I was conducting an experiment using social media, I figured challenging you would draw in some flies. I posted my web site link in my challenge post, and Statcounter shows 31 hits on my web site directly linked to this thread. I have no idea what the long term effects of those hits will be, but the fun part is the potential of those hits came at the expense of your posit.

Fun stuff!

http://robert-randall.com/content/

Brilliant.

Robert Randall wrote:
The hits on my web site directly attributable to this thread are now at 101.

Hits or visits?




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Farenell Photography wrote:

I can tell you right now, its the internet. A nude picture will get 20x the hits/likes/rebloggs/whatever than a picture of equal quality. A picture of a female will get 15x the hits/likes/rebloggs/whatever than a picture of equal quality of a male.

Essentially, people like boobs & those who showcase them. Girls like other girls who showcase their boobs, guys like girls who showcase their boobs. Its a win-win for her. Besides just because a person has 2.5 million followers, it doesn't mean those 2.5 are actually active & thus a use to (in this case) Jessi.

Besides does anyone really use Google+? I ask this because its a Facebook knockoff. They get their numbers because (as evidenced with my own Gmail account) anyone within the Google umbrella (YouTube, Gmail, etc) automatically logs them in via their Google+ account regardless if they want to or not.

It's not a Facebook knock of, it was done for data mining.

Farenell Photography wrote:

AJScalzitti wrote:
So what if only 10% of those followers are active, that is more eyes on her then some regional magazines.  More to the point it gets her a lot of work, so just like every major/minor company social media has to be part of your marketing plan.

If she's found a business model that works for her, then by all means good for her & don't let any of my thoughts stop her.

By & large, I still stand by my belief not to spend any resources on "social media" than that to which one cannot afford to lose. Whether those resources is time spent, capital, or whatever is irrelevant.

AJScalzitti wrote:
If you don't like the photography/marketing example how about raising millions for the Veronica Mars project on kickstarter?

The Veronica Mars project is a terrible example of a social media success story. Veronica Mars had actress Kristen Bell behind it. She's the actress with an already established fan base, its sometimes referred to as "star power".

She's the uncredited voice of "Gossip Girl" as well as been in Russel Brand/Jonas Hill flick "Get Him to the Greek". Same goes for starring opposite Josh Duhamel in "When in Rome". Same with being the title character "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" opposite Jason Segel (of "How I Met Your Mother" fame). Same with starring in the NBC cult hit "Heroes".

AJScalzitti wrote:
For that matter how many other projects/companies have been started via crowd sourcing?

Crowd sourcing is vastly different citing "social media" as the reasons for its success. Yes, they can intersect but please don't confuse the two.

The "social media" (in most case) is like a pastor preaching to the choir. If you want to broadcast alone, that's great. But its ultimately a passive experience. It takes a lot more effort to persuade people to actually do something about an issue in the "real" world, even if its like donating a simple $1 for some fundraiser.



I assume you're referring to the Obama campaign.

You are correct they raked in a shit-ton of money. But to say it was BECAUSE of social media is quite laughable. Remember there was a political machine behind them. Its a mix of old school $10,000/plate dinner fundraisers, milking the donor list they still had on file from the 2008 & 2010 campaigns, generating excitement with new people through (again) old school stump speeches to a generally receptive audience.

His people are not idiots. They were just effective at campaigning & using the new media available to them, as the perceptive political analysis Karl Rove gave W in 2000 & 2004, & as savy as the Bill Clinton team bypassing traditional media outlets in favor of "new" (to us) outlets like Larry King.

You might want to refine your terms. What does spending money on social media mean, paying for a FB page?

Word of mouth is the most powerful form of marketing there is. Social media is the new word of mouth.

Still, if you want to market through social media, you don't spend money on social medial, you put your effort into content marketing. The OP touched on it slightly - the idea of posting every day, but one post isn't enough.

Every brand has an audience and you need to keep their attention. That's what content is for. Then you allow people to use social media in place of word of mouth.

Converse leveraged their money by 90% with one of their content projects.

What do you think the Red Bull event was where the guy set the new parachute record? He wasn't delivering a case of Red Bull.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
What do you think the Red Bull event was where the guy set the new parachute record? He wasn't delivering a case of Red Bull.

I think that's different than social media marketing, but that's just me drinking brandy.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

I think that's different than social media marketing, but that's just me drinking brandy.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

It's more accurate to call it content marketing.

Farenell Photography wrote:
The TRUE lesson of social media that people should take away is not to invest anything in it (whether its time, money, or effort) that you cannot afford to lose.

I am what I  am because of social media.

And so is him

Farenell Photography wrote:
https://twitter.com/BJMendelson

The fact that you´re MISSING the irony of him using Every social media- Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Youtube, tumblr- to promote his book it´s just priceless!

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
The fact that you´re MISSING the irony of him using Every social media- Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Youtube, tumblr- to promote his book it´s just priceless!

Have you actually bothered to READ the book?

The thesis is not whether social media does or does not blanketly works. But explaining the various nuisances & then figuring out if it works for that person. A small business in a dense population center like NYC isn't likely to have the same financial bounce as a small business out in like Nebraska or in the Adirondack Mountains of NY.

The other main thrust of it is to not invest (could be time, could be money, could be aggravation) any more on social media than that to which you cannot already afford to lose.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Have you actually bothered to READ the book?

The thesis is not whether social media does or does not blanketly works. But explaining the various nuisances & then figuring out if it works for that person. A small business in a dense population center like NYC isn't likely to have the same financial bounce as a small business out in like Nebraska or in the Adirondack Mountains of NY.

The other main thrust of it is to not invest (could be time, could be money, could be aggravation) any more on social media than that to which you cannot already afford to lose.

The op kindly posted about how she used facebook and how one could use it so it works well and you wrote a post that questions the use of social media. I think the OP did a good job. How have you helped people get the most out of facebook? By making social media out to be some sort of repetitive scam?

LA StarShooter wrote:

The op kindly posted about how she used facebook and how one could use it so it works well and you wrote a post that questions the use of social media. I think the OP did a good job. How have you helped people get the most out of facebook? By making social media out to be some sort of repetitive scam?

+1

Farenell Photography wrote:
Have you actually bothered to READ the book?

The thesis is not whether social media does or does not blanketly works. But explaining the various nuisances & then figuring out if it works for that person. A small business in a dense population center like NYC isn't likely to have the same financial bounce as a small business out in like Nebraska or in the Adirondack Mountains of NY.

The other main thrust of it is to not invest (could be time, could be money, could be aggravation) any more on social media than that to which you cannot already afford to lose.

LA StarShooter wrote:
The op kindly posted about how she used facebook and how one could use it so it works well and you wrote a post that questions the use of social media. I think the OP did a good job. How have you helped people get the most out of facebook? By making social media out to be some sort of repetitive scam?

First off, the above post you quote was in response to a poster. He was using a cite to disprove whatever it was that I wrote. Yet that had they actually read the cited source material, it would have contradicted the poster's own reasons. Had he actually read his own cited source material, he would have learned that one of the major points in the book is not to invest* any more in social media than that to which you cannot already afford to lose. & by investing, it could be (but is not limited to) time spent; it could be money; it could be the aggravation of interacting with members of your "following".

Secondly, its not my job to explain how (insert the social media site of your choice) works or does not work. Reason being what works for person A, like the gyst of the OP's post, isn't guaranteed to work for person B. There are nuisances with each site that the SM marketers aren't telling you that directly benefit them (thus withholding possible conflict of interest info from their clients).