As the local/social universe constantly expands with location-specific data, the likelihood that brands will miss essential pieces of the conversation is also in flux, in turn creating a social media blind-spot with each individual location. Surprisingly, this blind spot is created due to the very nature of many social listing tools. In fact, a study released by VenueLabs indicates most social monitoring platforms may be missing as much as 82 percent of online content about a brand, leaving many brands in the dark regarding their local sentiment. 

The advances in local marketing and social media make effective “social listening” more important today than ever before. As a result, and according to GMS Local, brands should be employing social listening tactics above and beyond monitoring keywords.

GMS Local’s latest blog post further discusses the existing blind spot in social monitoring and highlights the recent VenueLabs study. Check out GMS Local’s latest blog post here for more information: Looking Around the Social Media Blind Spot

As reported on Firefox’s blog:

“Twitter is now included as a search option in Firefox for Windows, Mac and Linux. Twitter search in Firefox makes it easier to discover new topics, #hashtags and @usernames. Twitter search is currently available in English, Portuguese, Slovenian and Japanese versions of Firefox, with more languages to come in future releases.”

The social addition is a part of an upgrade cycle that the popular web browser kicked off this past summer. Firefox’s Twitter tie-in may be one of the most visible, if not the only visible, upgrade to even the most avid Firefox users during the period of continuous upgrades. Firefox 8 is currently available for download here.

How will the Twitter integration impact search and social? Here is what our search and social executives had to say about the partnership:

“Firefox making a move to become a more social browser is nice, but it’s clearly just step one. I would expect in a year we’ll look back and see how the browser’s primary role changed from a single- pane shell to multi-pane curation tool.”

 - Chris Copeland, Chief Executive Officer, GroupM Search

“The inclusion of Twitter in Firefox 8’s search bar speaks to the changing role of social media in how people connect with the things that matter to them. The buzz happening on Twitter gives users a sense of what’s happening at that moment, and is a unique and valuable source of information when compared to the other search engines included in the browser.”

- Tim Fogarty, Lead Strategist, M80

The Twitter-friendly browser promises to be faster than the previous versions, with improved support for HTML5. The feature is available now; come December 20, per Firefox, users can expect to see the next installment of their browser upgrade.

What are your thoughts on Firefox 8’s built-in search functionality? How do you think the social inclusion will impact the search experience?

Before I delve into the abovementioned, a little history lesson on the search wars between Google and Microsoft is necessary to best illustrate the path I believe Google should take. In the latter part of the last decade, before Bing branding and a Yahoo alliance was forged, Microsoft made a strategic decision to try and move its appeal into a rabbit hole that Google could never go down. The move? Microsoft introduced Cashback, a program designed to reward users for purchasing from Microsoft’s search engine by rebating a variable percentage based on the merchant and product being obtained. Microsoft underwrote a substantial amount of the program and ultimately determined it to be an unsustainable model. So while Microsoft was correct that Google would not follow, it was proven wrong in its views on the possibility of marketshare growth from the exercise.

That brings us back to Facebook and Google (and the threat it poses). At this year’s f8, Facebook introduced radical advancements in the core wall experience with Timeline, important shifts in the “serendipitous” connects made between users using verbs, and expanded the canvas for advertisers accessible through Sponsored Stories. In these moves, Facebook further aligned its own future success with the advertising community, at least financially. Little has been developed to suggest Facebook is going to suddenly improve as a customer acquisition utility versus the retention and loyalty success Facebook is today. This is where Google has the opportunity to strike.

In its early days, Google intentionally avoided taking advertising on any search results pages, a practice it upheld for several years. The founders believed it inappropriate for the user experience connection they were trying to foster. Now, with an empire that includes leadership or near top of category positioning in search, display, and mobile, one could argue that the presence of brand advertising inside Google+ is equally unnecessary at this time.

While Facebook continues to cozy up to brands and encourage the ability to tell stories to an enormous audience, the proposition from Google+ is clearly different for brands in that their opportunities to target and advertise may come from everywhere but Google+. As a marketer, I crave the ability to engage with consumers in natural conversation, to bring to the dialogue content and relevancy to match their intent – be it for discovery or to reach a destination. But that has never been a prerequisite for Google. In fact, there are many signals that suggest Google would prefer a world less-burdened by advertising obligations.

With yesterday’s announcement of Google+ Pages, it’s impossible to now imagine a Google+ without brands. In fact, the starts and stops of user growth on Google+ now suggests that building the platform itself will only get so many to come. Now, Google finds itself needing brands to add consistent and relevant content to drive more widespread adoption.

That said, I believe that a Google+ free of brand advertising inside the platform in exchange for user data usage across all other properties would be a highly valuable transaction for all parties involved. The result – Google gains what drives its engine, user data, and users gain the equivalent of commercial-free programming. Brands are responsible for creating unique content opportunities and sharing environments without directly soliciting inside the space. That would happen elsewhere across the Google network.

If Google+ wants to surpass Facebook and its 500 million daily users, it has to provide a completely different experience. One way to do that would be to amplify the value of consumer control. It would not only distinguish the platform, but it would also put the interjection of Sponsored Stories and Promoted Tweets into conversations on tilt by a Google+ world free from noise that consumers generally wish to avoid while playing up relevancy to match consumer intent, a Google trademark.

Given that Google has gone to market with +Pages, there are two options left. Pretend that Monday never happened and kick brands off. It has already done it once without fatal results, so it’s not impossible – yet, certainly unlikely. Or, the other option is to turn +Pages into a non-marketing-specific vehicle. Allowing brands to be creators and curators of content while requiring the connections and investments to stay outside the realm of Google+.

Google has to provide a “+” to users, and brands will do that through content. Creating a world less beholden to brand paid media, in exchange for a data gold mine, might just be the way to attract users and distract Facebook in the battles to come.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, November 8, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

100 days after kicking off brands who jumped on the Google+ bandwagon at launch, Google has rolled out Google+ Pages, re-opening the door for businesses to move onto their social network platform. At first glance, Google+ may appear to some as just another social network.  However, Google+ represents a different type of social platform and carries greater meaning for a brand’s potential across the entire Google network. It has been placed at the center of all Google initiatives and, as such, the strategy necessary for success is unique – but critical – for brands.

In recent months, GroupM Search CEO Chris Copeland sat down with Google’s product and social execs, including Vic Gundotra, Bradley Horowitz and Christian Oestlien, to discuss the company’s vision for Google+. Drawing from these conversations and identifying the significance and potential for brands long-term via Google+ Pages, Copeland has developed keen perspective on the platform itself, why strategy is critical for brands, and important actions brands and marketers can take today to set course for success on Google+ and across the Google network.

Read more about these insights in the GroupM white paper shared below. If you want to chat more about it with Chris, follow him on Twitter at @SearchBoss.

Google Launches Google+ Pages for Businesses: Insight from GroupM Into Why A Google +Pages Strategy Is Crit…

For years, Google has tried to establish itself in the social space. Likewise, with every million new users the scale of the Facebook ad network has grown. With +Circles, Hangouts, and the rest, Google seems to have hit upon something of worth. People inside the industry and, more importantly, outside Madison Avenue and the Valley are intrigued. That said, the launch clearly caught the attention of the Social Network. Last week, Facebook responded to one of the most intriguing features of Google+, Hangouts (a group video chat application), by announcing its own solution – a partnership with Skype. Skype is the newest acquisition of Microsoft, another Google foe and one-time digital king.

But, for all the social gamesmanship that comes from this response, it’s likely to do little to halt someone from trying out or shifting over to Google+, if they are so inclined. What would it take for Facebook to evolve into an area that would keep consumers engaging and on site more than they already do? Perhaps the answer is all about the field upon which the battle is being fought. Google has clearly come onto Facebook’s turf, but it’s been attempting to do so for several years, so this is no sneak attack. However, if Facebook suddenly appeared on the search scene, well, I think it would be far most interesting.

In GroupM Search research published earlier this year, we found that consumers form a virtuous circle between the channels. While most start with search, they evolve and move into social when they feel the information available has capped and they want to find other data or get the opinions of others. Google +1, launched a few months back, was designed to be the continuation of Google’s effort (following its now ceased Twitter deal) to bring social into search and compete with Microsoft bringing Facebook into Microsoft’s index.

People don’t want to search. They want to go through a discovery phase, which is about deep and rich data. I suspect Facebook would have little interest in this and could be quite content to fully source this to Bing or just leave it outside the social walls altogether. Searchers also want to reach a destination, and that’s the play Facebook could somewhat easily make.

Imagine you seek to buy a new car, specifically a family SUV. Today, the pattern we have found suggests you use Google or Bing to identify a few candidates and then turn to your peer set to ask their opinions. In that process you may find that a few friends have liked Ford or Honda, but is that level of insight enough? Probably not. You may have to ask questions. Once you get their perspectives, you will then head back into the research loop of search.

Now imagine that instead of this, when you asked the first question inside Facebook, “Does anyone have a recommendation on a great SUV to buy?” the response is a blend of your graph and brand/third-party data. So, Facebook shows you the “likes” of brand pages, ideally with people liking specific models, not just the brand. But it also pulls in data to enable you to see which of those brands and products may be worth further consideration. This deeper search ability does two things. It connects your graph research with your extended research, but, more importantly for Facebook, it keeps you out of Google.

Brands continue to evaluate the worth of a Facebook fan and how they should buy vs. earn exposure. One way to attract brands is to give them connection points. Google built its business through the relevant intersection of content and intent. Using consumer questions in its graph and a better measure of intent could enable Facebook to not only enhance its ad properties, but also re-position the fight with a chief rival.

Regardless, the experience we have seen with Google since Bing started to gain market share suggests that innovation is most likely to be experienced when competition is present. Google+ represents the closest thing to that for Facebook since the late days of the MySpace reign. And whether or not Facebook decides to come to search, competition is present. Search and social will continue to deliver value for consumers in their experiences.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, July 19, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

The Oscars, Google’s search algorithm, the Eurovision Song Contest– they all famously choose the “best” answer to their questions by finding out who recommends whom -or what. The Oscars poll members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) – “the Academy” to its friends – to see who gets the most votes in a series of categories.  Google looks at the number of incoming links into a webpage, and the authority of those pages, to determine the authority of a webpage. The Eurovision Song Contest gives each competing nation several votes of different values that they can cast for anyone other than themselves.  It seems like a democratic system, on the surface;  at least it is if you’re a member of the Academy, own a website, or if you’re on the Eurovision committee for your country. Could you imagine only letting some people vote for your country’s president? It all seems a little elitist to me.  What about your poor huddled masses?  Most are not members of the Academy, don’t have their own website, nor are they living the dream of being part of their country’s Eurovision committee.  I’m thinking a lot more though, are probably members of one social network or another: Facebook (originally an elitist closed eco-system itself), MySpace, LinkedIn, Windows Live, to name just a few. Might there be something there that could  really democratize the web?

Last year, Bing managed to incorporate something that Google has been chasing for a while: true social search – as opposed to just universal search surfacing social content in the search results. Bing’s partnership with Facebook has given them access to the industry-standard social network. A hive of data that can be tapped to give even more personalized search results. If you are looking for a restaurant, and are logged into your Facebook account, then Bing will deliver search results that highlight restaurants that your friends “Like” – a true recommendation from a friend – on top of the algorithmic selections that they deliver. This is a huge step forward for personalization – and is one of the reasons that both Google and Microsoft were chasing a partnership with Facebook – although I don’t think that Bing received the acclaim that they deserve for this innovation.  It’s an interesting -and a positive-system, as there is no “Dislike” button, but as seen with relatively recent developments in Google’s search results, they are starting to consider the sentiment of pages that are linking to other pages to ensure that a page that is linked to with a lot of negative reviews is not gaining a top result, and as such greater exposure and more sales from the SERPs.

The interesting part of this to me, is a question: “What is the next data source?” I realize there are a lot of people busy working on or trying to work out what the next Facebook is, but I’m talking solely from the data perspective: Google needs to find an equivalent to Facebook, which is no easy task. They have made several attempts over the years to foster social networks of various sorts. One that I noticed recently was the Google Profile Pages – an opportunity to have users link through to their social networks, Twitter feeds, YouTube profiles, so that Google can understand what each user is doing and where. Google does not want to be reliant on a third party for their social indicator data if at all possible, and Bing shouldn’t rest on its laurels either. Microsoft has Windows Live, and could integrate a “Like” function – or a grading system if they wanted some more indicative data – fairly easily into the product to start generating their own “peer review data” for personalization purposes.

Either way, there is a potential sea-change in the way that Google, Bing et al are ranking pages – could social peer review be the new link-juice?  It presents an opportunity to ask not only the Academy, web developers, or committee members, but to ask the common person what their take is on a topic, and use that information to make tailored recommendations to their social-network-searcher-friend. Is this the wisdom of trusted crowds?

Can Microsoft capitalize on their lead? Is Google’s brand strong enough to get the data they need to take on the combination of Bing and Facebook? There is a lot to come in this space in 2011 as the search superpowers fight this one out and try to improve their recommendations and personalization.  Bring on the New Year!

This move was to signal the second coming, if not on the basketball court, then certainly across homes around the world of what a superstar athlete can deliver from a personal brand to corporate brands. With that as the backdrop it is staggering to look at the complete airball that LeBron is shooting in the social space leading up to this decision. Let’s break down how the Brand of LeBron has fared poorly in furthering his brand.

Even personal brands don’t get that social media is about the community
On Tuesday, LeBron James officially joined Twitter. Within 24 hours nearly 24,000 people were following @KingJames. So far there have been 2 tweets, one announcing LeBron’s arrival on the platform and the second wishing everyone a good Wednesday morning. In one sense this sums up the value exchange and worth of Twitter for many. On the other hand it paints a stark contrast to the efforts by companies like RadioShack together with athletes like Lance Armstrong and his @livestrong work. Armstrong is LiveStrong and through that support and affiliation with select corporate brands people are now associating him with his Team RadioShack cycling efforts and their combined efforts against cancer. Could this become LeBron’s future on the platform and in a  broader social way? Sure, but the Brand of LeBron is clearly about just that – LeBron at this moment. When the value exchange is so cheap, a follower on Twitter is making no emotional or financial commitment and you often get back what you put in, which is nothing. The brands that have figured out Twitter and other key social platforms are the ones putting more into the community than just themselves.

When in doubt, do it for the kids
Tuesday night brought us the interruption of programming with the bottom-of-the-screen scroll reporting “breaking news” that sources had told ESPN that a primetime special on Thursday night would air to reveal where LeBron is going. The best part? The special is on ESPN. That’s right, “sources” told ESPN reporters that this was happening on the very network that signs their paychecks. But this special was going to do more than just tell us where a guy was going to shoot hoops, it was going to be an opportunity for LeBron to generate monies to give back to the Boys and Girls Club of America through sponsorships which have already been secured with multiple advertisers. So now we have an athlete who is about to announce who will pay him personally in excess of $100 million over the next 5-6 years to play basketball, while he generates nearly $30 million annually in endorsements making himself into a televised spectacle for a few million to build basketball courts around the country. If you want to see the vitriol around this just do a Twitter search for LeBron or “the Decision” as it’s being called now by ESPN.

What we are witnessing is one part media creation, one part gifted athlete with a runaway ego justifying his actions. LeBron is either going on national TV to stick a dagger through the hearts of all his present fans in the area he grew up or he’s going to end months of debate by simply going back to where his heart always was. This is a massive personal decision that he’s putting out there for the world and then asking brands to still buy from his own brand despite the apparent damage.

It was either former NFL coach John Madden or legendary actress Elizabeth Taylor who said “Winning/success is a great deodorant.” Once the season begins, and if LeBron finally wins a NBA title, much of this behavior will be forgotten and matter little. But when corporate brands now spend to not only buy the impact an athlete can have on the field, but also what he can do in the new digital marketplace, it matters far more how an athlete conducts his social business. In this case, LeBron just missed a wide-open shot at further greatness.

As you read this, I will be standing somewhere on the grounds of my favorite sports destination, Churchill Downs. For me, the two minutes of thoroughbred racing on the first Saturday in May that is the Kentucky Derby is my favorite sports moment. The weekend encompasses three of my favorite things: sports with gambling attached, golf and plaid. It also gives me a great excuse to tie my hours of research into the writing of this column.

Last week I spoke at Search Insider Summit and it seemed like people couldn’t help but fall all over the linkage between search and everything else. “Search is a verb” moderator Gord Hotchkiss cried out; search and social were cited multiple times, real-time search was hailed as game-changing, and Facebook had a speaking role. Even Aaron Goldman’s annual trending topics Buzz-O-Meter was decidedly not search-centric.

Ultimately, I believe this will all be true; but I fear we’ve put cart before horse a bit and want to put into horse-wagering terms why the race is far from run in search, and how hitting a trifecta is a broader marketing decision. In horse racing a trifecta bet is selecting the horses that will finish first, second and third in that exact order. Trifectas pay well, but are not easy to pull off.

In the new-media world that has sprung from search, we suddenly have an active participant in the consumer, expressing intent through the platform and expecting appropriate responses from the advertiser. This is a key difference from the origins of traditional advertising, where the consumer was passive and, therefore, mattered much less on a one-off basis than today.

What I witnessed at SIS and see happening more and more is a focus on two pieces of the ticket. More and more I hear people advocating social and intention marketing because the consumer is engaged and expressing intent. Fully valid rationale — except when it’s tethered only to the location. Time and time again I hear people saying the reason to do social is because your consumers are there and talking about you. Since when did pressing advertisers to market out of fear lead to productive relations and results?

My problem is, we seem to be losing sight of the advertiser’s value in the equation. The focus on the role of Google, Yahoo, Bing or Facebook should not be understated, but as the platform, it’s a constant. Consumers are there, so the logic goes “we need to be there.” But simply showing up is a bit like picking horses based on the color of the jockey’s silks. It’s an option — but you won’t win too often.

Instead, what we continue to push marketers to invest in is the relationship they aspire to create with consumers. Understanding the platform only matters if you can leverage it to your gain. And that gain comes from better site experiences, better brand assets and forming connections that establish your brand and work towards purchase and loyalty. If your owned media assets are not up to the challenge, then you might as well bet on the long shot. It will come in once in a while, but it’s not a long-term strategy. For every Mine that Bird (last year’s 54-1 Derby winner) there are dozens of horses that go off at worse odds and never come close. It seems advertisers are being rushed into being there, whether that’s buying ads on Google or suddenly having to do Promoted Tweets without properly understanding what they bring to the table.

Brands need to recognize everything can be an asset. Yet the reality is, for something to be an asset it has to have value to both the brand and the consumers. And it also must fit into the platform. When you bet on your brand and create assets that align with consumers on their own course, you have a winning trifecta. Now for your Derby Trifecta “guess”: Awesome Act – Ice Box – Sidney’s Candy.

Let’s face it; this is not a new trend. Consumers have always been weary of companies, and companies have always searched for ways to gain consumer trust. Now, social media has become the corporate go to for “connecting” with the audience, forming relationships and humanizing brand image. However, even after the frequent Facebook updates, promotional Tweets and viral YouTube videos, it all comes down to one thing – why should consumers care about your brand?

Unless you can offer a compelling value exchange, customers will not “care” about your brand – state-of-the-art banner ads, expensive flash-enabled websites and integrated media campaigns aren’t enough if your brand has nothing to offer.

So how can we use social media to bridge this brand-consumer gap?

1. Provide Customers with Tangible Benefits
Whether you are awarding your most loyal customers with discounted products or offering free expedited shipping for online orders, using tangible benefits directly incentivizes customers to keep returning to your brand.

Take Dell for instance. After a quick peek at their Twitter profile, it’s no secret that the company’s sole objective is to sell its refurbished products. But Dell’s transparent intentions, generous discounts and added convenience directly benefits consumers searching for affordable computer hardware. Dell has also benefited from this value exchange, having generated over $3 million in sales and crafting a loyal Twitter base of over 1.5 million followers.

There are no creative promotions or fancy contests here, just a simple tangible value exchange.

2. Connect Emotionally to Offer Intangible Value
Many brands falsely believe that by using social media and talking casually with customers on Facebook, they are automatically transformed into a consumer-centric brand. But unless your company can provide content that resonates with customer values, passions and interests, there will not be a strong mutual connection.

Sharpie uses emotional connection as its social selling proposition. Their microsite, SharpieUncapped.com, promotes artistic passion by showcasing galleries of consumer-generated artwork created with Sharpie products. Sharpie also offers site visitors various articles, tips and stories aimed at encouraging individual expression. The brand has created emotional value by adapting to its customer’s lifestyles and interests, while actively supporting them in their endeavors.

If Sharpie can create strong emotional bonds using a product as indifferent as a permanent marker, there is hope for every brand.

There is some truth in the old adage, “The Customer is King” and the brands that discover how to affect change in consumer’s lives will be the ones that will cultivate a loyal consumer base while positively impacting their bottom-line.

What piqued my interest most on Wednesday was a question posed by a public relations executive based in Portland, Oregon. The topic was the mobile web and which platform would eventually dominate. The discussion turned to the future of geo-local maps and the ability of marketers to send targeted promotions to users based on their physical location. This executive challenged to the idea that many women would be amenable to using such an application as it would provide someone with detailed information about her whereabouts at any given time. The response from the panel was that this wouldn’t be something for users to be concerned about; in a nutshell, the takeaway was that as long as trusted marketers are sending this information, there’s nothing to worry about.
 
But, is there really nothing to worry about? Oftentimes, we are so focused on our industry and how its evolution impacts our businesses. While this is important, we can’t lose sight of the people that we’re in the business of communicating with.
 
Does the technology we’re developing and promoting compromise the privacy and safety of the end user? I don’t think there’s a simple “yes” or “no” answer to this question. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the statement that new media has opened a myriad of opportunities for us while making our lives easier in many respects. However, we must also discuss the potential negatives inherent in certain technological advances and understand how they could impact the consumer.
 
An interesting follow-up to the question posed would be to understand how the consumer’s privacy would be protected by the organization internally and from external forces. Who would have access to this data? Can entities request individual data without the consumer’s permission?
 
It’s important to have a 360 degree view of an issue. As experts in this industry, it’s our duty to weigh and understand the positives and the negatives of everything we recommend to our clients and ultimately our client’s customers.