Recently, Facebook introduced a new profile category called “pages”. With that, however, has come a lack of understanding between the difference of Facebook “pages” versus Facebook “groups”. So I did some digging to see if I could help separate the two:

Groups: Essentially, groups are the online equivalent to and offline club. They can be open, they can be private, but the goal is to share information between a group of individuals pertaining to a given cause/organization/team etc. Each group has officers, who manage and maintain the group, with members that populate the group with photo’s, updates, and more.

Pages: The equivalent of creating a profile for a person, Pages are created for companies or organizations, and work very much like your profile page. All updates and information are posted within the news feeds of those that “like” the page, and appear to be posted from the page, rather than a user of the page (as might happen within the groups example above). Pages are ideal for organizations that want to post relevant information to those that follow them within Facebook. Additionally, page admins are anonymous, unlike those of groups.

“Facebook created Pages when we noticed that people were trying to connect with brands and famous artists in ways that didn’t quite work on Facebook…Not only can you connect with your favorite artists and businesses, but now you also can show your friends what you care about and recommend by adding Pages to your personal profile.” – Official statement from Facebook

Hopefully, that helps set you straight, if you were struggling to draw the line between the two. We’ve typically had an agency Facebook group, but have now transitioned this over to a Facebook page. Check it out, if you’re so inclined.

For anyone that’s not aware, Google launched Buzz in early February. Buzz is a new social networking platform that is meant to start conversations about the things you find interesting. The most interesting features are: that it’s built into GMail, you can connect sites you already use, see updates in real-time, share publicly or privately with your followers, and the capability to see photo/video thumbnails with each post. Sounds Awesome, right!

Well…maybe. Now that the privacy issues have been hammered out let’s take a brief look into if it really “works” for users.

The social media landscape is filled with many players. Of course, the ultimate powerhouses are the same as they were 2 years ago, Facebook and Twitter. Personally, I don’t see this changing anytime soon. So where does that leave Google’s stamp on social media?

I’m still trying to figure that out, and I am not alone. A quick Twitter survey from my followers indicated that, users are not sure how it fits it into their digital lifestyle or if it fits at all.

Using myself and a host of friends and colleagues as examples: we all use Facebook and Twitter. So why use, Buzz? In fact, most of the people I follow are posting from Twitter or Google Reader without actually “using” Buzz at all.  Their posts look strangely familiar, oh yeah, I already saw them on Twitter. So what value does Buzz have for me?

Social Media users are struggling to find relevance in the noise. So a platform that pushes comments of your friends friends, seems to add to the noise. However, Google intentionally made Buzz different because it wants Buzz to evoke a different type of interaction. For example, after posting a Buzz about the use of the service. Several of my followers commented, a friend from college, a freelancer (that I’ve never physically met) and a family member. Don’t get me wrong, this can be achieved via Facebook and Twitter, but with Buzz, the conversation is in my face as it happens. This point will dictate whether Buzz lives or dies in the coming months.

So what does all this mean? Simply potential. I wouldn’t write off Buzz just yet, nor would I jump on the band wagon singing praises. We will just have to wait and see.

Go ahead, try it out and then chime back in here. I’d love to hear your thoughts on Google Buzz.

Good question. Tricky answer.

I tend to follow the belief that social media works in three forms:

1. Socially – friend to friend
2. Promotionally -as a tool, in conjunction with an overarching promotional campaign
3. Proactively – a way to reach out, and build your brand

Let’s take a minute and go through each one of these, albeit at a high level.

Socially

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Essentially, social media works great for friends to connect with other friends, exchange notes, and share photo’s. At it’s root, this is what social media is all about. And it works brilliantly this way. The tricky part, is how does a brand insert itself into this picture, and leverage the potential opportunity successfully. Hopefully, that makes a little more sense in the next two points.

Promotionally

I think this is where social media really gets it’s best use, from a brand perspective. When used as a communication tool, in conjunction with online advertising and marketing initiatives – geared towards a given objective – social media provides a solid foundation to insert ourselves into our consumers’ lives (in an non-salesy way).

Proactively

Whether you’re a brand looking to field nasty “tweets” (a la Comcast), provide information (like Wachovia), or a sports figure looking to provide inside information to your fans (@martinhavlat), social media provides a bedrock of opportunity. You’ve got a quick way to access key segments of your target audience, and speak to them directly, in a casual environment.

The point here, is that social media isn’t a tool to make money. Rather, it’s a tool that poses as a doorway into the lives of consumers. When used properly, as in the points mentioned above, it can prove to be a highly valuable piece, to a rather complex puzzle.

Or maybe we’re talking about social media campaigns, and worrying about the number of friends, or followers of our associated Twitter profiles, Facebook Fan pages, etc. We get so caught up in these numbers, that we forget one simple thing…

Those numbers are created by people just like us. In some cases, we’re one of those numbers being tabulated.

How do you respond to a banner ad? When was the last time you were wowed by an email campaign? What was the last website you visited that was simply intuitive, and gave you exactly what you wanted, while delivering a glowing user experience? That’s what I thought. What about what the user wants?

The facts say it all: less than 0.05% of banner ad are ever clicked, and email click rates measure in the low single digits. The moral? People don’t want to be spoken to, they want to be talked with.

Our goal, as marketers and advertisers alike, should be to engage our audience, excite them to act, and provide them with memorable experiences, rather than to gimmick them into our way of thinking, or hand out short-term incentives to complete a form. To be clear, my point isn’t that any of these methods – okay, aside from banners maybe – are bad, but that we need to approach them differently. We need to utilize them differently. And we need to measure their effectiveness differently.

Next time you take a look at these reports, pay attention to things like referrals, average time on site, requests for information, and social mentions. Take a look at organic site traffic, from people who are sharing you with their friends. Why these numbers? Because they represent engagement, traction, and stickiness. Just like us, our visitors/users/customers/guests want to be engaged, and rewarded for action. We should be looking for ways to do just that.

I can’t help but agree with the statements made in this video. Indeed social media is more than a fad, rather it’s a complete paradigm shift in how we as human beings communicate with one another, and it’s here to stay.

I have to confess, this has to be one of my favorite YouTube videos to date. Two thumbs up to Apple, for not being afraid of jumping head first into that ever-so-scary world known as the online conversation.

I’ve mentioned it before, and I’ll mention it again: social media gives us a way to communicate and share, that has never been possible previously. Now more than ever, technology has enabled us to quickly and easily share our thoughts with the world, and instantly have that conversation with a limitless number of people. And it makes sense for it to happen this way. All day ever day, we’re faced with advertising, we use products, and we ask questions. The social sphere has just given us a way to make the conversation happen in real time, with people we know (or don’t know) rather than requiring we turn to Google for the answers.

What does this mean to you? Like it or not, social media isn’t going anywhere. And if you happen to be one of those that fears the potential repercussions of “the conversation”, it’s important to know that whether you’re part of the conversation or not, it’s still being had. If that’s not enough to convince you, perhaps this except from the aforementioned article will:

Although the brand mentions were a mix of positive and negative, associate professor at PSU Jim Jansen said that, surprisingly, “a lot of the brand comments were positive.” He went on to measure the influence of micro-blogging as compared to other media channels: “It may be right up there with e-mail in terms of its communication impact.”

Notice anything different? Twitter has redesigned the page, and put absolute focus on a new feature headlined by “See what people are saying about…” followed by a search bar. Results are generated by finding users who have posted “tweets” including your search term/phrase.

What is the significance of this occurrence? Simple. Twitter has finally taken the first step in unseating Google as the dominant organic search site. You may think I’m crazy in this belief, but I am willing to bet that sooner or later, Twitter will in fact overtake Google as the #1 online search service (sorry Bing).

The reason? Results aren’t based on some ominous algorithm cooked up by the crew in Mountain View California. Instead, results are compiled by information from people just like you and me. Why would this happen? I’ll give you a good example: About a month or two ago we had a terrible thunderstorm come through Atlanta, that happened to spawn a number of tornadoes along the way. My satellite reception in my home became non-existent, and power was eventually lost. In order to keep aware of the location of the tornadoes, and the storm system in general, I grabbed my iPhone, launched Tweetie, and performed a search for “tornado”. Immediately I received hundred of tweets detailing the events happening around the city from the perspective of everyday people.

Long story short, Twitter made it possible for me to stay informed of current events in real time, without the need for editorialized news services. The difference between traditional search, from Google’s perspective, and a Twitter search has everything to do with the timing of the results. A Twitter search can generate results only seconds old, whereas high ranking Google results, have been made possible due to ongoing SEO initiatives.

So, in closing, do you agree? Is Twitter > Google? How do you see the search game unfolding?

In his article, Carnet refers to the following five rules:

1. Appeal to what people love the most – themselves
2. Measurement is very important, but don’t lose the forest for the trees
3. Plan for success, but know you won’t always hit homeruns
4. What they are saying is true; Social media is about conversations
5. Know thy customer

Now, on the surface I imagine these five points probably seem obvious, however the part that really got me was this:

Learn how to foster deeper and more balanced and committed relationships. Stop trying to bribe and manipulate people to get them to do what you want. This is transactional behavior. Be open to new forms of value. Properly engaged customers buy from a company not just because they like the product or service, but because they genuinely want the business to be successful.

Think on that for just a second. Thanks to the power given to us – and to consumers – via the birth of social media, we can no longer rely on gimmicky give-aways to encourage consumer behavior. These methods are old and tired. In large part, this is due to expectations being different than they used to be. Consumers expect to be able to reach out to brands and people easily and quickly via Facebook, or MySpace, or Twitter, or any other handful of socially-focused online communities. And once connected, they expect to be engaged, and valued as a “follower”.

We can do this in any number of ways, though I’d point to some rather excellent cases by Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Target. These brands gave followers the ability to interact with them, and the chance to get something in return, while reaping the benefits of creeping into that individuals social network, and leveraging the power that is word of mouth.

Today, it’s about empowering consumers by giving them tools that allow them to beat your drum for you. Consumers are looking for ways to engage and interact with brands they value, and it is up to those brands to provide those individuals with the proper tools to do just that. Of course, this comes at a cost: brands that refuse to get involved in the conversation directly, run the risk of being lost in the noise, or even worse, allowing others to manage their conversation for them.

We have two options: sit idly by and be passed over by the masses, or dive in head first and lead the conversation. Where do you sit?