Why Facebook’s new brand recovery commercial is not good, but great

Last night, I was watching an NBA game -- Warriors vs. Pelicans, played in the heart of Silicon Valley -- and a commercial came on.

It told me to become friends again.

It was Facebook, in a one-minute advertisement, trying to win back my heart after a rough last couple of weeks. The world’s most popular social media network had been under widespread scrutiny after it was discovered in March that they had surrendered profile data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts to a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica.

This evidence was deeply disturbing to many Facebook users, myself included, as it exposed the company’s willingness to give out seemingly private, personal information to powerful companies outside of the network.

As a result of this, Facebook has spent the last month trying to make amends. Its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before congress concerning the damning evidence against his company and what they knew about what was happening, and he has announced changes within the network’s structure that will attempt to combat this harvesting of personal user data.

Zuckerberg promised that Facebook “will never be unprepared again” for attempts to undermine the democratic process, including elections, according to the New York Times.

Despite the fact that Facebook has reportedly continued to make more money in the past year, even with the recent privacy scandal, Zuckerberg knew that this was a bad look. Along with security changes, like the newly added “Clear History” function, Facebook took on a marketing initiative to try to salvage its brand’s reputation in this time of crisis.

They release a commercial, the one that I saw last night.

Over the past couple of weeks, I hadn’t exactly broken things off with Facebook. We were still talking, but not like before. I’d lost some trust, as one might expect. So I wasn’t exactly coming from a point of hatred over the most recent scandal, but I still raised an eyebrow when I realized who was running the ad.

That being said, it left me stunned. In fact, it made me love Facebook more than I had in a long time.

Watch the video. The point of the campaign is to bring us back to why we got on Facebook in the first place -- for the friends. The advertisement makes you reminisce as it reintroduces common themes in each person’s life that they have likely shared on Facebook, or at least gone through while being a user.

It takes you back to your successes, your downfalls, your break-ups and your make-ups. It pulls at the heart strings and lets nostalgia do its magic. But ultimately, it reminds us of why we love Facebook: our friends.

Midway through, it considers the recent obstacles that the network has fought; ‘fake news,’ spam, and now the harvesting of personal information. It doesn’t stray from conflict, but it runs toward it by telling its own side of the story. It makes you sympathize with Facebook for all that it’s gone through, and in doing so it allows you to get behind its most current efforts to keep fighting these battles.

And ultimately, it leaves the viewer with the mindset that ‘everything is going to be all right.’ There was an innocence and purity to it that I imagine is often hard to achieve for a multi-billion dollar business with a bigger-than-life scandal on its hands.

I felt as if Facebook and I were on good terms again, like that one-minute ad had been our way of hashing things out. Now we were cool.

The fact that Facebook could do all of this in one minute is astounding, yes. This was definitely a successful rebranding campaign in my eyes. They killed it.

But more than anything, it made me realize how clearly Facebook’s marketing team understands their approach and purpose. They know exactly what their users want, and they know exactly how to make them feel to get back on their side (in a one-minute time frame). Yes, it’s a well-made advertisement, but it becomes brilliant when you consider the level to which Facebook had to understand its audience in order to pull this off.

While Facebook may have gone through some break-ups recently, their future is bright. When it comes to their brand’s perception, they know exactly what to say to get you back.

Sports Illustrated is changing its social media game -- but does it have to?

In the sports media industry, everyone seems to have their own lane. For ESPN, it’s entertainment. For The Ringer, it’s creative content. And for Sports Illustrated, which has been known as America’s most well-respected, integral sports magazine since its inception in 1954, it has been quality, well thought-out journalism. It is famous for longform stories that were rich in detail, reflecting a willingness to invest in meaningful work.

But things are changing for SI, and these changes are now shown through their approach to social media as well.

Like most news organizations, the magazine has made a large number of cuts over the past 5-10 years. There are now fewer reporters than ever, as less money is going towards longform writing and more is going towards video and entertainment-based content.

For fans of old-school journalism, this change is sad but predictable. The magazine struggled to adapt to a rapidly changing industry and has had to change their approach to business in ways that they feel will make it sustainable.

While most could see that the industry -- and therefore, the product -- was changing, what most SI diehards didn’t quite see coming was the brand overhaul that the magazine would pursue. The website and app are now increasingly video-heavy, with short video links and the newly formed “SI TV” function featured prominently.

Stories about pop culture and clickbait news populate a sizeable portion of the front page, a far cry from the journalism that the company prided itself on since its start. However, usually the company’s longform reporting is still featured front and center.

This branding change has carried over to social media as well, but with a different feel. The magazine now posts clickbait stories about the Kardashians alongside longform features on its Facebook and Twitter pages. They market their posts as clickbait, shamelessly selling pop culture stories at the same rate as 10,000-word pieces.

I feel like I am not alone when I see a problem here. While I understand that the nature of the company’s financial situation has led them to go a different way with their website content, I don’t understand why they are lowering the value of their best work on social media. It’s their approach that bothers me (and, I feel, many others), given the relevance of social media in today’s media consumption world.

It seems that even if they might need to produce different types of content, they should still promote their best work in a brighter light. The easy (and cost-free) way to do this is through social media, and it would convey to readers that they still understand and appreciate the type of work that got them to this point.

So, if I were SI, how would I do it? I’d keep posting some of the clickbait (because it is on the front page of the website, after all), but I’d keep it 75/25 in favor of the more well-reported and original stories.

The financial nature of the industry might have forced SI to cut writers, but it doesn’t have to force them to bury their best work.

ICYMI: The art of reposting on Twitter in the media industry

The media industry, especially the journalists themselves, aren’t typically seen as advertisers.

However, they need to sell their work in order to keep their job. Their work needs to be read/listened to/viewed to earn revenue, which means that getting people to do so is essential for business. Journalists are constantly riding the line between wanting to sell their work but also not wanting to come off as pushy or aggressive, which would ultimately hurt business.

It is the classic conflict of push vs. pull advertising and the question of how much should a brand push their content to try to engage with its consumers.

Social media has added another layer to this decision-making process for journalists, as many news organizations now rely on online consumerism, making social media a crucial avenue of content sharing for the industry.

One network where this presents a particularly complicated challenge is Twitter. Unlike Facebook or Instagram, where the algorithm will push certain types of content to the top of one’s feed, Twitter is still true to its roots as a ‘timeline.’ The most current posts will be at the top.

While Twitter has pushed “In case you missed it” content near the top as well, and will also alert users if one of their most engaged followers tweeted and it received a notable amount of likes or retweets, the network is still largely chronological.

Because of this, many posts go unseen. They get lost in the ether of content that many users have if they follow over 400 or 500 people. This presents a problem for journalists, who need their content to be seen.

How do journalists fix this problem? They try to find ways to sell each story/podcast/video more than once. That way, if one person didn’t catch it on their timelines the first time, they might see it again on the second posting. However, journalists have to balance this reposting with the knowledge that some of their followers might have already seen this content, which could make it annoying to see it too many more times after that.

This is a tight rope that all journalists must walk. Here’s what I’ve found, in following hundreds of professional journalists and also experimenting with content marketing myself, as to what the most effective methods of reposting on Twitter are:

1. ICYMI (In case you missed it)

The best journalists will repost their content 10-12 hours later, prefacing the second post with the acronym, “ICYMI.” This lets their followers know that this is not the initial posting and that they might want to click on it to see what they missed. It is also an opportunity to rephrase the ‘sell tweet’ with new anecdotes or points of interest, in order to entice consumers who may have passed up on it the first time they saw it.

2. Adding to a thread

By tweeting out follow-up notes on a post’s thread after the initial posting, the initial tweet can gain interest and potentially drive people to click. It also allows the journalist to expand on their work and engage with followers in discussion.

3. Retweeting your own work the next day

While this might sound a bit out of touch, this is not seen as egotistical or flagrantly self-promotional. Twitter now allows users to retweet their own work, so journalists will often do so about a day after their original post was made in order to promote the content one final time.

***

In light of these methods of reposting, it’s also equally important to build up work before it’s posted for the first time. By promoting work in anticipation of its release, more people will be interested in consuming it once it’s out.

And the most important thing for journalists is that in between all of this promotional tweeting must be down-to-earth, personal engagement. By interacting with others and being engaging, and in doing so appearing human and conversational, your followers will grow closer to you. This is essential. It can’t all be promotional work.

A game-changing idea in the media industry: Subscriber meetups

In my last blog post, I wrote about the apparent ‘brand evangelism’ that had arisen amongst subscribers to The Athletic, an online sports media startup. The website has expanded rapidly in its first eight months of existence, and its following has grown in a similarly exuberant fashion.

The Athletic has created a culture amongst its followers where they are quick to talk about why they subscribe to sports media’s newest national goliath. The Athletic’s followers are loud and proud, as the brand smartly markets quality over quantity and encourages others to ‘join their team.’

In another step towards building a personal, evangelical following, The Athletic has begun to start a new trend among their many city bases: subscriber meetups.

One of The Athletic Cleveland’s writers, NBA reporter Jason Lloyd, tweeted on Monday afternoon that the Cleveland website was close to announcing its first subscriber meetup. The idea is that subscribers could meet up at a local restaurant or bar and get to talk with the website’s writers over dinner or a drink. It will be casual and lively, a chance for the public to get to know the people behind the print.

Of all the smart things that The Athletic has done to gain a following in such a short time since its conception, this might be the smartest. This is simply brilliant.

What better way to strengthen your brand’s relationship with its following than by literally encouraging them to meet the writers in person? While I am sure that some news organizations have done this before in different ways, this was the first time I’d seen it and it struck me as something that illuminated a key ingredient missing often in the media world: reader-writer conversation.

I noted in my last post that The Athletic’s writers do an exceptional job of replying to each and every comment on their stories and they also reach out to their subscribers on social media, simply asking them what kind of content they wish to see. This is another form of direct customer service that The Athletic is implementing, in order to increase trust and build a personal relationship with those who pay $4 per month to consume their product.

By meeting such prestigious writers in person, subscribers can not only give them feedback, but they can also get to understand them better on a personal level. It will make the writers seem human, make them seem relatable, which will help them become more likeable.

An organization that already went above and beyond for its customers took another huge step on Monday, announcing that their relationship with subscribers would now be on a face-to-face, up-close-in-personal level. In an industry where everyone is fighting for subscribers and struggling to keep readership, The Athletic is gaining ground rapidly with this kind of brand-building.

‘The Athletic’ is building its readership through an evangelical following

In the media industry, competition today is fiercer than ever. As news organizations struggle to find ways to create revenue from online readership, the key is gaining a loyal following. How can my newspaper/website cultivate a following that I can engage with and profit off of? In simpler terms, How do I get more fans?

This is difficult because many news organizations are typically at least 100 years old and are operating on long-held policies and standards, which can sometimes limit their flexibility in the online branding transition. However, one national online sports media startup is not tethered to history by inflexible guidelines, allowing them to create somewhat of a cult following over their first eight months.

The Athletic, a national sports website which has taken off recently, has gained a following that appears to be unique from many other national news sources. They are subscription-based, as only those who pay $48 per year (or $4 per month) can read their work. But the work is sold as in-depth and meaningful, taking the time to do rich and fulfilling reporting as opposed to writing about LaVar Ball every day.

They frame their product as one that is superior than the rest and they are consistent in their message: quality over quantity, just at a small cost. And clearly, at least so far, their marketing message is working. They are constantly expanding, going from sites in a few cities to now covering nearly every city and professional sports team (in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and MLS), as well as covering college football and basketball. They are hiring writers seemingly every week and are consistently being written about as a bright spot, an entity that is growing in an industry that seems to be shrinking.

Yes, The Athletic follows through with their message. I subscribe because their content is truly remarkable, they now boast some of America’s best sportswriters, and I love how there are no ads on their page (which is also a part of their brand). But why has The Athletic been able to not only pull people in, but also create a sort of “brand evangelism,” as Keith Quesenberry terms it in chapter 12 of his book, Social Media Strategy, amongst its followers?

How has America’s newest national sports magnate created a cult-like following? The answer lies in its branding.

While The Athletic promotes the advantages I discussed above (paying for quality, no ads, great writers, etc.), they are also consistently making their subscribers feel good about their decision to pay. On their Facebook page, they are regularly posting sponsored content about other news organizations writing about them and their success.

Their writers are encouraged to thank their readers on social media, and they will often interact with them both on networks (as discussed with C. Trent Rosecrans in my last post) and in the comment section of their stories as well. Writers at The Athletic are encouraged to make their readers not only feel welcome, but also appreciated. They make you feel like you are a part of something special and that you are in on the best product out there.

This is also reiterated in the brand’s tone and word choice with social media posts, as they will often refer back to the advantages of subscribing when referencing reporting that a writer has done.

All of this positive noise has created an extremely evangelical following behind the website. While The Athletic takes criticism sometimes for allegedly sucking talent from local newspapers, their followers are quick to fight back for them. The brand’s subscribers are its biggest advocates (myself included), as they have transformed their brand into a ‘team.’

Although this following may reject a small minority of potential subscribers, I believe that the atmosphere has actually helped the network gain more and more readers. The ‘team’ is building itself internally, through pointed branding and an evangelical following. As the following goes, the network goes. And right now, it’s doing pretty damn well.

How reporters can use social media crowdsourcing to elevate their brand

One of social media’s biggest advantages is that it can form direct connections. Brands can directly communicate in real time with consumers on the other end, and while the conversation isn’t face-to-face, it’s still almost always from one person to another.

This means that social media presents brands with an extraordinary feedback opportunity, as Keith Quesenberry notes in chapter 11 of his book, Social Media Strategy. In the chapter, Quesenberry discusses how brands can use social media as a way to “crowdsource,” or to ask consumers for feedback.

This method of social media crowdsourcing represents the platform at its most democratic; everyone can have a say if they want to and all opinions can be heard directly.

Last week, one reporter crowdsourced his following and it appeared not only smart, but necessary.

C. Trent Rosecrans, a Cincinnati Reds beat writer for The Athletic, simply asked his Twitter followers what they would like to see more of in his coverage. “So, @TheAthleticCIN subscribers, would you be interested in a newsletter every (weekday) morning just on the Reds? Could be like the BAR, but in your mailbox. Or maybe weekly? I don't know... just spitballing.”

He got 66 replies and all kinds of suggestions. By doing this, Rosecrans could gain insight from his following (as The Athletic is a website-only news organization and a sizeable chunk of its writers’ audiences exist online, and therefore on social media) as to what type of content they would like to see and how he could improve his work.

But this was about much more than just improving content. In asking his followers what they thought and creating dialogue between his brand and his consumers, Rosecrans likely gained great respect from the people who read his work. He liked all tweets that provided constructive advice, a sign that he cared, as if to say, ‘Thank you.’ He responded to many tweets, not only expressing his gratitude, but also having a conversation about anything and everything to do with content improvement.

This dialogue likely made Rosecrans’ followers feel closer to him, as is the purpose of social media crowdsourcing. His personal brand was elevated, along with The Athletic’s brand, because of this initiative. And after seeing this, it became apparent to me that all writers with a sizeable platform in the media industry should be doing the same thing.

Why not take a second to reach out to your customers? Why not strengthen that relationship, especially considering how fragile the industry currently is? And why not make yourself better and understand how your consumers think, at the very least?

While many other reporters have probably done what C. Trent Rosecrans’ did last week, this was the first time I had seen it play out to such a magnitude. Now, Rosecrans can better serve his base and has a more transparent, likeable image in the process.

All because of a simple tweet. 'How am I doing?'

Knowing your niche: Why ‘The Daily’ is a work of podcast art

I listen to about 10 different podcasts on a consistent, weekly basis. They are almost all produced by news organizations, everything from NPR’s This American Life to The Ringer’s Bill Simmons Podcast.

What I think separates the good podcasts from the great ones is their ability to reach their audience; how good are the hosts and producers at knowing their corner and playing to it?

While many podcasts do this well, one stands out as an example of how to master this concept. It is the New York Times’ ‘The Daily’ podcast, hosted by the ever-charismatic Michael Barbaro.

This podcast runs daily and is just 20 minutes long. It dives into one or two key news stories of the day and also discusses a few of the day’s top headlines during the closing minutes of the show. It essentially serves as the newspaper’s front page, except in podcast form.

What makes this a ‘work of art’ is that it does a few things to target its audience in an extremely effective manner. The podcast is meant to be something that listeners can consume on their way to work or during their morning commute, as exemplified by its strict (and unusually short) time limit. By accomplishing this, the podcast does not inconvenience its consumers. In fact, it is tailored precisely for their schedule.

The podcast is also meant for a wide range of consumers, those who might know a lot about the story being covered and those who might know nothing coming into that podcast. The host and Times journalists treat each story as if it were a front page newspaper story, bringing elements of formality and expertise into it. The listeners not only feel smarter about a worldly issue after listening, but they also understands all sides of it (thus, the journalistic aspect of the podcast).

Then, by recapping some of the world’s other main headlines at the end of the show, the podcast nonchalantly runs down the sidebars of the rest of the ‘front page,’ giving brief descriptions of each story. After listening, consumers feel educated on the main topics of the day. It is a fulfilling feeling, like reading the newspaper but without actually doing it.

While the ‘good’ podcasts have a certain objective based on their audience and needs, ‘The Daily’ seems to get it exactly right every time. They know that not everyone has the time to sit down and read the Times every day. Therefore, this gives their consumers a quick alternative, while also driving attention to their brand and product (both online and print).

Although it is not discussed in chapter 10 of Keith Quesenberry’s book Social Media Strategy, where he talks about podcasts, this medium is rising rapidly in popularity -- especially in the news industry. Now, nearly every journalist at major (and even small-market) news organizations is encouraged to create or be involved in a podcast, as research has shown that people also enjoy listening to the news (likely because it is more convenient).

As many news organizations struggle to find their footing -- and simultaneously, find their niche -- in the podcast scene, the New York Times is already lapping the competition. In 2017, ‘The Daily’ was the most downloaded new show on Apple Podcasts, according to Forbes.

The Times knows their corner and they play to it well. It’s simple, it’s effective, and ‘The Daily’ isn’t going anywhere.

Why the next generation of social media users will be increasingly friendly to geosocial

Here’s an obvious fact: Technology is entirely unpredictable.

The rate at which it moves and advances is not at all logical or well-thought out. One day, we had flip phones that had four letters per key. The next day, our phones had no keys and were talking to us.

We (at least the vast majority of us) had no idea it was coming.

But one thing that is predictable about technology is how each generation of users will react to it. In general (and there are definitely outliers), this his how it goes: Older generations, or those whose childhoods are farther and farther removed from the current lightspeed tech influx, trust technology less. The younger generations trust technology more because it is a part of the fabric of their early lives. They were brought up with it and by it.

Because of this, something that Keith Quesenberry talks about in chapter nine of his book Social Media Strategy will become increasingly popular as generations pass by: “geosocial.”

These types of apps are created so that users can use location services on their smartphones to check into places. It “allows social networks to connect and coordinate users with local people, businesses or events,” says Quesenberry.

Why will these become more popular? After all, it seems as if this version of social has been slightly dormant when compared to social networks, microblogs and forums at this point in the social media surge. Facebook and Twitter lapped Foursquare and other geosocial apps to this point.

The answer is generational.

The key reason why geosocial has struggled is because up until now, the majority of the people who use social media have been adults when these apps were conceived. Those in the 20-40 year-old age range when these apps were first introduced felt comfortable with very little. They stuck to Facebook and blogging because it was fun, but it wasn’t too big a part of their lives (at least at first).

I believe that a big reason why geosocial apps did not resonate with this generation was because it would have required a level of trust that older generations didn’t have in technology yet (and might never have). It would have required people to not only disclose their location to their phone, but to others who use geosocial apps as well. That generation still felt quite distanced from technology, and it showed in their spare usage of geosocial apps.

Meanwhile, the coming generations have a much higher level of trust. Younger generations now use the iPhone accessory “Find My Friends,” which allows Apple users to track their contacts’ locations in real time. They are willing to install the new Snapchat update, which allows friends to track each other’s locations using the app's geosocial function.

They allow all of this because they trust technology to be a part of them, as it has been for most of their lives. To them, technology is not an accessory. Technology is an extension of themselves. It is a part of themselves.

This leads me to believe that geosocial apps will see a resurgence in the coming generations. Younger people will be looking to connect and do more with location-based services, so the smartest app producers (like Snapchat) will follow quickly through on those desires.

While things may have started out slow for geosocial, I believe that their time is just now beginning. And it’s all about trust.

Using YouTube the right way: How one media company takes it to a new level

A crucial element of today’s media world is video sharing.

Media networks are transitioning from static print, radio or television news services to being able to use online videos to enhance their platform. Online readers can now use videos to accompany stories, or can also use videos as the lone method of telling a story. They can also be used for entertainment purposes, or for marketing stories.

One site that the world’s top media companies have begun to cultivate for their own gain is YouTube, which Keith Quesenberry discusses in chapter eight of his book Social Media Strategy.

YouTube was founded in 2005, but it started as a place for underground entertainment. Very little news was circulated on the medium and ‘reputable sources’ still did not grasp the capabilities of the network (or even the importance of using video in general). 13 years later, YouTube is an essential cog in the modern media machine.

One media network that utilizes YouTube in brilliant ways is The Ringer, who I’ve mentioned in previous blog posts (I know, I’ll chill with them here soon). The Ringer is, in my eyes, leading the online media industry in its innovative and entertaining ways of using the medium. Here are a few ways in which the media corporation uses YouTube to engage followers and enhance its brand:

Visual podcasts

As discussed in previous blog posts, one thing that The Ringer takes pride in are exceptionally produced podcasts. They take that production to the next level on their YouTube channel, where they place visuals around their pods and will even occasionally do live podcasts. The shows are funny and this visual representation of them allows listeners/viewers/readers to further engage with the company’s dynamic personalities (another element discussed in previous blog posts).

By seeing the hosts faces and watching them work, consumers can become even more attached to their product.

Funny spoofs

The Ringer will also put out spoofs that are funny and dramatic, playing with the ‘fun’ side of their brand that was discussed in previous blog posts. They will preview the NBA Playoffs with a movie spoof, using their staff’s enigmatic personalities and production skills to make something that will not only make their followers laugh, but also draw them closer to the company’s brand. This visual representation of the brand’s ‘fun’ side is extremely effective by virtue of the fact that people love spending time on YouTube watching funny spoofs. It fits right into the medium.

Millions of other original ideas

Aside from certain podcasts and regular entertainment shows that The Ringer will put on its YouTube channel, they also will simply come up with random, original video ideas and post them without any precedent or prior context. If a staff member wants to make a video where he is literally sitting on the toilet talking about sports news that day, and he wants to call it ‘Slow News Day,’ Bill Simmons will give it the go-ahead. The company’s creative, hungry staff is constantly thinking of new ways to use YouTube to put their brand ahead and to engage with their followers, and Simmons’ willingness to let it happen makes their channel great.

How one media company utilized two social networks differently

In the third section of his book Social Media Strategy, author Keith Quesenberry talks about the differences between social networks, blogs and forums. He breaks down what certain social mediums, like Facebook or Twitter, can offer a company when it comes to using the medium for marketing.

This reminded me of my first summer internship at Cox Media Group, two summers ago. Before I got to start writing for the newspaper (the Dayton Daily News), I shadowed their social media team for the first two weeks of the summer. I picked their brains on what they posted, when they posted, and as it pertains to this chapter, how they posted when it came to networks like Facebook and Twitter.

In reality, the way they approached Facebook and Twitter were quite different. As the book describes, there are different audiences on each platform. Here were some of the key ways in which the Dayton Daily News social media team differed their usage of each platform:

1. Not just local news

As a media company that pays to use AP content, the Dayton Daily News website would pick up national stories that might gain local interest. These are largely human interest stories, and while they have little news value for the local consumer, they will often get clicks because they catch the consumer’s eye.

On Facebook, the newspaper would mix posts like these in with posts about local news (which were actually written by Dayton Daily reporters). They would post one or two national AP stories an hour, along with one or two local stories during the same time span. Because they had a much demographically wider audience on Facebook, and because people tend to interact with the company more in that medium, they figured that this would be a good way to sustain interaction -- through human interest stories.

2. Just local news

Meanwhile, Dayton Daily would use Twitter much differently. They would rarely post AP content on Twitter, as they mostly stuck to posting locally written stories. They took more of a ‘news’ approach to their Twitter account, as they would provide updates on stories and retweet their own reporters who were covering a live event.

But in general, they did not use Twitter as much for human interest stories. They believed that their Twitter page was less about consumer engagement and more about pushing news, so that’s what they used it for.

3. ‘Live coverage’

As mentioned earlier, Dayton Daily would cover live events with Twitter by retweeting their reporters, who were live-tweeting an event from their own account. They did not use Periscope or any other video platform, just threads of tweets.

Facebook, however, was different. Instead of making tons of posts about an event, they would do a ‘Facebook Live’ video for it. These would often be a big hit because consumers could see the event as it was happening and could also react to it in the comment section. But this difference in platform usage highlights one of the main differences in the way they handled each network: on Facebook, it’s less about lots of quick posts and more about one, more encapsulating most. On Twitter, meanwhile, live-tweeting through a thread of multiple posts is encouraged.

This is because the algorithms of each network provide for different platforms. On Facebook, there is no timeline, so the most current posts don’t always float to the top. Therefore, live-posting an event would be pointless. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for Twitter.

***

While these were the central differences between how Dayton Daily utilized Facebook and Twitter, there were some things that remained constant between both platforms: the way they handled reader comments, the key local stories that would be posted, and the way in which they represented the company as a whole. While the content differed, the branding was largely the same between both platforms.

How ‘The Ringer’ has mastered the concept of being a ‘strategic business unit’ on Twitter

In my last post, I talked about the concept of a ‘strategic business unit,’ noted in Keith Quesenberry’s book Social Media Strategy, which means that a company’s three facets -- operations, marketing and customer service -- all use the same branding message.

I described one national, mainstream media company that stands out when it comes to having an exceptionally tight-knit ‘SBU.’ That company was The Ringer, a sports and pop culture website that uses Twitter as its primary social media vessel.

In this post, I will break down five things that The Ringer does on Twitter to push their brand. I will also talk about how these things exemplify the brand unity amongst the company’s different facets.

1. Making it ‘fun’

As I discussed in the last blog post, one of the central ideas behind The Ringer is that it takes a ‘fun’ approach to sports coverage. Their articles take a fresh, often lighthearted look at sports, which separate the brand from 99 percent of sports media, which often clings to archaic perspectives. While their ‘operations’ side certainly pushes this idea of ‘making sports fun to read about,’ The Ringer furthers this approach on Twitter.

They make jokes, post funny GIFs, and poke fun at themselves consistently through the platform. Last week, when UMBC shocked the sports world by becoming the first 16 seed to ever beat a one seed in the NCAA Tournament, they changed their Twitter name to “UMBC Fan Account” and incorporated the school’s logo into their avi. This is just who they are, and everyone knows it.

2. Incorporating their employees

One of the things that makes The Ringer unique is the way in which it markets its writers. Rarely do big-name news organizations sell the personalities of their writers like The Ringer does, as they use their personalities (which are often ‘fun’) to drive readership.

The Ringer does this through Twitter as well, as it will interact with its writers playfully to enhance the brand. They will talk trash to, poke fun at, and compliment their writers through the medium. This is another example of the connectedness between all three facets of the company’s brand.

3. Producing innovative content

As mentioned in my last post, The Ringer and Bill Simmons are known for producing content in a way that is fresh, new and creative. The Ringer, for example, has paved the way for the culture of sports podcasting. They started it, and now it seems as if every analyst for every network is required to have a podcast to keep up.

The website also uses innovative methods of storytelling, and this innovation is carried over onto the company’s Twitter page. The Ringer will consistently use videos, live YouTube shows, and other multimedia methods to display content via Twitter. While some companies are starting to do this more frequently, The Ringer has led the way.

4. Not being afraid to go viral

Most organizations seem to act as if they’re ‘afraid to go viral.’ What I mean by that is they will not post memes or other trendy topics, instead choosing to only post content. Although I’m sure that they would like to go viral in order to draw attention to their organization, they do not seem willing to post humorous, potentially viral tweets to do so. They may think that doing so would be unprofessional or ‘not by tradition.’

The Ringer, however, thinks otherwise. By posting memes and tweets that gain viral attention (even though they might not directly publicize links or content in that tweet), they draw readership and enhance their brand’s presence. As with many other concepts, The Ringer understands the importance of ‘catching fire’ via social media networks like Twitter. Once again, they’re ahead of the game.

They use this as not only a way to attract readership and publicity, but also in order to keep their brand unified. Their content deals with pop culture’s most trendy, viral topics as well, which is reflected by these posts.

5. Completing the circle

While The Ringer’s tweets clearly portray the same brand as their content, the same goes the other way around. The website’s writers also cleverly embed tweets from both the HQ account and the accounts of other Ringer writers to help tell their stories, thereby ‘completing the circle’ of branding unity.

Not only do they use social media to enhance their brand, but they use it for content as well. This shows just how consistent the mindset is between The Ringer and all of its staffers on how to portray and push the brand, in every way possible, through all available platforms. It is just another reason why The Ringer is the smartest and most effective SBU in sports media.

When it comes to being a 'strategic business unit' in the sports media world, one brand stands out...

In chapter five of his book Social Media Strategy, Keith Quesenberry discusses a concept that is pivotal for businesses to understand if they wish to establish a consistent branding message through social media: having a ‘strategic business unit.’

Quesenberry defines the concept as having all three sides of a corporation’s structure (the operations, marketing and customer service sides) on the same page when it comes to how their brand will be portrayed. A strategic business unit, or an “SBU,” is “a fully functional and distinct unit that develops its own strategic vision and direction,” Quesenberry says.

By having consistent branding throughout the different facets of a corporation, ‘silo syndrome’ would be avoided. Quesenberry defines silo syndrome as “when a department or function, like marketing, develops its own culture and has trouble working with other functions such as operations, customer service or sales.”

If a company can establish the same attitude, goals and voice through all of their platforms, they will be seen as a strong, unified brand that people can latch onto. One company that has mastered the concept of being a ‘strategic business unit’ is The Ringer, a sports and pop culture website run by Bill Simmons.

The Ringer was founded two years ago by Simmons, who holds a unique position in the world of sports media. For those who don’t know, Simmons began as a blogger back in the late 1990s. After being hired by ESPN in the early 2000s, Simmons brought several groundbreaking ideas to the world’s biggest sports news magnate, such as the '30 for 30' documentary series and Grantland, a sports and pop culture blog.

What made Grantland special was that it thought about sports differently. Simmons hired a cast of young, up-and-coming writers to make sports content fun again. Their content was creative and off-the-beaten-path, as they avoided some of the archaic constructs of typewriter journalism and produced stories that would make the reader excited to play along.

When ESPN let Simmons go (and subsequently rendered Grantland extinct) in the fall of 2015, Simmons set out to continue this brand by creating his own website, The Ringer. While many of his writers at Grantland were hired quickly by other publications after their time at ESPN (as their Grantland experience had helped them make a name for themselves), Simmons now has an equally talented cast of writers at The Ringer to push more creative content. They still think about sports differently, in a very unique and specific way, and they push the envelope on content ideas like never before.

I know what you’re thinking: This is all great, but what does it have to do with SBUs?
Well, as it turns out, The Ringer has one of the tightest-knit strategic business units among mainstream sports media corporations.

Their brand, as described earlier, is one of ‘fun.’ Their goal is to approach sports coverage in a fun, innovative way that changes the way people think about sports. This brand shines through clearly in the way in which The Ringer uses social media.

By using their Twitter account to not only post content, but also push the personalities of their writers, interact with readers and take innovative approaches to content itself, The Ringer does on social media what they aim to do with their website (aka, their version of ‘operations’). Their approach to customer service is interlinked with their approach to writing, which is interlinked with the way they market their content.

In my next blog post, I will examine specific ways in which The Ringer pulls this off, perfectly exemplifying what it means to be a ‘strategic business unit' in the sports media world.

How Nick Foles' viral post-Super Bowl comment relates to corporate social media branding

Last week, the Philadelphia Eagles beat the dynastic New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl. Philly's quarterback, Nick Foles, played the game of his life to lead the Eagles to their first Super Bowl title. He was also not the starting quarterback heading into the season, as he took over for first-stringer Carson Wentz after he went down with an ACL tear down the stretch.

Once Wentz went down, everyone counted the Eagles out. There was no way that Foles, an unproven backup, could lead them to victory -- and especially against the five-time champs, who were led by Tom Brady, arguably the greatest quarterback of all-time.

But Foles and the Eagles did it, in dramatic fashion, as well. And after the game, Foles was asked to reflect on how he got this far. Here was his comment (via USA Today):

The quarterback's comment drew a viral response, as people across the world could relate to his motivational message.

So, how does this apply to the way in which companies use social media?

As Keith Quesenberry discusses in Social Media Strategy, it is crucial to use social as a tool of connection between a brand and its consumers. A brand's social media presence should make the consumers feel closer to the brand, and should help create trust between the two.

In doing this, a brand must not only show positive messages about themselves on their social media feed -- they must also show their vulnerabilities. Like Foles said, people start listening when they can relate to someone else. They will listen to one's struggles more than their successes because struggles are what bond the human race together.

This is why companies need to poke fun at themselves, to tell their own story (the full story, not just the highlights) on social media. By doing this, they will create a much stronger connection with their followers and boost their brand's perception, and most importantly, people will listen.

Maybe Nick Foles was talking about winning a Super Bowl, or simply being a famous athlete. But he was also talking about so much more.

Five things that media brands can do on social to boost their perception (and readership)

In my last post, I wrote about how, as a journalist, I am constantly looking at how media corporations use social media to push their content. I talked about how newspapers, television networks and radio stations can not only boost website or channel traffic by using social media effectively, but they can also simultaneously boost their reputation.

As someone who is constantly consuming news through social media and also examining how that news is presented, here are five things that I believe (in talking with others within the industry) media corporations can do to boost traffic and their perceptions on social media:

1. When posting a story, always attach a picture or some form of media to the post.

While this is easy on Facebook because the link will always produce a thumbnail, which will usually contain the picture attached to the story, many media brands slip behind on Twitter by not attaching any form of media to the tweet (on Twitter, some links produce thumbnails and some don't).

No matter how well-crafted the tweet is or how big the story is, if there is no image attached to the tweet, it will automatically attract less readership. People scroll through their timelines quickly, and one of the main things that makes people stop and read a tweet is an image or video. Attaching one to every tweet will drive far more traffic through social than if the posts don't have one.

Besides, a tweet without an image or video simply appears bland and uninteresting. Make people want to read your story, and do so by attaching an image.

2. Make the language in the post compelling.

As I said before, your job is to make people want to read your story. A key component in this is by writing a creative, compelling post. This post should be as effective as the story's hook, or lede -- it should draw the reader in and make them want to buy what you're selling.

If done effectively, this can be a key component to how a media corporation brands their tweets. By starting to tell the story on social, people will follow (and click). However, creating enticing and creative posts takes time and effort, and with fewer people working in newsrooms than ever before, some simply do not have the staffing or time to write compelling posts all day long.

This is why this duty sometimes falls on the individual reporter, as they can accomplish this when they tweet about their story. Plus, that reporter will know best how to write the hook, so it will likely be a more thoughtful post than if it was written by someone who works exclusively on the social end of things for that company.

3. Make reporters get an account and incorporate them into the overall company gameplan.

At the end of the day, readers will follow certain reporters based on stories of theirs that they've read in the past. A big part of being a reporter, in any community, is building a relationship with that community's readers. This helps the reporter establish credibility and trust, and will lead to not only tips, but also more readership.

That being said, social is a great place for the company's brand to attach themselves to their reporters. By making each reporter get a personal social media account and creatively tagging and crediting their work to them in posts, that company will drive more traffic to their website through their posts.

Over time, certain reporters can reach quite an esteemed status within the community they serve. It would be foolish for their own company not to take advantage of that.

4. Tag people.

This sounds simple, but so many media organizations fail to utilize the power of tagging not only the reporter who wrote the story, but also the subject of the story itself. Tagging the people, company or entity that the story is about is a great way to promote the story itself.

If a reporter writes a story about how a local children's hospital is building a new wing to better accommodate handicapped patients, that hospital will likely want the public to be aware of this news. By tagging the hospital in the post about the story, the hospital will likely share the story with its followers and the readership will multiply.

At the end of the day, people love seeing their name in the news. If those people share the news with the people who care about them, and it continues to be shared, think of how many more readers that story will now attract.

5. Engage intelligently with readers.

Like Keith Quesenberry says in Social Media Strategy, interaction on social media is vital for a company's branding in today's world. In the media industry, this means that corporations will need to interact intelligently with their readers.

They can do so by having staffers prepared to respond to comments on stories, and also have them prepared for how to handle tips that may come in via direct messaging. If there is an error in the story, readers could be the first people to find out. The severity of the error will determine how the company should respond, but by doing so with a sense of appreciation (media needs readers now more than ever) and timeliness could potentially increase the reputation of that company.

***

These are just five basic things that media brands can do to boost their perception, and readership, by using social media effectively. As someone who runs the Twitter accounts for two media entities on campus (the Northern Review and SportsBeat 94.9 FM), I am constantly trying to implement these strategies to grow our brands on campus.

Monitoring how media entities use social media -- and how their use changes my perception of them

It is amazing how much my perception of social media has changed since I started using it, roughly five years ago. While I used to view it as merely an entertainment tool, I now feel as if it is one of my most valuable resources -- not only for information, but for opinions and perspective. I have gone from using it occasionally, when I started, to trusting it and relying on it on a daily basis.

I am not alone in this building of trust and reliance, however, as I feel (and metrics show) that more and more people are now looking at social media in the same way. This trust has made something from the second chapter of Keith Quesenberry’s Social Media Strategy ring increasingly relevant over time: that brand engagement on social media is not only impactful, but also vital now, to shaping a company's perception.

In my field, as a journalist, this is increasingly true. When I am on social media, I am constantly noting how media entities use different social networks and thinking about how this usage affects my perception of their brand.

I believe that social media, especially networks like Facebook and Twitter, hosts an immense opportunity for media entities. In a starving industry, social networks provide a way for their content to be seen by anyone, anywhere. I pay attention to how newspapers push out content through tweets; when they tag people and when they don’t, who they tag and who they don’t, how they use links as opposed to images, how they use hashtags, etc.

Are media entities posting all of their stories? How do they post their most important content -- breaking stories, big investigative pieces, etc. How do they want their reporters to use social media, and how do they incorporate their reporter's posts in conjunction with the company’s? These are just some of the questions that I ask myself, often subconsciously, while studying how media companies use social media.

And because of the importance and trust that I have now placed on social media, a media entity’s use of social networks now influences my perception of that brand. If a newspaper only posts links to their stories on their Twitter feed and does not tag people, or fails to post videos and other forms of media on their feeds, for example, it gives me the impression that the company is lagging behind others who might do those things.

That's not to say that I will dismiss a media entity solely for their use of social media; I will always be most concerned with content first, as that is the product. But I believe that those who use social media innovatively have positioned themselves to gain more readership, and respect, from a wider audience.

And in a starving industry, a wider audience is worth more than ever.