawasaki With





Comments [0]