Warning: Dissecting social media virality may require protective headgear
Unintentionally at the core of a conversation about how the whole freaking planet came to know about #SFBatKid is Fast Company’s mention of a PR agency’s mobilization of “6,000-plus network of paid influencers.” I barely noticed, but I wanted to make sure others didn’t get hung up on it… IRONY!!!
So, I have to be honest here. I found this Fast Company folo on #SFBatKid while fishing around for something interesting to post via Buffer, a social media client I’m experimenting with — currently my biggest motivation for posting anything to my social media accounts in the last couple of weeks. In an attempt to run Buffer through its paces, I have been slowly escalating my “Buffer-ing” — and social media posting volume — while trying to figure out whether I want to try it out on our news group’s 27 core social media apps. (Answer: YES. But I’ll blog about that at another time. …Should I say “Buffer” again? It gets me nothing.)
How did @CleverGirlsColl help #SFBatkid go viral? Paid influencers. But there’s still some good take-aways here: http://t.co/fCa8TUxvEl
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 24, 2013
I’ve been reading a lot of articles lately about what helps social media posts get attention, and while I think it’s been a long-standing good practice to use questions, this Nieman Lab article on social media sharing practices reaffirmed that asking questions was still a good practice — that keeping it simple was key, and that anything “emotionally charged” will also help.
So that’s what I did. I found an interesting article with a recognizable hook (#SFBatKid) that I thought had value, and I threw in the emotionally charged “paid influencers” bit not just to get attention, but because I wanted to get my audience (my followers are largely journalists) past the hump of what they can’t use and into the parts they can.
@citymama @kristysf Honestly, I was most impressed that TWO STAFFERS DIRECTLY POSTING gave so much traction… #smallnewsroomscandothat
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
@citymama @kristysf Yes. Two embedded. Again, that’s pretty impressive. (Yes, I totally get there’s more staff behind the effort.)
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
I was! I was legitimately heartened to read that they directly embedded only two staffers with the Batkid and that the coverage effort rippled out from there. I mean… SMALLISH NEWSROOMS CAN TOTALLY DO THAT. Which means… smallish newsrooms have the potential to do large-scale “adventures.” #SFBatKid-scale adventures? OK, maybe not (but… maybe?), but the epiphany I had when reading the story made me remember that the successes of those with exponentially more resources are rooted in the things we know how to do: tell good stories, plan, execute and adapt. It’s like the moment you had when you realized that (insert person you idolize here) is just that: a person. Like me. Like you.
But I digress.
My attribution of the #SFBatKid success to paid influencers was deemed by one of the founders of the PR agency behind it to be incorrect.
@GNAdv This is not true-we did not pay anyone. We have a ntwk of influencers we pay for other programs, but not this one. All pro bono.
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
@citymama @GNAdv Yes! Important distinction. Our @CleverGirlsColl network is awesome and participated bc it’s a great story & cause.
— Kristy Sammis (@kristysf) November 25, 2013
OK. I can roll with that. Clarifying the facts would be good for all involved. Like any good journalist, I immediately checked my source. Did I really totally botch that tweet?
From the post-#SFBatKid story by Fast Company:
“But the agency still used it’s 6,000-plus network of paid influencers–people with large online followings who act as social media foot soldiers in Clever Girls campaigns–to spread in the word.”
Seemed pretty straight-forward to me. Paid influencers were attributed at least in some part to the virality of #SFBatKid. But hey, there’s two sides to every disspute, right? Maybe Fast Company misspoke.
@kristysf @citymama Does @FastCompany owe correx? Story sez @CleverGirlsColl used “6,000+ network of paid influencers to spread the word.”
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
But before I could get that tweet out… BAM.
*NOT TRUE* No one was paid MT @GNAdv: How did @CleverGirlsColl help #SFBatkid go viral? Paid influencers. http://t.co/u3VqDi1EXh
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
BAM.
*NOT TRUE* No one was paid MT @GNAdv: How did @CleverGirlsColl help #SFBatkid go viral? Paid influencers. http://t.co/X9vNmcIL4G
— Clever Girls (@CleverGirlsColl) November 25, 2013
Whoa.
OK. Now I was totally neck-deep in… I didn’t really know what, at the time. Maybe (hopefully) nothing, really. Regardless, I wanted to untangle the error, if indeed there was one, so I went back to it.
@CleverGirlsColl Hmm. You due a correx then? @FastCompany article sez you used “6,000-plus network of paid influencers to spread the word.”
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
@kristysf @citymama @CleverGirlsColl Def. not trying to diminish the cause behind #SFbatkid. Please do clarify. #gettingitright
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
@GNAdv @kristysf @FastCompany @CleverGirlsColl Yes, a clarification is probably in order, but again, no one was paid. cc @MClendaniel
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
@GNAdv @kristysf @CleverGirlsColl @FastCompany Eh, maybe. In grand scheme of things, we choose to focus on the good/positive/important
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
…cc? Wait — who? (BTW, I don’t think I’ve ever had a tweet to me cc’d to anyone else before, much less someone with connection to more than one well-known national — and webby! — publications.)
The plot thickened.
@GNAdv @kristysf @CleverGirlsColl The tweet fr the FastCo editor implied payment, he was wrong. Frustrating since it came from a FC staffer
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
Ah. So maybe it was less about my tweet, and more about his…?
Remember when you suddenly cared about BatKid? This is how you were manipulated: http://t.co/FkVNgNLUOc
— Morgan Clendaniel (@MClendaniel) November 22, 2013
OK. I can see how that’s pointed. But given his own back and forth with Clever Girls co-founder Stefania Pomponi, I think he was, in his own way, attempting to employ the same strategy as myself.
You be the judge…
@MClendaniel Are you joking? This was not “manipulation.” No one was paid. This was spotlighting a great story+great org. Care to chat?
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 22, 2013
@citymama I didn’t mean manipulate negatively; you deftly positioned something to rise to the top of people’s limited attentions.
— Morgan Clendaniel (@MClendaniel) November 22, 2013
@MClendaniel Perhaps, but you have to admit the snark-factor in that tweet was pretty high. We were honored to help+would do it again.
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 22, 2013
@citymama As you should be! It’s a great story and you did great work.
— Morgan Clendaniel (@MClendaniel) November 22, 2013
Meanwhile, that *NOT TRUE* post was favorited by a few more folks/agencies while we were still at the beginning stages of sorting this out, adding to my growing concern about, well, #gettingitright. While scoping those out, I was tagged by @jesskry, who had been discussing the topic amongst her own followers a few days back.
“But the agency still used it’s 6,000-plus network of paid influencers” to make #SFBatkid viral. Duped or strategy? What do you think?
— Jess Krywosa (@jesskry) November 22, 2013
Even though this conversation happened well before I got pulled into a debate about my own tweet on the topic, I wanted to be clear — and keep clear of any more doo-doo that might yet be flung in my direction.
@GNAdv Yep. Wonder if anything is organically ‘viral’. Would love data on that.
— Jess Krywosa (@jesskry) November 25, 2013
No crap.
In fact, Jess Krywosa’s Twitter thread on this #SFBatKid influence conversation was full of some interesting angles on the matter. Here’s a snapshot:
@samedelstein I must admit, when I read the article, I felt duped. I don’t like when people rely on paid influencers. Not organic interest.
— Jess Krywosa (@jesskry) November 22, 2013
@jesskry I think it made a lot of people happy–so I’ll let the cynicism slide on this one
— Nicole Shoe (@Buffalogal) November 22, 2013
@jesskry but what if they relied on organic and it never gained traction? We all would have lost out.
— Sam Edelstein (@samedelstein) November 22, 2013
But getting back to my own thread…
So I came to the realization that maybe I was caught in the crossfire.
@citymama @kristysf @CleverGirlsColl Hmm. Sorry re:tiff w/@MClendaniel. Though calling me out for surmising that from FC story seems harsh.
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
@GNAdv @kristysf Sorry you feel called out. Only trying to correct misinformation-you would do same?
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
Yep. But I still wanted to know what the right information was, so I asked again for a clarification of the facts.
@kristysf @citymama @FastCompany @CleverGirlsColl Or maybe a clarification? Tho pd influencers in place prior to event = pd influencers. No?
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
@GNAdv @kristysf I just told you it’s not true. We didn’t pay anyone-this was 100% pro bono all around. Journos make mistakes all the time.
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
Ouch.
And — hey! I still don’t know have a clear answer to my question. Let’s try that again…
@GNAdv @kristysf Not dwelling-it’s an important detail to get right. :)
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
First, though, I get a link to their version of the story, posted on CNBC.
@GNAdv @kristysf if u’d like to know how we did it, read our op-ed http://t.co/xlGXnw1wz2. This is our work. What our agency does everyday.
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
It’s a decent read, and again made me optimistic that the efforts can be replicated at a smaller level, like in any of my newsrooms. Hooray!! OPTIMISM! I MUST TWEET IT, TOOOOOOOO!!!
.@CleverGirlsColl dissects success (and virality) of #SFBatkid: http://t.co/ZmvUUeXmTG (Thanks to @citymama for passing along this link.)
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
But not before I try to make amends with Clever Girls, who — come on — have to be pretty clever, indeed, to get #SFBatKid off the ground like that.
@citymama @kristysf Honestly, I was most impressed that TWO STAFFERS DIRECTLY POSTING gave so much traction… #smallnewsroomscandothat
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
But… sigh…
@GNAdv @kristysf It wasn’t just 2 staffers. 2 were embedded w/ Miles+were key to helping rest of staff get out content quickly. (cont)
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
OK. I give up.
@citymama @kristysf Yes. Two embedded. Again, that’s pretty impressive. (Yes, I totally get there’s more staff behind the effort.)
— Gina D. (@GNAdv) November 25, 2013
Or maybe I don’t give up. I did write this post after all. Heh.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what comes of this. Will our masterminds get the correction? Tune in next time to find out… Eh, I don’t even know anymore.
Regardless of where this topic might wander, don’t forget THIS is where it really all started:
Miles’ wish to be Batkid (via sf.makeawish.org)
—
UPDATE: Creative Girls Collective is pursuing some kind of clarification or correction on the Fast Company story, according to Pomponi, who also defended me as NOT a #SFBatKid-hater. (Thanks, btw.)
@jennbizzle @GNAdv No, she isn’t. It was a misleading sentence in the Fast Co article. We’re working on getting it corrected! :)
— Stefania Pomponi (@citymama) November 25, 2013
FWIW: This entire exchange kinda reminded me of a debate I observed at ONA12 regarding social media professionals and journalism. While that’s not a directly related topic, per se, I think it’s interesting when these two worlds collide, intentionally or not.
I see a lot of interesting content on your
website. You have to spend a lot of time writing, i know how
to save you a lot of work, there is a tool that creates unique, google friendly articles in couple of minutes,
just type in google – k2 unlimited content
I read a lot of interesting articles here.
Probably you spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of time, there is an online
tool that creates high quality, SEO friendly articles in seconds, just type in google –
laranitas free content source
Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice whilst you amend your website, how could i subscribe
for a blog site? The account aided me a applicable deal.
I have been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered brilliant transparent concept
Interesting content you post here, i have shared this post on my
fb