The pressure's on. In order to remain in business, we need more click-throughs to the magazine website so advertisers pay more.
The publisher and editor, despite both being IT Luddites, have got it in their heads that the best way to do this is to engage our "reader community" through Twitter, Facebook and blogs by us writers.
Myself and the other team nerd have been tasked with working out how we might go about this and what we need from IT to do it.
Anyone got any experience of this, model magazines you might follow that we could rip off, or ideas of what kinds of things would intrigue readers enough to increase our click count? Obviously there'll be topless pics of the female journos available to anyone who joins :P
Your editor & publish are idiots.
but choose a subject & make a blog about it. Gadgets, just steal gizmodo & engadget stuff.
Just take a lot of the same kind of stuff you post here and put it in a blog. Off to such and such a town for such and such a story, follow ups to stories you've written, a few behind the scenes looks at stories, interesting tech stories that catch your eye.
Sounds like a lot of work (and it probably is), but as long as your posts are short it shouldn't take much time. And each time of course provide a link to the actual article in your magazine it links to...
And always add a Byzantine twist.
Thanks! So how do you link it all together? Do we need a single blog page with all our different user IDs then send out a Tweet version as we post each story?
I think so. But twitter is not anything I have experience with.
For Facebook, decide whether you want to go a Fan Page or a Group way (I'd presume a Fan Page).
A Fan Page allows for less interaction, as it is designed mostly for vertical communication. However, it has no user limit, you will not be marked as a spammer if you send message to all users (whereas in case of a Group, you may be), and is something that is in principle designed for IP content owner. (Yes, I realise the name "Fan Page" may be misleading in that sense). Also, anyone can become a member of the Fan Page by simply subscribing.
A Group is a more of a community/limited circle affair, as you can restrict access (i.e. make membership subject to the admin approval), allows for more horizontal flexibility and communication. However, sending a message to all group members may be regarded as spam by the Facebook admins, and it has member number limits. It is designed for people wanting to discuss some issue or thing, but has a more of a forum feel to it.
So if you are a publisher or a company or an artist and want to communicate to people about your products, works etc., you start a Fan Page.
If you are a fan of some product or artist, etc., and want to discuss it, you start a group.
The new Share facebook feature is very good for spreading your articles, as it allows them to spread in a quasi-viral way. For example, if you start a Fan Page for your magazine, then if you then post an article link on that page, anyone who subscribed to your Fan Page gets that link in their Facebook live feed and by a simple click can choose to "Share" it further if they want - thus making it appear on the feed of their friends, and so on. That way you can reach a lot of people quickly and generate interest beyond your established audience.
As for Twitter, ask Stephen Fry. Apparently, he is like a god of Twitter these days. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
As for Twitter, ask Stephen Fry. Apparently, he is like a god of Twitter these days. :P
Isn't he frozen in a cryo-tube right now? :unsure:
Your first twitter/facebook promoted blog/article should be on The Giant Isopod.
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2009, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
As for Twitter, ask Stephen Fry. Apparently, he is like a god of Twitter these days. :P
Isn't he frozen in a cryo-tube right now? :unsure:
Surely you must be thinking of someone else - he is in his 50s, as far as I am aware.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2009, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
As for Twitter, ask Stephen Fry. Apparently, he is like a god of Twitter these days. :P
Isn't he frozen in a cryo-tube right now? :unsure:
Surely you must be thinking of someone else - he is in his 50s, as far as I am aware.
:face:
I was thinking of Futurama, but that's Philip J Fry (he always goes by Fry though).
Oh. I haven't seen that show (despite numerous recommendations), I'm afraid.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:50:37 PM
Oh. I haven't seen that show (despite numerous recommendations), I'm afraid.
You suck.
It's brilliant (and the source of many good avatars around here).
Twitter is 140 chars a post.
Just use word press.
I like telling my coworkers on Twitter that I'm taking a dump.
Only damn use I've found for the thing.
You could use the obvious ploy of splitting the articles into several pages so the reader has to click "next page" to continue reading. All the cool kids are doing it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2009, 04:55:35 PM
You could use the obvious ploy of splitting the articles into several pages so the reader has to click "next page" to continue reading. All the cool kids are doing it.
Woah, I'd never worked that one out, and it seems neither has our online marketing team. Interesting, especially for our features which are just too long to read in a big chunk online...
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:27:37 PM
For Facebook, decide whether you want to go a Fan Page or a Group way (I'd presume a Fan Page).
A Fan Page allows for less interaction, as it is designed mostly for vertical communication. However, it has no user limit, you will not be marked as a spammer if you send message to all users (whereas in case of a Group, you may be), and is something that is in principle designed for IP content owner. (Yes, I realise the name "Fan Page" may be misleading in that sense). Also, anyone can become a member of the Fan Page by simply subscribing.
A Group is a more of a community/limited circle affair, as you can restrict access (i.e. make membership subject to the admin approval), allows for more horizontal flexibility and communication. However, sending a message to all group members may be regarded as spam by the Facebook admins, and it has member number limits. It is designed for people wanting to discuss some issue or thing, but has a more of a forum feel to it.
So if you are a publisher or a company or an artist and want to communicate to people about your products, works etc., you start a Fan Page.
If you are a fan of some product or artist, etc., and want to discuss it, you start a group.
The new Share facebook feature is very good for spreading your articles, as it allows them to spread in a quasi-viral way. For example, if you start a Fan Page for your magazine, then if you then post an article link on that page, anyone who subscribed to your Fan Page gets that link in their Facebook live feed and by a simple click can choose to "Share" it further if they want - thus making it appear on the feed of their friends, and so on. That way you can reach a lot of people quickly and generate interest beyond your established audience.
So I take it that you pulled this out of your ass?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2009, 04:55:35 PM
You could use the obvious ploy of splitting the articles into several pages so the reader has to click "next page" to continue reading. All the cool kids are doing it.
???
I had wondered why sites would do that...
Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2009, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:27:37 PM
For Facebook, decide whether you want to go a Fan Page or a Group way (I'd presume a Fan Page).
A Fan Page allows for less interaction, as it is designed mostly for vertical communication. However, it has no user limit, you will not be marked as a spammer if you send message to all users (whereas in case of a Group, you may be), and is something that is in principle designed for IP content owner. (Yes, I realise the name "Fan Page" may be misleading in that sense). Also, anyone can become a member of the Fan Page by simply subscribing.
A Group is a more of a community/limited circle affair, as you can restrict access (i.e. make membership subject to the admin approval), allows for more horizontal flexibility and communication. However, sending a message to all group members may be regarded as spam by the Facebook admins, and it has member number limits. It is designed for people wanting to discuss some issue or thing, but has a more of a forum feel to it.
So if you are a publisher or a company or an artist and want to communicate to people about your products, works etc., you start a Fan Page.
If you are a fan of some product or artist, etc., and want to discuss it, you start a group.
The new Share facebook feature is very good for spreading your articles, as it allows them to spread in a quasi-viral way. For example, if you start a Fan Page for your magazine, then if you then post an article link on that page, anyone who subscribed to your Fan Page gets that link in their Facebook live feed and by a simple click can choose to "Share" it further if they want - thus making it appear on the feed of their friends, and so on. That way you can reach a lot of people quickly and generate interest beyond your established audience.
So I take it that you pulled this out of your ass?
Not really. I listened to an interview with a guy who wrote a book about Facebook recently, and that's what he said. Do you disagree with anything I said, or are just being your usual bitter self?
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 05:45:13 PM
Not really. I listened to an interview with a guy who wrote a book about Facebook recently, and that's what he said. Do you disagree with anything I said, or are just being your usual bitter self?
:x <= someone writing a book about facebook
I think the distinction that was made had little to do with actual intent of such features (a la facebook). When groups debuted they were the only way of showing that you liked something (besides just listing interests). Additionally, I think that notes (with tagged individuals), groups, and fan pages are all rather similar (although the recent fan page is a little different).
Oh and :yawn: to the trite personal attack. Try again?
Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2009, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 05:45:13 PM
Not really. I listened to an interview with a guy who wrote a book about Facebook recently, and that's what he said. Do you disagree with anything I said, or are just being your usual bitter self?
:x <= someone writing a book about facebook
I think the distinction that was made had little to do with actual intent of such features (a la facebook). When groups debuted they were the only way of showing that you liked something (besides just listing interests). Additionally, I think that notes (with tagged individuals), groups, and fan pages are all rather similar (although the recent fan page is a little different).
Oh and :yawn: to the trite personal attack. Try again?
Well, what I described is apparently the current Facebook partyline on the intended use of these features. I recognise that a lot of people are misusing them (e.g. with businesses starting groups or even actual user profiles, and fans starting fan pages) but Facebook will eventually crack down on these.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 06:05:29 PM
Well, what I described is apparently the current Facebook partyline on the intended use of these features. I recognise that a lot of people are misusing them (e.g. with businesses starting groups or even actual user profiles, and fans starting fan pages) but Facebook will eventually crack down on these.
I doubt it. After all, the spectrum of business can vary wildly, as can the spectrum of things that you could be a fan of.
There was a frat at my college that had a small taco business going on. Should they get smacked down for starting a group as opposed to a fan page?
Or what if many students were a fan of a professor? Should they get in "trouble" for not being the actual professor?
I think that they would really need to find real ways to differentiate the different setups (which sounds largely like they want to keep user separate from businesses ...and thus it sounds like it'd be better to have businesses specifically register with them) before a "crackdown" would make any sense.
Oh, that's what tinyurl does and why. I will of course pretend I knew all of this tomorrow.
Quote from: Brazen on March 23, 2009, 07:16:01 PM
Oh, that's what tinyurl does and why. I will of course pretend I knew all of this tomorrow.
I hate tinyurl. I've no desire to be taken to random sites.
Of course, I should have check "how tos" on journalism sites. http://tinyurl.com/5hal9z (http://tinyurl.com/5hal9z)
It may be a bit extra work, but at least this, "Hey, you're a geek, take a look at this" job got me access to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube at work.
Actually I'm going to subscribe to this thread as well because I've been asked to give the company I work for a 'new media' presence. I think we're going to set up a blog because I've argued that forums won't help, facebook might and I don't know enough about twitter.
Though twitter doesn't strike me as useful. I can see how it works for shops and for papers but I don't think it'll help consultancy companies :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2009, 04:55:35 PM
You could use the obvious ploy of splitting the articles into several pages so the reader has to click "next page" to continue reading. All the cool kids are doing it.
Some people will also immediately close any website that pulls that crap.
OK, anyone know about Wordpress and the Twitpress plug-in?
Also, team blogs - separate page on our website or a separate site? Completely separate accounts for all of us or a single page?
Same page, different accounts.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
As for Twitter, ask Stephen Fry. Apparently, he is like a god of Twitter these days. :P
He is. Best tweets out there are his.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 25, 2009, 12:18:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
As for Twitter, ask Stephen Fry. Apparently, he is like a god of Twitter these days. :P
He is. Best tweets out there are his.
Christopher Walken :contract:
Walken has twitter. :w00t:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 25, 2009, 12:20:30 PM
Walken has twitter. :w00t:
Yep
http://twitter.com/cwalken
:wub:
Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2009, 06:10:47 PM
I think that they would really need to find real ways to differentiate the different setups (which sounds largely like they want to keep user separate from businesses ...and thus it sounds like it'd be better to have businesses specifically register with them) before a "crackdown" would make any sense.
A though occurred to me today that under the guidelines Marty suggested for facebook groups, the groups "Bitch, please" and "Jesus Drank Chai Lattes" would be in trouble as they weren't really created for discussions amongst members. :(
http://twitter.com/TheEngineerUK
Go on, be our friend :wub:
I never got twitter
My wife had a meeting at work regarding advertising the other day. The big idea of the company's Dick Jones was to create accounts on forums on the internet, and give fake testimonials.
Apparently, the silence that greeted the 'spam the internet' strategy was deafening.
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
My wife had a meeting at work regarding advertising the other day. The big idea of the company's Dick Jones was to create accounts on forums on the internet, and give fake testimonials.
Apparently, the silence that greeted the 'spam the internet' strategy was deafening.
we haven't had any of those here yet have we? Those work soooo well.
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
My wife had a meeting at work regarding advertising the other day. The big idea of the company's Dick Jones was to create accounts on forums on the internet, and give fake testimonials.
Apparently, the silence that greeted the 'spam the internet' strategy was deafening.
:lol:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on April 18, 2009, 01:34:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
My wife had a meeting at work regarding advertising the other day. The big idea of the company's Dick Jones was to create accounts on forums on the internet, and give fake testimonials.
Apparently, the silence that greeted the 'spam the internet' strategy was deafening.
we haven't had any of those here yet have we? Those work soooo well.
I think Money might have bought some steroids from that first one.
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
My wife had a meeting at work regarding advertising the other day. The big idea of the company's Dick Jones was to create accounts on forums on the internet, and give fake testimonials.
Apparently, the silence that greeted the 'spam the internet' strategy was deafening.
I think there was a series of dilbert strips about such a "management idea".