Wikipedia and Online PR

In protest of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), US bills proposing to repress foreign websites that infringe on copyright (thus, Wikipedia and others believe, "infringes free expression"), Wikipedia has shut down for the day. Clicking a Wikipedia entry or searching for something on the home page will bring you to this message:

"Learn More" 

The purpose of this "blackout" is to inform the public about SOPA and PIPA and to galvanize the public to let the representatives of the bills know what they think.

If you click "Learn More," you will read about the huge discourse and awareness about the bills shared to the representatives, on social media, etc., (See: #SOPA on Twitter) and the impact the bills may have, if passed.

This inconveniences web users who in turn, learn about SOPA and PIPA and then, it seems, speak out against it, which is kind of cool. It's also a wise move for Wikipedia, I think, because they are proving that they understand the impact disabling information sharing can have. It's also a good PR move for the online encyclopedia because it is showing the public that it strongly values the freedom and openness of the internet.

Do you think the Wikipedia blackout and online pressure from the public will influence the United States House of Representatives and the Senate's decision on the bill?

Raise Awareness about How Twitter Raises Awareness

As a post-grad Public Relations student passionate about social health issues, I have produced most of my communications plans, news releases, blog posts, presentations, Tweets, etc. about why not-for-profits and other organizations are important and how they can improve their awareness and fundraising initiatives. Most of these assignments required research to understand what the organizations' needs were.

So I started checking out the Twitter profiles of organizations I wanted to write about. Organizations I have been personally involved with, or just really admire. I was shocked to find out that many of them have fewer followers than I do and they just don't Tweet much, or Tweet enough.

In my Online Public Relations class, I learned that organizations can reach huge numbers of people by effectively using social media. This means Tweeting often about relevant topics and to promote events and other great things. It means Tweeting in a way that will help people realize that there is a person behind the Twitter account who they can interact with. It means checking out what's trending and what those you are following need and are interested in.

Think about how young people communicate: the internet! Social media! By not Tweeting effectively, these organizations are likely not reaching this audience effectively -- perhaps not even online at all, or at all PERIOD. Young people can really benefit from these organizations.

I do not blame these organizations, though. I know they aren't lazy. I know they really care about young people. I learned in my Online Public Relations course that Twitter takes a lot of time and manpower to really reach people. You have to Tweet often to ensure you are seen and to encourage people to follow you. You have to Follow people and Tweet information that reflects your brand and values. This requires research.

Those of you who use Twitter probably know that you can spend a whole day just reading things on Twitter, searching for interesting people whose interests you share to follow. If you're an organization, you'll probably have to spend even more time doing this to make sure that you're reaching the right people effectively. The words you use and the links you share in Tweets have to reflect what you're all about. They have to interest and motivate people. This is why so many organizations have a communications member who works solely on social media.

With all of the work and small number of staff these organizations have, especially in the communications department, it's no wonder operating Twitter is likely low on their lists of tasks. Maybe it just doesn't seem like a priority.

Well, I think it IS a priority. Twitter isn't just for narcissists like me, celebrities and news organizations. Twitter is about engaging people. What better place to promote a fundraiser? To share a story that addresses stigma or a research breakthrough? To reach citizens you can help or powerful people who can help your cause?

I propose a campaign to raise awareness about great organizations on Twitter. Add me to Twitter (@cartooninperson), @mention me and a great organization and Tweet about how it could benefit from a higher Twitter profile and why its work matters to you. By @mentioning these organizations, we'll also show them that Twitter matters; we care about their cause and we value what they do for us. Twitter is a powerful tool for an organization to measure its impact. I'll Retweet the Tweets you send me that I believe in. You can do the same. @mention organizations to your friends. Let's start a revolution!

The Google AdWords Conundrum

The expiration date for my $100 -- now $75 since March 11 -- Google AdWords gift card is looming and I'm not sure what to do. I feel silly for passing up an opportunity to advertise my blog for free and potentially increase hits to it, but I just don't like the idea of putting my blog in Google advertising. Why? I hate most Google ads that I see. They're hardly ever relevant to what I'm searching for or what I'm looking at.

I remember when I used to have Google Ads on my blog. This was back when I wrote mostly about my ongoing health issues, so I kept getting ads about MRI centres and remedies -- that kind of thing. I wasn't even complaining about MRI wait times or anything, but because my words and phrases matched the tags chosen by certain advertisers, those MRI ads came to me. I wasn't about to promote MRI centres. That's not what this blog is about. And how can I support an MRI centre I haven't even used before?

Also, Blogger doesn't seem to have any meta tag formatting for pages. A meta description is the summary of a website you see when you look at in a search page. It's under the title of the page. So I can't have proper meta descriptions without doing some hardcore html work on my blog's template. It's complicated and I don't really understand how it works. Instead, if you Google my blog title Beyond Passing Time, under each entry title, you'll see meta descriptions that just have lumps of text from that post, or even lumps of texts from comments. I'm not about to post that in Google ads because they wouldn't really make sense to people. Who would click on them?

My blog hasn't suffered from my lack of proper meta descriptions, though. By analyzing my blog statistics, I regularly see that people click on my blog after finding it on Google through searches. My discussion about the film Black Swan still gets traffic this way. I'm happy that Google ranks my posts high in certain searches. I'm confident that continuing to write about what people want to read will bring more traffic to this blog than Google Ads ever will.

Maybe I'd get even more traffic with better meta tags, as having popular and relevant words and phrases in your meta descriptions is important for search engine optimization of your site.

And maybe advertising my blog on Google would draw great traffic to it if I had good meta tags. Or who knows, maybe I'd get better traffic through Google advertising even with my bad meta descriptions. I don't know. I might take advantage of the $75 remainder of my Google AdWords gift card... Just to see what happens. I think advertising my poor meta tags would make me look like an unprofessional writer/amateur webmaster. Plus, I don't click on Google Ads. I don't even read the whole ad if the meta description is not a summary of the page. I don't expect people to do or hope that they will do what I wouldn't do myself.

Plus, I think the hippie in me is afraid of selling out. That's also partly why I very seldom post Amazon ads on here. I don't expect that if I put Google and Amazon ads on my site again, that I'd get enough clicks on the ads to get a significant profit. That's where the profit comes from. You don't get money from people seeing the ad on your site. Only if they click on it. And the amount of money depends on how much the site proprietor pays per click. It's not worth putting ads up just to make pennies a month.

Also, I just don't like the appearance of Google Ads. The design makes the ads looks so spammy and unreputable.

I think offering me free advertising and thanking me for using their services was a good online pr move on Google's part. It shows that the company is grateful for my help and wants my site to succeed, but also, like any freebie promotion, it can hook people in, so they'll want to continue using the service after they've used up the free part.

Do you ever click on Google Ads? Would create a Google Ad for your own blog? If you do advertise using Google Ads, does it generate significant traffic to your blog?

Tweet This

I just read this brief article that suggests Twits are "overTweeting" and it got me thinking: do people really Tweet instead of communicating with those they are with in person?

Tweeting does seem to distract me from living in the moment. I may have spent more time in front of my computer screen than in front of the television when I watched the Superbowl and the Oscars. I was Tweeting and reading Tweets. I watched these shows looking for things to Tweet about and wondering what others would Tweet. The constant feed of live Oscar and Superbowl Tweets in my feed let me know others were doing the same. And that's just the people I was following.

So, I can see how Twitter distracts people, but I'm not sure that it's always unhealthy behaviour. It was therapeutic to see clever Tweets about the terrible Black Eyed Peas performance. It made me feel less alone: others hated it too. Please don't think I seek comfort from Twits. I do have friends. I let my family know how I felt too. I always do.

I don't substitute Tweeting for real conversation. And I don't consider Tweets, even @cartooninperson Tweets, real conversation because they are often so one sided. A conversation never lasts for more than a few Tweets and it shouldn't. Who wants to look at your feed if it's loaded with your Tweets to other people that probably only make sense to the people you're directing your Tweet to? I only @ message people if the message is something that will make sense to others, something that could be Retweeted because it's clever and others know what I mean.

I wonder if companies using Twitter for online public relations can promote their company effectively while Tweeting effectively. To do this effectively, I think, companies would have to also Tweet about other things besides their company to really connect with people. Check out Starbucks' Twitter. The company @ Tweets to other Twits, but the Starbucks only seems to be @ Tweeting to respond to customer service type questions. I want to know why anyone would want to ask customer service questions through Twitter. I can see Tweeting to Starbucks about how amazing their marble hot chocolate is, though. Delicious!

Now maybe Starbucks will Tweet this blog entry. I'm going to @Starbucks them to find out. That would be amazing, as they have over a million followers!

Do you think Twitter is an effective tool for companies to reach their fans? Which, if any, companies do you follow on Twitter and why?