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

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

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

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

As Web 2.0 and social networking technologies gain a greater foothold on our culture, I often hear LinkedIn.com founder Reid Hoffman’s quote, “Privacy is an old man’s concern,” tossed about. There is some truth to that, I suppose. Although I suspect the real issue is “trust” and not “privacy.” Trust is certainly not an “old man’s concern.”

Baby Boomers and Generation X’ers view the increasing requirements of Web 2.0 for personal and private information with a wary eye. We are the children who came of age in a time that knew Vietnam, the concept of the Cold War, and Watergate firsthand. We are largely skeptical and don’t easily trust the “establishment,” whether it be the government, the corporations or unseen faces behind the wall of the Internet. To us, relationships are built one-on-one and face-to-face, and privacy is something protected until the deepest stages of the relationship.

The Millennial Generation, the generation fueling the development of Web 2.0, are children of technology. They have grown up with computers and technology, and their distrusting and skeptical parents (see above) were increasingly protective of them in their formative years. This generation’s social life was controlled by their parent’s ability (or inability) to take them where they could engage others (play dates, dance classes, baseball games, etc.) They saw little unstructured playtime in the neighborhood with their friends and their primary means of social interaction was (and is) online. Their online relationships are real and intimate because they are an extension of their daily interaction with their friends. To this generation, privacy is not something to be concerned about; it is simply the price paid for building trust.

Although the perceptions, behaviors, interactions are somewhat different between the generations, the act of sharing information and building relationships (face-to-face or online) is tied to one single factor: Trust. Trust is what makes the relationships work. Trust is the only thing that can make or break that relationship. It does not matter if it’s a personal, friendly relationship, or one build on expectations of your company or your brand.

Yet, companies violate our trust daily; and, we keep going back for more. Well, at least those of us who were skeptical and distrustful in the first place are returning. Our expectations were low at the outset, so we largely tolerate the violations of our trust. That’s about to change though. The Millennial Generation has higher expectations of our companies and our brands. Violate their trust, and we are history. We will not get a second chance.

Trust is still the currency for business success. It does not really matter how much private information is shared and kept by the company; it is what is done with the information to build trust that is important. As our culture continues to evolve, keeping the trust is going to be a lot harder than earning it in the first place.

Are you prepared for that?

Trust is still the currency | Dave Harkins

Please note that this e-book 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.

Cool Tools for Small Business: Vol 1 – 19 Indispensable Websites

E-BOOK: 19 Indispensable Websites | Dave Harkins