Grant Crowell
Wheeling, IL
- 46 comments
- 1 likes given
- 8 likes received
Grant Crowell is a new media communications expert covering both the latest and time-tested best practices with online video and social business since 2005; and has been a columnist in the online marketing space since 1996. His areas of expertise include video SEO, social media, website and web video usability, e-commerce, and new media legal issues.
I'd also like to say we need a complimentary slogan of, "If you get it, support it." The challenge with sharing and making things free to audiences is it can overshadow the need for it to be maintained by financial or other material support. When there's a glut of content, it can get de-valued and not recognized that people who provide it and engage with fans need to pay the bills. There's a lot of demand for the product and the experience, but not enough value for the people who provide it.
That's why I like to say that "social" needs to be an investment into human relationships for shared value if it is to thrive. Without that, we will become dis-engaged and distrust, and go back to business-as-usual.
I'm a fan of two-step verification, although it can be very tricky when you are trying to transfer over multiple accounts with the same provider, like I've experienced with my own credit union.
@socialmediaclub Good article and infographic, thanks for sharing! I would differ on just one point: I would say a brand advocate can still be effective in their role while being rewarded with some pay or other incentives, provided that their initial advocacy with the brand was done independently and without such incentives. Brands should be making a point of acknowledging and rewarding such brand advocates for the good work they do, and brand advocate should disclose any such pay, rewards, or other incentives that they receive or choose to take from these brands. I'm a believe that brand advocates should be rewarded for what they do right, and audiences will be glad to have such disclosure without affecting their loyalty to the advocate or the brand.
I completely agree, Jeannie; and I think this also applies to political candidates who have Facebook pages, yet never personally engage with their audiences on there. Is it too much to expect them to participate once in a while, and accept that the unpredictability is what makes them appear genuine?
Thanks for sharing this helpful how-to content, Courtney. If I could add something to the conversation, I'd like to also recommend this interview I conducted with Google's Lead on their Authorship program, Sagar Kamdar. It goes deep into the benefits of doing authorship from both a social and SEO perspective. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-authorship-an-interview-with-googles-sagar-kamdar-part-1/46243/
Thanks for sharing this, Chrissie. It's my belief individual should have a social media profile separate from whatever professional organization they are hired by, and just learn to make distinctions between what is shared between work and their personal life, while still being able to share things in both realms when appropriate. That's what I like to call being "per-fessional." :-)
Question: Where can I find the article from the law professor out of Illinois you are referring to?
Actually it would have been helpful to put this subject in the context of video creation/marketing with an example or two. (How come you didn't mic your guest after you introduced him and asked a question? Hearing you standing out louder with your "yeah... yeah... yeah...yeah" and other one-word comments while he was talking, I found really distracting.
I'd be interested to hear of any thoughts on if it now makes more sense for nonprofits with small Google Adwords budgets (think around $2K for the entire year) to put it all into video ads on the YouTube and Google Display network than traditional text search results and Google network sites. Considering how many more people are now using their mobile devices to watch video, it could be a really good way of getting attention without having to pay for views if the viewer changes their mind early.
@FrankSchwarz thanks for the compliment and your thoughtful question. Don't treat this as legal advice, but my understanding is that you are allowed to video record anyone in a public place. However it's what you do with that footage afterward that can be susceptible to legal action. For example, if you're using the footage for commercial purposes, then you could be violating people's "right of publicity" and they could 1) have the footage removed online and 2) potentially sue you if they can make the case that you used their image and likeness for commercial gain.
So Frank, it's one thing to video record people on the beach acting like fools and posting that online. It's quite another thing to try and profit from it! I'm certainly not suggesting you would, though. It's just a good way of distinguishing between free speech and commercial speech, and the former affords us all more rights than the latter.
@GeniusRocket thank you for your praise and sharing your own nonprofit client experience, oh smartest rocket of them all! ;-) I'd really like all nonprofits to think beyond just a single video, but how they can stretch out the experience to show a real commitment to engage with their audience around it – not just stopping at content to be shared, but conversations and customer care. That's what it will take to build both contributions and a real sense of community. (Can you spot the 5 C's? :-)
Chris, the answer to your question, "I don't know why you even bother to blur the face of a kid in a basketball game when you can just make the video private." It doesn't actually matter if your video is labeled 'private' if there's the possibility that the people featured in the video (especially if it's a child and you don't have the parents' consent) might object to the recording where they are identified. You could still be showing your "private" video to one or many people other than yourself! There are actual cases of individuals that will give a public screen of a video they labeled "private" on YouTube.
@tamcdonald I will gladly and gratefully do any and all of the above with you, Tim! Only right that I participate in your next Google Hangout and Spreecast event.
Congrats on the position, Tim -- you certainly deserve it! Thanks for your advice and helping me out as well during your time with Social Media Club in Chicago. I'd certainly like to live stream and learn more about the HuffPost Live Community, for reasons of not just strong politics and causes, but also for some entertainment value :-)
@DustinNay Thanks, Dustin! Sorry for my delay in getting back to you, just been swamped with conferences.
I'd actually offer that FTC Disclosure guidelines are very much related to video. There's much video content on the Web that is "brand-supported" without any mention of the brand behind it, and any material relationships that the video creator or spokesperson is making a review, testimonial, or some kind of endorsement for. It's also a challenge with video because oftentimes any disclosure language that might have been included in the on-page description or a YouTube annotation, won't show up when it's shared. (YouTube annotations don't show up on mobile, I recall.)
I believe the best solution we have for now is supporting awareness and education, having a dialogue, and eventually supporting an independent organizational or individual who can do some kind of blogsite that points out these issues, along with examples. Probably something entertaining yet informative, and showcasing everything from the blatant to the common.
@Dan Demsky thanks for your insightful comments, Dan. I clearly missed that paragraph in the article on mentioning the topic of arousal, although I still think it should be included as an actual category for future studies. I agree that too many creative agencies and ad agencies go for the cheap joke rather than a willingness to try for a more meaningful relationship. Plus most of them suffer from no real strategy for engaging with the audience past the initial content experience on a more personal level -- like with customer service or any other kind of relationship marketing that's so easy to do with social media.
Much of even viral video is eventually forgettable. What lasts is the feeling of what happens afterwards between the brand and consumers, and that requires putting people in place to directly engage.
I'm really surprised they didn't include one of the biggest emotional responses - arousal! I somehow don't think that can be lumped in under "exhilaration" or any of the other emotions they categorized.
http://www.reelseo.com/sex-social-video/
@KymleeIsAwesome I'd agree with you, and add that what also needs to be part of the barometer is the disclosure of any business relationships between the journalist/blogger and either their publisher, sponsors, advertisers, or professional partners. Many news enterprises fail to disclose these relationships appropriately, despite what the FTC's guidelines on disclosure actually are. Part of that is ignorance, part is a mistaken assumption of what is required for disclosure. What I know is consumers expect and deserve transparency behind what news and commentary they're getting.
@KymleeIsAwesome I agree that there are many valid ideas of what journalism should be, but I think it's especially important to be aware of what guidelines that governing bodies like the FTC say they are. The issue becomes tricky when so much of journalism today is not traditional and has some kind of relationship with commercial speech -- whether they are a bona-fide journalist working for a publication with a sales and advertising wing, or a self-supporting blogger with their own sponsored and paid content.
@WordsDoneWrite Amber, thought I'd share with the group here what the FTC relayed to me yesterday. The following is verbatim from their Press Officer:
"The FTC is currently in the process of revising its “Dot Com Disclosures” business guidance for advertising online. The previous version was published in 2000, and clearly a lot has changed since then. Here is a link to the recent workshop in which the FTC solicited public comment on revision of this guidance.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/inshort/index.shtml
In the meantime, the most comprehensive guidance can be found in the phrase “clear and conspicuous.” This business guidance http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus71-ftcs-revised-endorsement-guideswhat-people-are-asking explains clear and conspicuous.
I don’t think there is any specific mandate that the disclosure must be on the same page, but the language that links to a different page must clearly and conspicuously state that the reader will find a disclosure at a different page.
(And again, this is subject to updating when revisions on the “Dot Com Disclosures” guidance are completed.)"
@WordsDoneWrite I'm currently researching all of their documentation from 2009 to present to find some specific guidelines on placement. That being said, I think all of the above are good places, and I will ask the FTC liaison if they have any specifics. (I want to see if they can give publishers options rather than a one-size fits all deal.)
Currently I'm doing that with my own author bio on where I'm a freelance columnist for. One example is at the bottom of the page in the author bio, with a link pointing to more info on the business relationship. The other points to a separate bio page that lists I'm a freelance contributor right in the title. Here are two example of what I mean:
http://video-commerce.org/2012/06/video-commerce-tips-from-bbq-guys-passion-personality-and-purpose/
http://www.reelseo.com/about/grant
My personal view is that sponsored content (by an outside advertiser or 3rd party vendor) should be labeled as such above-the-fold of the page. If it's a paid or other business/material relationship between the publisher and the guest blogger, I would recommend just including a link at the bottom of the page inside the author bio, that points to more information on both the author and the business relationship. What do you think?