I got an email from TheSocReports this morning. Now, this is not a take-down of the service. Do you homework and decide on your own. (Full-disclosure, TheSocReports was an advertiser on WeatherBrains. I have received no money from TheSocReports, or WeatherBrains for that matter.)
Here is the note:
A few days ago, we got more snow than normal in Chicago.
Not that snow in March is ever a huge surprise, but I happened to be expecting a rare visit from my nephew (who was driving from Alabama), and I got up that morning, anxious to see the latest forecast.
So I flipped on the TV to find the Weather Channel.
I went up and down the cable and tried to find it – couldn’t. Called my husband, he couldn’t. At the moment, I was really wanting one of those ‘Siri like’ remote controls.
But in the process of trying to find the road conditions between here and Kentucky, I discovered something really interesting.
One of those info-tainment shows called “Cindy Crawford’s Skin Secrets” was playing on not one – but at least five (maybe more) channels on the cable SIMULTANEOUSLY. (She sells this supermodel serum that is supposed to help you look younger.) I have to confess that I paused for awhile to watch.
I finally found TWC after consulting the cable guide as last resort, but the idea of some marketing genius deciding that Cindy Crawford’s beauty products show should run on multiple channels AT ONCE made me think.
It’s a lot like what I’m constantly preaching about social media. You need reps, you need more ‘at bats’ than the other guys to break through the noise.
Yes, the very first step to becoming a force in social media showing up actively. It’s what our clients at TheSocReports know all too well.
If you or someone you coach relies on social media, I encourage you to check out TheSocReports https://www.thesocreports.com/
We collect data on YOUR social media activity to show you how to become the Cindy Crawford of your profession.
It’s frankly not for everyone – but we offer a trial so you can find out.
When you’re ready, go here:
“At bats” doesn’t scale on a global platform where anyone and everyone is looking for your attention. I’m just about finished with The Attention Merchants. Go get it and you will be blown away at the history and and evolution of advertising and “attention harvesting”. Author Tim Wu shows that mass attention harvesting ALWAYS leads to a race to the bottom. EVERYONE wants your eyeballs.
More “reps” is going to lead to more useless posts with temperature maps and automated sunset time tweets and you will continue to teach the people who have chosen to give you their valuable attention to ignore you.
In fact, human behavior tells us that this is a more permanent effect than we realize. Once you overload the user, you train them not to pay attention. More clutter isn’t free. In fact, more clutter is a permanent shift, a desensitization to all the information, not just the last bit.
Every person on social media is now a marketer and they have access to the same platform as you. Facebook is not going to prioritize your post over the online shoe retailer (unless you pay them), and they are not going to prioritize your temperature map because you post it twice an hour instead of once. Facebook has the smartest data scientists in the world, they know when you are spamming.
The value proposition pitched by TheSocReport when I tested the service last year was that hiring managers are going to look at your social activity. Okay, interesting point. But does it bother you that your value is being determined by how frequently you annoy people?
Quality wins. You know that already by seeing your analytics. Yes, I know the picture of your cat does better than the Red Flag Warning graphic, there is some value in the entertainment but weather information is time-sensitive.
Final point, and I think it is an important one. Carol never indicated that she once went to social media looking for information about her nephew.
(The title of this post, There Is No Normal is a hot-button. There is no normal snow in Chicago in March. If it snowed 20 inches in 15 of the 30 year period and 10 inches in the other 15 year the “normal” would be reported at 15 inches, but it never snowed 15 inches!)