So here we are, 6 months later, and as 2012 starts I am finally giving in to Google+. Here are 5 reasons why:

1. Google+ continues to become more business friendly.

It took a while for Google to ‘allow’ business/brand pages in their system, but have no doubt they were planned for from the very beginning. Now Google+ Business Pages are growing up, and Google has begun to distinguish companies from users by providing additional features and requiring brands/businesses to apply Google to get a dedicated brand page. On one hand, small businesses and entrepreneurs may see this as obstructionist, this will help keep the white noise down a bit. I think this is an administrative ‘Panda’-inspired move intended to prevent Google+ abuse and hold off a glut of business page creation by the same marketers who helped flood Google’s search engine with content farm spam. The ability to assign up to 50 administrators to a business page is an important nod to ‘big brand’ business management requirements where it is unlikely (and undesirable) for just one person to have sole administrative rights for an important social brand environment.

2. Google gives you an SEO boost.

Google+ pages are built to be Search Optimization friendly and seem to be getting page one ranking preference. This is one of Google+’s savviest counters to Facebook’s  decision to actively prevent Google from crawling much of their content. Much of what you do on Facebook is not search engine accessible – and that’s fine for a lot of their pages and profiles where people have privacy concerns. But a lot of businesses and people are actively looking for a social-search boost, and by tailoring the Google+ format to the Google ranking algorithms (and allowing for more content than, say some places that limit you to 140 characters) Google+ increases your ability to own your own name or brand-space in search results.  Google has essentially trumped Facebook and other social platforms like Twitter for search optimization – another signal that Google+ is an ‘open’ business and brand friendly environment rather than a gated community. This is in line with the brand-friendly aspects of the Panda update, about which Matt Cutts has stated: “…we actually came up with a classifier to say, okay, IRS or Wikipedia or New York Times is over on this side, and the low-quality sites are over on this side.” To find out more about Google+ search optimization, take a look at this post about Google+ optimization from Kristi Hines at Search Engine Watch.

3. Real ‘Social’ Interaction 

Video conferencing in ‘hangouts’ allow you to move from threaded ‘comment discussions’ to an actual dialogue. You can even join a hangout from a mobile-phone with a front-facing camera. This is great for team meetings, customer support, small training sessions, product demonstrations, etc. However the real power, still in limited testing, is the On Air feature. On Air turns a Hangout into a video broadcast. On Air broadcasts can be recorded and uploaded to your YouTube account. With some thoughtful use, you can easily grow a library of on demand video content.  Video ‘just happens’ to be a powerful SEO content strategy element in it’s own right – and with a few educated tweaks On Air can become another key Google+ SEO signal element.

4. Circles rock.

Circles were one of the first touted features of Google+ – the ability to meaningfully segment your social world into different buckets: friends, family, co-workers, people you can drop the f-bomb around, people you can’t, customers/clients, special interest groups, etc. Finally you can control which group gets which message. Your mom doesn’t have to get every random link about a new SEO tactic, your co-workers don’t need to know where you went to dinner on vacation, you don’t have to run every social post through the filter of: ‘do I want my mom, boss, client, kids, co-workers, etc, etc, etc to see this?’ Yes Facebook does allow you to create different ‘groups’ but frankly, using them is a pain.

5. Google+ is not going away.

Like I said before – my experiences with Google’s previous experiments like Wave and Buzz, Sidewiki and even with ‘lab’ experiments like Google Social Search left me with a bad taste in my mouth. They were dead ends – explorations that may have provided Google with some actionable intelligence to be used in future projects and products (like Google+) but for me as an end-user were ultimately a waste of my time. While there are those who argue the value of Google+, noting that as of late November even MySpace still has more traffic than Google+, Google has simply put too much effort and promotion into Google+ to terminate it. Google+ appears to be more than just a social media environment – it’s an important component of how Google wants search to perform. Also, big brands and social media pundits didn’t flock to any of Google’s previous social efforts in the same way they have taken to Google+ – with 61% of the world’s Top 100 brands establishing Google+ business pages in less than a week after the search company allowed ‘official’ business pages. Business integration of Google+ is still in it’s infancy – look how long it’s taken many businesses to integrate Facebook – but this kind of mass adoption shows that the business world is hungry and ready for more social solutions even if they are slow to evolve how they are integrated and utilized. If Google were to shut down Google+ after all the press, marketing and business efforts towards adoption, they leave with egg on their face and businesses will be more cautious and less likely to gravitate towards future Google platforms. Google+ is here to stay.

Requests for measurable effectiveness of social media recruiting are often met with remarks that redirect the topic instead of directly addressing effectiveness. A request or challenge asking ‘Can Social Recruiting fill positions x, y and z?’ frequently lead to lectures that social media is about community, dialogue, transparency, etc. Would we accept similar arguments saying that asking for results from Pay Per Click is misguided because it’s about the user’s post-click experience?  No. We simply need to get to the point where best practices are an assumed part of any such challenge or request for results. Asking for results is never misguided.

Maybe I’m tired of running into arguments saying that asking for results from social media recruitment efforts is misguided because it’s all about community-building. Or maybe I’m just too close to the issue.

While Social Recruiting is not a one-off campaign tactic and community building is crucial, at some point you have to determine your core performance metric. This is recruitment and ultimately core performance metrics have to include: number of viable candidates found through a social media channel, successful hires of candidates found through a social media channel. No amount of best practice caveats can side-step this ultimate goal.

If I am properly building a social media strategy will I be able to generate an on-demand stream of qualified candidates when positions are open? Will the results of my social recruiting efforts reap the rewards for which I am going through this effort and will they be of an appropriate volume and effectiveness to justify the content development and labor costs associated — because saying social recruiting is free is only true if your time, talent and expertise is free as well.

Should you expect to get these results right off the bat through the social media ‘if you build it they will come’ mentality? No, not at all. You still have to build community, diversify your social media footprint, engage with your audience and build value — all the standard best practices of social media marketing.

Just saying ‘you need to do it right’ doesn’t remove the need to ultimately determine that a well-run recruiting effort/tactic/strategy/whatever actually works and is financially viable. However, given the mind-set of most companies, we will probably all have to get used to repeating variations of this phrase and the attendant details since many seem determined to view social recruiting as a simple ‘plug-it-in’ tactic that will produce immediate results. Yes it will produce results, but…

Yes, I know, you’re tired of hearing the S-word – it’s everywhere.  The S-word is ubiquitous and almost annoyingly showing up in every media source you encounter from blogs to TV news stories. Even the line-cook at Denny’s is talking about it – heck, he moon-lights as a social marketer. Haven’t you heard? EVERYONE’S promoting their personal brand in social media these days.

Whether you think times are ripe for a social backlash or not, social media spaces are only becoming more and more important to any online marketing and recruitment strategy. Let me tell you why social media is the next big thing for SEO.

You see, first of all search engines are very clique-conscious. The more popular and authoritative a site is, the more reputation it has to share. When one of those sites links to another site it passes a bit of credibility to the new site, making the search engines say: “Hey, if Amazon links to that site it MUST be worthwhile. I’m going to give it a better search results ranking.” In SEO this is called sharing ‘link juice.’

How powerful is link juice? Let’s just say that 1 link from a site with a lot of link juice can do more for your search engine results position than 20 links from sites with no link juice.

Who’s got the juice?

Right now, social media sites have a LOT of link juice. Google, for instance, isn’t stupid. They know that a lot of people are busy sharing information on Facebook, Twitter, Digg and other social media sites. These are real people sharing information they find valuable in real time. If you’re a search engine, it’s like being able to tap into the internet’s stream of consciousness and find out what site’s people really think are the most valuable about any given topic.

Google already gives certain social media sites extra exposure and the links from these sites carry the juice to prove it. In real-time news search, you can already watch topic-related tweets and Facebook status updates emerge among blog and news story updates on Google. Just click on the ‘options’ link on your Google search results and then click the ‘Latest’ link to let Google know you want the ‘latest news results.’

Google's Real Time Search Already Tracks Tweets in Real Time

How to get social link juice

Taking advantage of the new social-search phenomena isn’t as easy as just setting up a Twitter account or a Facebook page and linking to your career website or job listings. Nobody ever said anything worthwhile is easy. Your destination pages have to be optimized; your social sources need to be diverse and populated with worthwhile, interesting content; your use of keywords has to be selective but not spammy.

Really, the first steps to getting good social link juice are recommended best practices in their own right:

1)      Develop good content on your career website

2)      Build branded social media presences that provide interesting information to your candidate audience. (FYI: ‘Interesting information’ doesn’t mean job listings or blatant self-promotion.)

As attendees of the NAS Social Networking Boot Camp learn in our hands-on sessions, developing a effective social presence means you become an asset to your audience by giving them information and tools that help meet their goals – not necessarily yours. This alone transforms you from a suspect source of self-serving advertising into a valuable resource. And that’s an important key to building an audience…and ultimately a stream of link juice you can direct through your branded social media properties.

1. YouTube.com

2. Wikipedia.org

3. Craigslist.org

4. Twitter

5. photobucket.com

6. flickr.com

7. WordPress.com

8. IMDB.com

9. digg.com

10. eHow.com

11. TypePad.com

12. topix.com

13. LiveJournal.com

14. deviantART.com

15. Technorati.com

5MPREYKQTTDV

‘…not real friends just Facebook friends’. Is FB devaluing the term Friend? Should they have called them something else?

This got me thinking…for a few years there has been a lot of talk about Dunbar’s Number. Dunbar’s Number refers to a theory that there is a limit to the amount of relationships we can maintain. Beyond that number, you simply cannot maintain a meaningful relationship. Dunbar sets that number at a maximum of 150 people

In October of 2009, Seth Godin proclaimed that: Dunbar’s Number isn’t just a number, it’s the law. He makes a good argument that once you reach beyond your Dunbar number your message effectiveness changes as a side-effect of the intimacy of your relationship changing.

Supporting this, Switched.com explored How Many Facebook Friends Do We Have, For Real? I urge you to look at the eye-opening research they performed to explore ‘friend’ engagement.

But not everyone agrees with the relevance of Dunbar’s number to social media. Contrary to Seth Godin’s take that you must have ‘strong ties’ to your audience to be effective, Morten Hansen puts forward in his book Collaboration that the real value of collaboration and networks comes from weak relationships rather than from strong relationships and networks.  One of Morten’s network rules is “build weak ties, not strong ones.”

According to Morten: “…research shows that weak ties can prove much more helpful in networking, because they form bridges to worlds we do not walk within.  Strong ties, on the other hand, tend to be worlds we already know; a good friends often knows many of the same people and things we know.  They are not the best when it comes to searching for new jobs, ideas, experts, and knowledge.  Weak ties re also good because they take less time.  It’s less time consuming to talk to someone once a month (weak tie) than twice a week (a strong tie).  People can keep up quite a few weak ties without them being a burden.”

At first blush I would agree. Especially when we are looking at making a social media brand relationship. I do not have a ‘strong tie’ to any of the brands I engage with on Facebook or Twitter, we do not have regular lengthy conversations nor have I found myself buying a round of drinks for either author Christopher Moore, or Hyatt Hotels and Resorts Careers. But, I have found that I can engage with them on a semi-regular basis very easily.

I get information from each which I would otherwise have no way of knowing and, if I so desire, I can have a micro-engagement with little effort. From a brand perspective, whether engaging me as a would-be book reader/buyer or a possible job applicant, that level of engagement is enough — they open me up for deeper engagement according to my needs in response to the value I am exposed to by my ‘weak connection’. The same ‘weak tie’ value can be seen by anyone who is ann of a consumer brand and yet takes advantage of an online coupon or special promoted through a social media channel.

So what do we call these ‘weak connections’ in our networks, specifically Facebook? My proposed answer: they are a Facequaintance.

Someone who you have ‘friended’ on Facebook but don’t really know or keep in touch with. You generally don’t know anyone who ever comments on their Wall and wouldn’t know them even if they walked right up to you and slapped you.

Usage: “Yea, I’m friends with her but we’ve only met, like, once. She’s just a Facequaintance.”

Starbucks has just started using Foursquare as part of a new customer rewards program. To take part in this program, all you have to do is use foursquare to ‘checkin’ at your Starbucks location (I use the Foursquare app on my Droid).

While Starbucks has no official prizes associated with Foursquare activity (such as free coffee), after five checkins customers unlock the new “Barista badge.” The first specifically business branded badge on Foursquare, although almost certainly not the last.

Obviously this is just the tip of the iceberg for an organization that has already leveraged multiple presences on both Facebook and Twitter. If nothing else, Starbucks is hyper-activate about finding ways to leverage the groundswell and social media.

While both Twitter and Foursquare are looking to offer more business analytics tools (Foursquare plans to introduce free statistics and engagement tools for businesses) Starbucks is apparantly hoping to use Foursquare to provide more meaningful prizes. Some possibilities incluse invitations to special events, photo sharing or online reputation scores.

Already I’ve begun to hear people discussing ways to possibly use Foursquare in recruitment. Is it possible? Is it advised? How would it work? Would candidates get to unlock some special ’2nd Interview!’ Badge? Or are mobile-based geo-location tools simply not relevant?

The social media discussion online is overflowing with would-be gurus, pundits, wannabes and actual experts repeating one key word around which this whole phenomena revolves: conversation. I mean, really, Google: social media +conversation and you get “Results 1 – 10 of about 11,100,000 for social media +conversation. (0.27 seconds).” As of 30 seconds ago you did at least.

But yet, people continue to use social media channels and ecosystems as shout channels mimicking broadcast media like TV or radio. Just look at all the companies in HR-space who think filling a Twitter account or Facebook wall with nothing but outgoing job listings or endless self-promotional babble is somehow attaining social media mastery. When it’s really more like saying “Hey, DIG ME!!” And really…some people will find it worthwhile (education and informing is part of this process after all) but most will simply consider it spam.

So why is this happening? Why do companies use social media like it was some shiny new bullhorn? The name.

Social media is just a completly inaccurate name for what this space is really about: it focuses on the properties and technology instead of the interaction and content. The name itself promotes the attitude of: ‘here’s a new media environment to play in, how can I use the materials I’ve already developed?’

It would be more approriate to refer to this space as ‘Social Medium’ – a social environment or space. According to Webster’s (excuse me while I put on my trusty, taped-up horn-rimmed glasses) a medium is (definition 3a): “a condition or environment in which something may function or flourish.”

A social medium is a social environment, a natural location for the aforementioned guru/expert/pundit-approved conversations to occur. And it’s the dynamic of the medium that matters, not the technology. It’s the use of the medium in a socially meaningful manner that moved the goal-line, not the specific web properties. It’s the fact that i can influence and be influenced by friends and strangers in a virtually real time conversation in Twitter and the ability to share photos and videos through Facebook so my expanded social circle can chime in with their thoughts and questions. And it’s about the fact that they can see each other and begin to interact with people they might otherwise never have known about in any other way.

But, if someone were to enter a social conversation I am engaged in about yoga and just announce (out of the blue) that they have yoga mats for sale, they’re misusing the space, spamming me and likely to get blocked or just ignored. Meanwhile they’re probably wondering what’s so great about this social media stuff since no one buys their stuff. “Hunh, Twitter doesn’t work!” they think. “It’s just a bunch of BS!” And then they go to the next environment, Facebook, whatever, and do the same thing all over again. It’s a vicious cycle that leads straight to disaster.

Maybe I’m just being a word geek here, but I believe in the power of words to shape and guide perception as well as actions. When entire areas of business have spent ages thinking that ‘media’ means ‘broadcast message channel’ we shouldn’t be surprised when they mis-use the social medium and try plastering it with classified ads and press releases.

There has been a lot of talk about Google’s new Sidewiki…a tool which allows anyone to comment about a web page, virtually ON the web page itself in a sidebar. These comments and postings are only available to people who have the sidebar installed but, no-doubt, Google’s hope is that more web surfers will use this as part of their pursuit of socializing and democratizing the internet. That sounds well and good, but just isn’t the case. Excuse me if I don’t indulge in a list of HR messaging pros and cons to Sidewiki. Frankly the issues at stake are much larger than ‘What do I do if someone posts something negative in Sidewiki next to my web site?’ and ‘How to I utilize this as a social media tool?’ Even allowing for the most socially enlightened usage of this technology, the simple fact is that allowing random people to place commentary on a web site they do not own is illegal. This is why hackers who hijack web pages and change them are charged with criminal activity. 

Maybe I’m being too subtle, perhaps a touch understated. This is Google-enabled property damage. Your web site is the wall and Google is passing out spray-cans. This almost makes  Microsoft’s ’Smart Tags’ look good. For those who don’t recall this little bit of technical brilliance, Smart Tags was a new feature around 2001 in Microsoft XP which allowed Microsoft to highlight content on web pages with links to Microsoft and its partners. In other words, Microsoft’s web browser would be able to place links on your web page content without your knowledge or consent. There’s nothing quite like that warm glow you get knowing that some third party can leverage (translation: monetize) your content as an advertising channel — or considering the prospect that any fool with a Google application can comment, slander and advertise almost right on your web site (think blog comment spam or signature spam — point in case, I just deleted a blog comment from this site promoting auto insurance).

Consider just these three of the many ways this tool can be abused:

• Competitors or disgruntled former employees can visit every page of your web site and post lies about your employment experience, hiring practices, etc.
• Job seekers and candidates could mistake Sidewiki for a company endorsed and managed tool, posting pri­vate information or details you are unable to effectively correct or remove.
• Have a target hiring audience? So do your competitors and a wide variety of advertisers, Congratulations! Your site has just become their new marketing channel! I’m sure you can’t wait for some technical training service to start spamming your I.T.-related career pages with messages about how they can help them gain valuable skills for the job market. (Come on…I can’t be the only person who thinks this way.)

Back in 2004 Google made it very clear they intended to be different, that the company was guided by different stars and their core philosophy could be summed up as “Don’t Be Evil.” 

In a Letter from the Founders titled “An Owner’s Manual for Google’s Shareholders” you can find their approach stated as follows:

DON’T BE EVIL

Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.

Sidewiki doesn’t live up to the promise to do good things for the world. It opens up another channel ripe for abuse not only by those seeking to make malicious remarks but also for those who will use this space to promote completely irrelevant commercial messages and spam. It all depends on how much market penetration and use Google is able to generate — the more users, the higher the potential for abuse. While I am all for pro-active brand monitoring online, having to consistently police your own web presence so you can alert Google that you want something removed (which they may or may not act on) is just another daily task most IT and HR departments simply do not need on their plate. 

Google has a little legal wiggle-room to play with when it comes to Sidewiki. Technically the posts aren’t actually ON your site but rather posted in an application that ‘rides shotgun’ right next to your carefully crafted brand and message. No doubt Google is counting on this to provide them the legal room they need to sidestep any claims that Sidewiki promotes or enables illegal activity. And let’s face it, Google has the position of power here. As Chevy Chase might say: “I’m Google and you’re not.”

So what can you do in the meantime? There are some tools which can block Google Sidewiki, but rumors already abound that doing so may damage your search engine rankings. My advice: take control of your Google sidewiki content. As the owner of the web page you have the opportunity to have your content appear at the top of all posts. This is a great location to take control of the conversation by recognizing your audience, pointing out important site content or functionality (and even link directly to it!), you can even introduce Search Engine Optimized keywords since Sidewiki is indexed by Google. Check back soon (or subscribe by RSS) to find out how easy it is to set this up…heck, I might even post a video showing you step-by-step!

Remember, there are appropriate locations online for people to engage in dialogue and express their opinions about your organization. Your branded social media sites or profiles are appropriate places for such communications, like the Wall application on a Facebook page. To reap the benefits of social media realities you should get involved with discussions in these environments, especially those which are critical or negative, and use them as opportunities to promote your value, share success stories, clarify mis-conceptions, address grievances and provide solutions. This proactive attitude allows for you to build a reputation as a transparent and responsive organization. It also doesn’t involve random people spray painting on your web site.

Don’t Be Evil? Don’t Be Ridiculous.

Kevin B. Hawkins

Connect with me on LinkedIn

Follow me on Twitter

My reply: