For those of who aren’t familiar with the service, paper.li organizes my links shared on Twitter and Facebook into newspaper-style format.  I can simply aggregate the tweets of those I follow, aggregate the tweets on a specific hashtag or aggregate the tweets from one of my lists. I can also set the frequency for “newspaper publication” at daily, weekly or monthly.

Paper.li pulls information from the tweets I send, although most of the content comes from the people on Twitter in order to round out the “news” for the day.  Currently, there are no controls to fine-tune or otherwise tailor the content. I don’t get to choose whose content goes into the paper, nor do I get to filter it in anyway aside from the hashtag or list options I mentioned earlier.

The service uses an algorithm to identify and highlight important or newsworthy content; however, I’m clueless as to how it chooses content and the folks at paper.li are mum on the topic. It’s pretty uncanny in its ability to identify the “news” I would find of interest, so I suspect the algorithm includes some combination of the content in the tweets I share and the content I personally tweet, along with the topic generally tweeted by those I follow.

I’ve created several “papers” with paper.li and I visit each of my papers every morning and scan the tweets from the last 24-hours, much like I would scan the articles in my morning newspaper. Often I find information of interest that I might have missed the day before, so I find it useful to keep on top the news of interest to me. There are also a couple of my papers that I share via a daily tweet to my list.

The promotions of my daily papers are what raise the shackles of some on Twitter.  Apparently, they don’t see the value in my sharing of “my news” and rarely, if ever, look at my paper.  I suppose ignoring a paper built on my interests is a valid argument for most, especially since they can create their own paper at paper.li that’s tailored to their interests.  Those who follow me on Twitter likely have similar interests to me, so it’s a nice way for me to share with them the content they may also have missed—which may be different from their paper considering they’re likely to follow somewhat different people than I follow.

I must confess that I only occasionally read the newspapers of others. The papers that I do read are those that have a very narrow focus. Such papers are built from lists that someone has taken the time and made the effort compile and are made up of consistently interesting people who regularly share or talk about information that’s relevant to me. If you’ve ever tried to build a Twitter list like this you’ll understand why it’s a lot less trouble to read someone else’s paper if your interests are similar.

I’ve been fine-tuning the lists I use for my promoted papers, but the absence of a little more granularity of content control makes my papers less useful than they could be for my followers.  I’m thankful for the 100 or so new followers I’ve gained since promoting my papers, though. Most have similar interests and many have engaged me in great conversations, both online and offline.

Still, there are a few small things that paper.li could do to give me a little more control and better target my content, which would make my papers more useful to me and possibly for others. For example, paper.li might offer features to:

• Filter content by keywords and/or hashtags. I’ve found the best way to drive relevant content is by using a list. But, not everything a person on a list tweets is relevant to the topic of the paper. I don’t believe the algorithm considers the paper name, so my “Trademark Licensing” paper might also include stuff that doesn’t have anything to do with trademark licensing.  If I could filter content so that tweets were excluded if they didn’t have specific key words and/or hashtags, the paper would be more relevant and focused by topic.

• Suspend publication if there’s no relevant information in the stream based on filters. On weekends, for example, one of my papers contains little, if any information relevant to the topic of the paper—it’s driven by a list not a hashtag.  On one recent weekend day the only content within this paper was one my tweets, which included a sole picture of  the Charlie Brown Christmas tree I have in my office.

• Provide Keyword filtering would be better than hashtags. As much value as hashtags can have in selecting content, there are no hashtag standards.  People don’t always use the same hashtags for content that could be relevant to the paper.  Paper.li might also allow me to change the name of a hashtag-driven paper would be a bonus. A paper called, “#trademarklicensing Daily” isn’t going gain much of following, especially if it misses relevant information that is tagged with #trademark or #licensing, but not #trademarklicensing.

• Add a disclaimer or  establish a standard disclaimer for everyone. There are still a number of people who don’t understand the product and are surprised to be mentioned from time to time. They think it’s something I’m consciously doing and it takes a bit of explaining as to how paper.li works—including how to stop the mentions. Until I can gain better control of the content, I’d like to add a disclaimer at the top of the paper explaining that I have little control over the paper’s content. Alternatively, paper.li could add this disclaimer for every paper for every user.

Yes, I like paper.li. Or at least I like what it has the potential to become with just a few minor additions.

What about you? What would make paper.li a good fit for you?

How I would improve paper.li | Dave Harkins

Residual Customer Value Calculator | Dave Harkins

It occurred to me today that I may already have a way to measure WOM influence and the impact of social media.

Years ago, I came up with a simple equation to measure what I called, the “Residual Value of a Customer.”  In other words, this is a calculation to determine value of an average customers’ impact on your business relative to their individual influence on other customers.  Keep in mind that this was before the internet and social media tools, so the sphere of influence of an individual customer was generally much less—maybe 7-10 people total.  However, I think the logic still applies today.

The Residual Value of a Customer takes into account the annual sales to a customer, the expected tenure as a customer, and the estimated number of people influenced.  For example, if “Customer A” spends $150 a year with a company and the average tenure is three years, then “Customer A’s” value to the organization is $450.  However, if “Customer A” recommends the product/service to just one other customer who follows the same spending/tenure patterns (as the average), “Customer A” now has a residual value of $1,350.

Let’s take this thinking a step further.  Recent research has suggested that the average Facebook user, for example, has 120 friends.  The average user may interact meaningfully with between 10 and 20 Facebook Friends within a 30-day period.  Using the calculations above, let’s say “Customer A” influences 20 friends within a 30-day period.  “Customer A” now has a residual value of $27,000, as do each of those 20 friends who adhere to the average customer measures.  In this first circle or ripple of influence the residual value of these 21 customers is now more than one-half million dollars over the next three years, assuming the averages spending and purchasing life remains consistent.

These are significant numbers, and all brought about by one customer sharing experiences with a circle of friends.

I have used this model a number of times to demonstrate the power of WOM marketing programs to senior management.  It is simple to understand, and proven using average customer sales and tenure numbers.  In the majority of the cases, I’ve been successful in gaining support from senior management for at least testing WOM or now, social media, programs.  I have also used the Residual Value of a Customer to demonstrate the opportunity cost for not engaging in WOM.

In the spirit of sharing, I’ve created an online version of the model for you to use here: Residual Value of a Customer Calculator.  Feel free to use this model and share with others.

I’d appreciate your feedback.

How to measure social media | Dave Harkins

We humans are social animals, of course. Most of us like engage with others so that we can have an understanding of where we fit into the fabric of our culture. Yet we Americans, in particular, are finding ourselves growing disconnected from those around us. We overwhelm ourselves with extracurricular activities to occupy our time, we work too much and relax too little, and we focus on getting “things” done, rather than experience doing “things.” Overall, we have lost the personal connections to the people in America who make our “stuff,” grow our food, or frankly, those who live next door. It is almost as if our individual desires for personal independence and self-reliance have eclipsed our need for social interaction. They have not, of course. Our requirements of social interactions are just different now from before.

Today, we try to balance our individual desires with our need for social interaction by leveraging digital technologies into the mix to help us maintain our personal connections in the lulls of our daily living. We all do it, but some of us do it better. It seems to me that each generation appears to connect and build relationships differently using technology. For example, I have observed that Millennials use social media as a way of extending their daily interactions with their friends. With their mobility restricted by expansive neighborhoods and overprotective parents while growing, they had no choice but to explore new online social technologies as a way to maintain their friendships. As a result, communicating by text, Facebook or MySpace is the same as a phone call or a face-to-face conversation. Social media, and the digital technologies that supports it, are fully integrated into the life of most Millennials.

Observations of Generation X show me that they rely heaviest on cell phones for social interaction, I suspect because most were in college when mobile phones became affordable for and adopted by the masses. Texting and social media tools appear to be time-consumers that this Generation has not yet fully embraced. Instead, they are practical about the use of social media, engaging with those pieces that benefit them most (such as using Twitter to build business relationships), disengaging when there is little personal gain.

Baby Boomers appear to function best using face-to-face, phone and email communications, but are rapidly adopting Facebook. I think, they can “see” their friends and feel engaged in those lives as if they lived next door. This closeness is important to Boomers, especially as they age, because it seems to provide Boomers true “social” opportunities in the context of their primary interests: connecting with old friends, sharing political news and views, discussing religion and exploring hobbies.

Each generation has found a way to make social media technologies relevant to their own lives, to give us opportunities to connect with others regularly, as we allow our culture to put increasing demands on our time. The ability for us to bend and mold social media tools to our individual needs, values, and expectations is what makes it work so well in building and re-building our valued connections.

We need social media tools to help us maintain our ability to be human in the face of the demands made on us by our culture, our peers, and ourselves. These tools are now such an essential part of how we function as individuals and who we are together as a community, that living without social media and supporting technologies is unthinkable.

It is clear to me that social media allows us to maintain some degree of sanity in our lives. Without these tools, we would give up what little socialization we do enjoy; and I am not so sure that would be good for our minds, or our souls.

Why we need social media | Dave Harkins

I decided to try a little social media experiment at the Licensing Expo to see if we could get into the attendees life stream and create personal engagement.  We advertised our presence on Twitter in print and on signs in the booth, we engaged followers of the Licensing Expo Twitter feed (#LX9) on the floor, and we brought a magician to the booth to create a different life experience on the show floor.

Were we successful?

Our Twitter follower numbers are up modestly since the advertisements began to appear, but the real success comes from the buzz we generated on the show floor.  We tweeted multiple times a day, awarding prizes, sharing memorable visits and talking about our booth activities.  The folks at the Licensing Expo and others took notice and retweeted.  Many booth visitors said the tweets were the reason for stopping.

It seems that we were not only successful in getting into the life stream of attendees, but once we gained their attention we also did well to create a memorable experience (with our magician) when they engaged.  This good memory we helped to create launched many deeper conversations about our brand and our opportunities.  Although, had we not made good use of the moment when we captured their attention, attendees would have been off to the next thing.

Some have said this was a successful use of the digital channel, or perhaps  savvy social media marketing.  Maybe, although I no longer believe in marketing channel silos when it comes to building customer relationships (see my 2003 whitepaper, Customers are Channel Neutral for details).  Customers effortlessly move between channels, so our old definitions are no longer truly relevant-except to say that the customer experience must be consistent regardless of when and where the customer connects.  Today, marketers must subtly connect, be accepted in the life stream, and engage with passion so that it creates a memory for the customer.  So, it was not the use of the social media that mattered in our experiment, rather it was the memory we helped to create.  Social media and digital technologies are only tools to help spread the message.  What is most important for marketers to remember is simply: great stories and memorable experiences spread quickly to build brands–the channel and the tools are irrelevant.

With people from all over the world attending, the Licensing Expo provided a microcosm of what is happening in our culture.  Our personal and work lives are intertwined and we engage both regardless of our location.  Life is no longer exclusively defined by what is happening in our physical presence.  For many of us it resides in the palm of our hands and is illuminated by a tiny screen. As marketers, we must adapt to these changes without being intrusive or obnoxious if we are to keep our brands relevant.

As I see it, this ever-present digital and wireless connection to the world can no longer be called a “channel.”  Digital technologies simply and effortlessly extend the connections in our lives; and life connections are not channel dependant.

Digital is not a channel; it’s a life-connection tool. | Dave Harkins

The use of these electronic tools for conversation isn’t as really the time-waster they insist it is. Frankly, I prefer to think of these tools as “time-enablers” instead of a “time-wasters.” Having a BlackBerry®, for example, allows me to take my work with me wherever I go. Whether it’s soccer games, band or chorus concerts, or business trips, I can easily bridge the time between work, play and life most of the time. This means I probably work more hours than the average person does, but I work differently. I like the freedom. After all, it’s all “life,” isn’t it?

Facebook allows me to keep up with my kids and friends while traveling on business or otherwise away from the PC. Twitter opens the doors to ideas and conversations that I would never have if I only talked to the people in my every-day business dealings. For those of us with intense curiosity and a burning desire to continue to learn new things, Twitter is the source of unbelievable amounts of useful information, shared by people with similar passions—even for a skimmer of tweets like me.

In a 2003 blog entry, “The trouble with cell phones,” I shared that my friend Roger might have been on to something when he suggested, “…cell phones have replaced cigarettes as a nervous habit. People pull out their cell phones, call others when they feel bored or need to kill 5 minutes or so, and didn’t plan ahead with some reading material.” Today, this has been replaced with texting, email, Facebook and Twitter. Tomorrow, it will be something else. As someone commented recently, given the choice people would rather be doing something than doing nothing. Mobile technologies allow us to do something all of the time—productive or not.

Technology has obviously evolved since 2003 when cell phones were the primary source of mobile conversations. While we still use cell phones, we use them differently. We talk little and text often. Technology and our use of will constantly evolve and morph into the next generation of tools. Think about it: the “shared applications,” mainframe-thinking of the 70’s evolved into tools like Google Apps and cloud computing discussions; AOL’s IM chat communities of the 90’s and classmates.com have evolved into today’s Facebook; and ASP program models of the 2000’s have evolved into the Software as a Service (SaaS) program models of today. The technology changed, sure. But, it was the users of the technology who drove those changes.

Knowing all of these things, it’s hard for me to imagine that a few short years from now what we call “Social Media” and the technology that supports it, will not have undergone a major transformation for the better. It will do so because of the users. Users of these tools already desire a more streamlined ways to improve communications with others. I have to believe that users will demand better integration of these tools to make their lives easier through increased mobility. This will allow the conversations to continue and the relationships to build all day, every day. Will this mean stronger, better relationships? Maybe. Only time will tell.

I am certain of two things, though. One: Everything about technology and social media interaction will continue to evolve. For those of us who are early adopters, we gain great insights into how that evolution may occur. Two: My friends, who don’t understand Twitter today, won’t understand the next step in the evolution either. Unfortunately, they will find themselves farther and farther behind; not just with technology, but also in their social interactions with others as many of their friends more readily adopt the changing way we communicate as a culture.

By know, we all should realize that, “this, too, will change.” Technology evolves. Communication methods evolve. Yet, people do not really evolve as much as they adapt. Either they drive such change by adopting, engaging, and sharing or they simply adapt to such change reluctantly in fear of being passed by.

Which will you do?

Thanks to @heathervescent with whom I had a Twitter conversation about emerging technology, which was the spark for this blog post.

BlackBerry® is a registered trademark of Research In Motion Limited.

Social Media: This, too, will change. | Dave Harkins

One can hear, but not be listening.  One can listen, but not really hear what’s being said.  Either way, the conversation goes on just the same.  People are talking to you and about you, but you may not be making the connection that its “you” who is the topic of the conversation.  Take it from a guy who has had the benefit of hearing impairment most of his adult life.

Those same conversations go on about organizations and brands every day.  Everyone talks, but few organizations really listen.  It seems to me that most organizations are “hearing or listening impaired,” and the older the organization the worse the problem.  Granted, most organizations try to hear what is being said, but some are still using an old-fashioned hearing aid (ear trumpet).  There are others who let their hearing aid batteries weaken, or worst of all, still others have removed their hearing aids because they don’t like what their hearing.

Don’t believe me?  Do you work for any of these organizations?

The Ear Trumpets
Organizations listening to customers with the ear trumpet funnel many voices down a long tube where only the loudest are heard.  In an organization, this is like sending all the calls to “customer service” or the “help desk.”  The ear trumpet solution works poorly for the hearing impaired and even worse for organizations.  Think about it: just because the organization is not hearing the softer voices doesn’t mean friends, neighbors, and competitors aren’t.

The Weak Batteries
Those organizations that operate on weak batter power for their hearing device miss critical elements of the conversation with their customers.  The conversations continue, but the organization picks up only bits and pieces—like a conversation with your mom on a bad mobile phone connection.  She keeps talking; unfortunately, you’ve dropped enough of what she is saying that don’t realize you’ve been offered a free trip to the Bahamas…  and declined to go.  The same thing happens with customers when an organization only hears parts of the conversation—good opportunities are lost.

The Not Listenings
The organization that removes its hearing device, or has decided not to buy one in the first place, does not want to participate in the conversation with its customers.  It would rather yell at a customer and hope a few want what it’s selling, than open up a conversation with the customer about needs, values, and expectations.  Who likes to be yelled at all the time?  Not me, and I’ll bet not you.  Aside from great products and exceptional service, all customers really want is to be heard.

Social media tools help level the playing field for organizations that are “hearing impaired.”  It’s like having a pair of super-charged, digital hearing aids that help you amplify just those frequencies you need to hear.  This ability to listen, hear and actively engage in conversations 24/7 allow your organization unbelievable opportunities to learn from your customers, correct your mistakes, and build a loyal following.

Now, turn on those hearing aids and engage in conversation.  You’ll be surprised what you will learn when you start listening again.

People are talking. Are you listening? | Dave Harkins

Once you have a Twitter account you’ll need to “follow” someone to get the most out of the tool.  This means you’ll be listening (or reading) to what that person has to say.  As an information junkie, I follow those who talk about things that interest me.  Although, I have to admit following a hundred or so simultaneous conversations can sometimes be daunting.  Nonetheless I learn new things daily, I’ve found a great breeding ground for new things to think about, and I find new sources of information relevant to my interests.  Because these topics interest me, I can also contribute something to these conversations.

On the flip side, some may desire to follow you and here’s where it gets a little sticky.  Not everyone thinks the way I do and follow people who engage in topics of interest.  Some believe that it is the size of the network that’s important.  I would like to think the general idea behind Twitter was “relevant conversations” with others; therefore the size of your network would be somewhat limited by those with similar interests.  Unfortunately, like rabid “network marketers” some desire to follow solely so someone in your network may see them and investigate the latest “business opportunity” being pitched or product sold.  Those people are simply trying to increase the size of their network.  I dislike this approach, as it seems to me that the “follow” is somehow disingenuous.

Consider this: When you met your neighbor the first time, did you work to find common interests, or were you pitched all-purpose, non-toxic cleaning solutions that he or she happened to be selling?  I dislike the latter and will avoid that neighbor for a while.

The same is true online, and especially with Twitter.  It’s very easy to “unfollow” someone.  You can also block your updates, as I do, so that you must approve everyone who follows you.  I like this because it gives me the opportunity to manage my “implied endorsement” of those who follow me.  I review every website and Twitter stream of every follow request, and make a conscious decision as to the “fit.”  If there is not a fit, I decline.

Social media tools are specifically designed to build conversations.  Think about it like talking with your neighbor across the back fence, only you’re talking across Internet.  Shared ideas and interests are paramount to building personal credibility and friendships.  Twitter and other online tools can accelerate credibility building, but they can destroy it just as quickly.

For me Twitter is not about building a large, non-interested following.  It’s a waste of everyone’s time and erodes credibility of the followers. I hope those I follow feel the same way.

The non-interested followers | Dave Harkins

There are more than 40 million users in the United States alone. The Blackout folks didn’t even register a hiccup. In fact, Alexa.com did not show a sudden drop in pages views on December 15, or a sudden increase in page views on December 16.

The core generation using  Facebook understands that the masses can move the direction of a company.  They understand that the customer (in this case a Facebook user) can control and guide the brand.  The problem here seems to be that the users think they “own” the brand that Facebook has developed. It’s a subtle, but important difference for both Facebook management and its users to consider.

We understand that Facebook management wants to build a website that attracts the masses, build user stickiness, and tastefully monetize the website through advertising.  Management’s goal is likely to make money for investors (0r at least cover the cost of operating the service.)  We also understand that users just want to interact with each others using the website and tolerate the advertising in exchange for free user of the tools.

Facebook management does seem to listen to requests and input from users, but I doubt the Blackout garnered much of their attention. Although, if the Blackout participants had numbered 10 or 20 million it might have raised an eyebrow or two. Facebook, like many Web 2.0 services, is designed for “the many” and not “the few.”  It’s a very small number who are complaining about the changes Facebook management is making.

I suspect “the few” just don’t like any change in their lives.

Yet, in our online and offline worlds, change in our lives is the only thing on which we can depend. So, you (Facebook user or not) really have just three choices:

1.  Drive change
2.  Accept change
3.  Freeze from fear of change

What will you chose in 2009? I hope you don’t choose the third option.

Happy New Year!

The “Great” Facebook Blackout | Dave Harkins

Please note that this presentation is Dave Harkins’ work created in other partnerships or organizations and the design templates have not been changed. Additionally, this content may now be dated but can still be used as an idea starter for your specific needs.

PRESENTATION: Marketing Out of the Box | Dave Harkins