Average. Could there be something less relevant when thinking about social media? I loved this very nice post by Tony Effik: in it, he shows an experiment. During a presentation, he showed a picture of three women to his audience and told them they arrived first, second and third in a beauty contest. He also asked people to tell which one - according to them - is the one who was elected by the judges. A very important particular: not the one they thought was the most beautiful, but the one they thought that most people would define beautiful. The experiment apparently went as expected: the crowd can quite easily predict the crowd's thinking.



This experiment is also called Keynesian Beauty Contest.

It's called the "hive mind": a sort of "collective intelligence" that acts by feeling and predicting crowds choices and tastes. If you look at it under another point of view, it actually represents our feeling of "average".

I'm not sure this can help a lot when we think about social media strategies. The collective intelligence and the hive mind are important as long as they can be a path not to choose.

Why should we please the hive mind, when we know the hive mind really doesn't exist, because it's just an average, an approximation? Wouldn't it be so much more effective to find a thousand niches rather than one single mainstream "mind"?

The best way to take advantage of the "hive mind" is to use it as a benchmark and then ignore it, while defining what the "real" people in our target look for? When you define engagement, think about the single person. Ignore the mainstream hive mind. There are valid tools to do this: we call them demographic, psychographic and sociographic target study.

Are there more ways we can use the concept of hive mind and collective intelligence?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Buzz, Yahoo!: ever wondered what these experiences have in common? Not all of them is a social network, they don't work all pretty much the same, but: they rely on "feeds" as main way to interact.



In social media, a feed is generally a selection of content based on contextual variables, such as:

• Preferences set by the user: the more controlled and customized the feed is, the more effectively it works;
• Other users connected to the user: users rely on it to be updated, in particular about users they're connected to (they can be friends or followings, for instance);
• Time: it's fundamental to know that information on feed is totally referred to a (recent) period;
• Space: where the content has originated represents another important factor, especially if the user is more interested in (any sort of) local content;
• Relevance: feeds use external parameters to define priorities. For instance, a good feed can decide a content is important because many of the users connections have "like" or "shared" it;
• User behavior: previous user actions are a great source of information for feeds: elements similar to what the user "liked" or "shared" in the past are more likely to be relevant;

Streams are a common way to connect and keep up to date, while building value with connections. When we look at streams from a marketing point of view, are we considering all the characteristics of this communication channel? It is becoming as important and pervasive as email, but still: for email you find lots of literature about how to engage, while streams are still quite "new" and experimental.

This TED presentation by Matt Ridley is something that you absolutely have to see, if you're interested in how the exchange of ideas can generate value and have an impact on mankind and its evolution.

This video explains why building something (even an insight) is infinitely more valuable when done by more than one people.

While I was watching this, I couldn't help but thinking how social media is helping the process of generating value by exchange: the power in our hands is everyday stronger. Brands, companies and consumer should always remember that through social web, they have the possibility to build something useful and interesting, but there's more: they can help the whole mankind step further.

Enjoy this brilliant video: When Ideas Have Sex, by Matt Ridley

A few days ago, on Facebook, there was something trending for Italian people: this content.



That, translated means:
[Disgusting] Look what this Big Mac turned into in two weeks!!
It's incredible what this Big Mac turned into after two weeks! This is what we eat: it's crazy!

This bit of content appeared on news feeds all over the country and, as you clicked it, here's what happened:
1. You reached a page that resembled Facebook layout, where you had to "Like" the content (spreading it to your friends)
2. You were then asked to share it with your friends (which caused the content to spread)
3. You were asked to click on a banner

In one day, this collected more than 400K likes.

The funniest part is there was no picture or video of the Big Mac. It was all a fake. This didn't impress me too much: we see spam of any kind everyday.

Here's what really impressed me: people commented on the content published on so many other's newsfeed. The comments were on the lines of "It's disgusting", "Here's what we eat", "I won't ever eat it again" and so on. But actually, they were commenting on something they hadn't seen because it didn't exist.

Can you see the violence in this? So many people can shout and get angry about a cause just because they are convinced about it just by seeing their friends actions.

Social media can gather so many voices and amplify any kind of message. Good messages, worth spreading, and bad, fake messages. I'm not defending McDonald's here, at all.

My recommendation is: beware what you share. It can gain an enormous strength, so it's important you're totally sure about it.

This is the reason why ethics are so important in social media. Communicating ethically means being correct to your target (friends, customers and connections in general) and building something that really generates value.

Have you ever thought about how much of the advertising you see on Facebook looks like "traditional" display advertising? Banners you could see on every portal or website. No granular targeting, no content, no conversation, no added value.

Here's just one random example of this trend.



There are a few advertisers and conversation agencies (disclosure I work at We Are Social Italy) that are focused on providing different forms of communication, even when they are provided to the consumer with logics and dynamics that resemble the traditional concept of display advertising.

Let's consider the possibilities that a social network like Facebook provides in terms of advertising: we're talking about

• a place focused on conversation
• a place focused on ralationship
• a place where content has a crucial role

I agree: advertising can be aggressive and unwanted on social media. When it adds value and when it's opt-in, it's a whole different matter. It turns from advertising into part of a conversation. Can you see it?

Thanks to Alexia (@alexias74), who inspired part of this thinking.

Are you wondering about the value of "being human" for your business? I have two stories for you.

On Saturday I went for a walk where I live and found a newly opened ice cream dealer. Nothing that new for the area: there already are 5 other places that sell ice cream around within 500 meters. It could look like a bad idea to open a shop so close to so many competitors. Then I walked in. I was greeted, kindly, by the waiter. On the wall, there were posters explaining how the ice cream was made, not just the ingredients or procedure: it pictured the place where they grow fruits for their ice cream. I decided to try it and asked for clarifications on different tastes. I was told about how they were made, what the best match between tastes are and why they're so good. While waiting to pay, a little sign excused for the possible queue, explaining that, for that kind of ice cream, it was necessary to work on the ice cream a lot manually, so the waiter might be a little busy. They didn't seem so busy or in panic, they put enthusiasm in what they did. It didn't seem to me I waited long anyway.

Only a few meters far, there's a shop, a movie rental place. It's from one of the biggest brands worldwide in the field. I can recall it's been there for the last 10 years, but it has changed a lot. Until 2003, you could find prepared people who loved movies, who were very motivated and who could suggest you the best film for each actor, help you finding out the movie for the night and who remembered without asking that you booked a movie. Then, came the DVD, everything went on quite well, trying to switch from VHS was quite painless, the shop was filled up with mode personnel. Less waiting at the counter, but no one ever suggested me a movie anymore. I think the brand of the shop had some structural strategic problems, deciding not to rent anything on-line, and the shop suffered from it. Then, I saw even more employees, but I often find myself renting somewhere else: what did they give me that I couldn't find somewhere else? No discount, no suggestions, no relationship.

Still wondering how "being human" can help? The shop with many employees who don't know a customer's name is closing on July 31st, being converted to a clothes shop. The ice cream dealer, which has 5 competitors near and makes wait a little before paying? Full. I walked by it twice on Saturday, and once on Sunday. I never saw less than 5 people in queue.

I just read this news about Google acquiring ITA Software, a company active in the travel industry, particularly in the air travel software field. Google released this announcement, stating they won't kill competition. If I worked in the travel industry I wouldn't be worried, but I wouldn't sleep that tight either, would you?

Are you making sure that what you do isn't something Google (replace with anyone else) could easily do? Think about your service: if it can become a commodity easily, than you should wonder why and act fast to deliver more value.

So, if you provide a search engine that allows to find the cheapest flight, why should people use it, when they'll be able to do exactly the same via Google?

If you build a social network where people can meet and share their summer photographs, what will retain them and preventing them from doing the same thing (and many others) on Facebook?

Think about it: what can make your service something unique, that cannot be replaced and done better by Google (AKA Facebook, AKA Amazon, AKA you-name-it)?

A good way to differentiate and to make it impossible to be replaced is delivering unique value. Try to "be human" in your business: it's one of the best ways. The secret behind companies like Zappos, the true and non-standardizable conversations and relationships that happen everyday between the company and consumers.

The more "automatic" you make a process, the more likely it turns into a commodity. You need skills, passion, vision and people to build something different. But, if you do, it will hardly be replaceable.

How are you differentiating?