I know a lot of business owners who are interested in participating in social media like Facebook, Twitter or a blog.  But who’s got the time to keep all that content current?

So lots of people turn to an outside writer for help.  Is that a good idea?

Well, this turns out to have a lot of controversy in the Internet marketing community.  Some people think it’s unethical to publish content that others have written for you unless it’s clearly stated that way.  Others think it’s just like business as usual — when’s the last time the CEO actually wrote a press release?

Small Business Trends just published an article with some ‘ghostwriter’ guidelines for working with outside consultants for making content for your online promotion.  Here’s the issue in a nutshell:  the idea of blogs and other social media is that they are authentic expressions of opinion and experience by knowledgeable people.  But if someone outside your company ghosts the stuff for you, is it really authentic?  Remember that blogs, et al, are very personal expressions. The problem is really about that personal authority behind the statement which is posed in a different way online than it is in traditional corporate communications.

Personally, I think the ghostwriting is not only necessary but is fine to do as long as the information is valid/true and it is not published under an alias or someone else’s name.  You can easily publish blog posts as ‘Company X Staff’ and be truthful about it.

Here’s another attempt to deal with the ethics of the matter (link pulled from the article cited above).

My name is Glenn Silloway, owner of The Net Sells Internet Marketing firm, and these are my actual words.  I promise.

Facebook’s acquisition of FriendFeed is all the buzz the past couple days, but I’m really more interested in FB’s roll out of a new search capability. This is something that will grow over time — as people learn about it, more content will be added to the network that can be used in search.  But it is clearly another alternative to traditional search, and it is based on peoples’ own preferences and experiences.  That’s the social media advantage!

Now that search bar in the upper right corner of your FB page takes you to a new search page where a great array of results wait for your browsing pleasure.  This is keyword-driven (like all search) so it’s not too useful if you have a really complex query (use Aardvark for those!), but if you’re looking for something more common, like ‘restaurant’ or ‘music’, you’ll get lots of ideas.

The image below is from my own search for ‘music’, filtered by ‘events’.  I found a lot of concerts advertised on Facebook!

Facebook's New Search Interface

On the downside, when I tried to find ‘music san luis obispo’ there were no results. Come on SLO musicians!  Get with it and get on Facebook.

This is another example of Facebook’s huge advantage of having all that profile information from hundreds of millions of users and businesses.  You couldn’t usefully add a search capability to a small network (not enough results possible), but when you have this kind of scale, it becomes valuable.  The network effect means that FB will continue to grow because it has these capabilities.  The big get bigger.

I wonder if there will come a point where the personal connection people feel with their networks gets so diluted that the information in the network overall begins to degrade, in quality and/or in quantity.  In a way, that’s what happened to MySpace.  Thinking of the goose that laid the golden eggs here.

Yeah, Facebook vs. Twitter.  The second time this week I’m looking at a struggle for survival at the highest levels.  And into this mix, I’m throwing Aardvark — see why below.

Techcrunch has the blogosphere roiling with its publication of internal Twitter docs that somehow just showed up in the inbox one day.  This amazing post is LONG with detailed meeting notes about everything from employee retention (yawn) to deals with Google or Microsoft (hmmm) to the threat from Facebook (this one caught my eye).

As the Twitter folks see it, Facebook can begin to mimic the Tweet by making its status updates public (through user option), displayed via the same kinds of tools as Tweetdeck and the like.  Or maybe literally in Tweetdeck types of tools modified to also show Facebook status.  And so forth — Techcrunch comments that Facebook is already moving toward this in recent changes.

Now I want to add Aardvark into the scramble.  Recently out of beta, Aardvark is a real-time search tool based on matching your complex query (the more complex the better, not like a search engine) with another person who can answer it.  This is done through an algorithm that analyzes your query, matches it to the stated expertise or interests of people in the network, and sends the query to the best probable matches through email or IM.

The information Aardvark analyzes to make the matches between question and answer comes from Facebook.  There should be a pause before that ‘Facebook’ with a drumroll.  Aardvark’s service is not warmed over Twitter — it is different.  But it matches the real-time search features of Twitter very well, only better because it finds people who could not possibly be in your personal network, or the networks of your friends, or of their friends… OK, I’m getting carried away but you get the point.  It is one component of the Twitter functionality, and it depends on Facebook.

Twitter search is different — it would help you find a laptop cable at a trade show, whereas Aardvark would not — and with Twitter you learn things you didn’t even know you wanted to know (what the Twitter folks call ‘discovery’) and that’s important.

But Facebook is evolving, and sharing its users’ personal data with Aardvark (by permission only) is one way to move into Twitter space.  This personal data, btw, is a crucial advantage of Facebook.  It’s going to be interesting to watch these models converge, clash and compete.  Again, this is going to be good for us users.

Do you like graphs and and charts?  This Inside Twitter post from Sysomos has an abundance of information about Twitter use and users.  You know the story but it’s still amazing to see the explosive growth in Twitter.  This chart speaks for itself:

Cumulative Growth in Twitter Users

The data for users looks pretty poor to me.  Very small proportion were  willing to give their ages, for example, but the report says that Twitter users skew extremely young.  That’s not my experience of it, of course, but I’m skeptical of that finding.  I think lots of older folks (“old” is over 40 in this case) are using it as a search tool, a diversion, a one-to-many communication tool.

As you might guess, Twitter use is highly concentrated.  It’s not just the 80-20 rule –  80% of Tweets are accounted for by 6% of users.  This pattern holds for lots of measures:  almost 2/3 of users have less than 20 followers, but a very small percentage have over 2000.  One interesting tidbit is that among people who identified themselves as marketers, about 15% follow 2000 or more, but of other users this percentage is under 1%.  Part of the marketing buzz about Twitter is self-fulfilling chatter — but on the other hand, these marketing types become a conduit for important messages to spread virally down the chain into the accounts of the folks who follow few people.  A new way for marketers to actually earn their dime:  they become the broadcast medium.

You know it had to happen, but it’s still depressing. We are hearing more and more stories about scams and spamming on Facebook and other social media sites. Unfortunately, you just have to be careful with all that personal data you put on those sites — it can be used against you.  See some security tips below.

Sid Kirchheimer, writing in the AARP Bulletin (yes, I am THAT OLD), profiled a Facebook scam that the victim could only watch as it unfolded.  A thief somehow hacked Bryan Rutberg’s Facebook profile and changed the passwords so Rutberg no longer controlled it.  He then posted a status update telling Rutberg’s friends he was in trouble overseas and needed money.  Some sent it to a fake address in London and into the thief’s hands.  Rutberg tried to warn his friends via his wife’s profile, but the clever thief has ‘defriended’ her, so the messages were not delivered.

Kirchheimer theorizes that Rutberg may have inadvertently downloaded a program that sent his keystrokes to the thief, who could then gain control of his accounts.  This kind of identity theft is only going to increase and it will be global.  Kirchheimer offers some very useful tips for increasing your security online:

• Don’t click on links provided in messages—even from friends—unless you check them with a phone call or off-website e-mail.

• Get program updates by going to the company’s website, not through a provided link.

• Make your Facebook account private so that only friends can see your details.

• Scan your computer regularly with an updated antivirus program

• Be suspicious of anyone—even a “friend”—who asks for money over the Internet.

Sad.  But human nature is not a thoroughly happy thing, is it?

Twitter seems to be my favorite subject these days, a little weird since I spend so little time on it.  Anyhow, here’s another two cents worth of thought about what it’s good for, from Dr. Pete at SEOmoz.

Dr Pete thinks Twitter is a way to connect online ‘friends’ with each other in the other ‘real’ world.  He says “The real power of Twitter is in transforming online connections into real-world relationships.”  He goes on to give a few examples of how Twitter helped him meet up with friends and colleagues.

Sure, I’ll buy it.  But I’m sticking to my guns on this:  Twitter is search.  It’s social search, to be sure, but it’s search.  You might want to find a person, thing, website, resource, directions, advice, or business, but you are using the people on Twitter to do it.  Social, real-time search.

For all other commentators and I raise expectations of great things from Twitter, it has not yet made the big breakthrough to popularity in numbers.  Not that 20 million subscribers is puny!  But research published today by the Center for Media Research (based on a Harris poll) indicates Twitter is still reaching a small proportion of the audience, even among the 18 – 34 year old early adopters.

While 74% of the 18 – 34 group report having a Facebook or MySpace account, only 8% of them subscribe to Twitter and just 4% use it to send messages.  Twitter use to send messages is actually a bit higher among 35 – 44 year olds, at 5%, but the use of it drops to 1% or less for everyone over 45.

I still think Twitter will prove to be a game changer.  I don’t think it’s primarily a communication tool, however, which is what Facebook is.  It is a news source, and a search tool.  And as it grows (OK, if it grows) it will gather enough volume to allow specialized conversations about narrow topics of intense interest to any number of groups.  General news will spread virally among the groups through their interconnections, and search tools will capture information about queries in almost real time.

At some point, nobody will tweet about what they had for breakfast.  But they will report interesting things to people who care about the same things.

Rumors have been flying around that Google is hot to buy Twitter.  Makes sense to me, since I see Twitter as a real-time search tool with a billion points of light (users) who can get the most up-to-the-minute answers to almost any question.  This has cooled off in the last week or so — but it still makes more sense to me than some of Google’s other acquisitions.  Why not own your most threatening competitor (much as I would not like to see that happen)?

In the past couple days, though, other stories have emerged that suggest that Twitter and Google might be dancing to a different kind of tune.

First up, in a Google to Acquire Twitter post from a couple weeks ago, Techcrunch‘s influential Michael Arrington said that Twitter and Google were in “late stage” negotiations on a purchase in the neighborhood of $250 million.  Arrington also believes Twitter is a search engine, like I do, and thinks it makes good strategic sense for Google.  But:  Twitter insiders apparently think the company’s value is closer to $1 billion — plus it’s beginning to dawn on people that Google acquiring Twitter might raise anti-competitive warnings among regulators.  On April 3, Twitter’s co-founder Biz Stone posted a brief reply that of course they were talking with other companies, but that they had every intention of building their own firm.

Then, on April 9th, Kara Swisher published a long article called Who Will Be Twitter’s Best Search Friend? with the remark that the hot property of the moment in Silicon Valley has been pursued before (notably by Google and Microsoft – who obviously have some of the deepest pockets) – she mentions Microsoft’s purchase of a tiny part of Facebook for $240 million after a lengthy battle with Google (who won that battle is an open question).  Finding a way to get ad distribution on Twitter would be a coup for either of the biggies — if there is a model that works.  The attraction of Twitter is that huge and growing audience, and the fact that it has a model whose applications are continuing to grow.  Lots of big companies are buzzing around it, attracted to all that mindshare.

Updating all this, Claire Cain Miller published an interview with Fred Wilson, one of the investors in Twitter, in the April 16th  NYTimes, with the summary that:   Yes, Twitter is talking to big Internet companies about forming partnerships with them. No, it is not looking to sell itself. Wilson says that Twitter has reached the scale (#3 social site in the US now, after Facebook and MySpace) that other people take seriously, but it is working to find out how to leverage its scale and model in distribution deals with other large properties like Google and Microsoft.

Then, finally, today sees an NZ site called The National Business Review reporting on Google’s recent healthy profits and Eric Schmidt’s (Google CEO) praise for Twitter. They note that this could be part of the competition with Microsoft, trying to butter up Twitter to favor a Google deal for ad distribution.  On the other hand, they also report that rumors persist that Google and Twitter are still in purchase talks, stalled over price.

I hope Twitter stays independent, much as I like Google.  I don’t see how Twitter could replace Google’s archive search, or vice versa, but melding the two would still reduce competition in this market.

The Twitter phenom is still gaining traction, and here’s why (imho):  user generated search.

When I first signed up for a Twitter account, my very first impressions were a lot like the ones comedians make fun of Twitter for:  someone told me every personal thing they did in tweet after tweet — and I stopped paying attention.  I have been a poor follower and worse tweeter (twitterer?) since.

But reports keep rolling in about how effective Twitter is as a real time communication tool, and most of these are about one thing:  search.  Our friend Martin  in Portland talked about how his team, working with the tourism industry in Oregon, started something called the ‘Twisitor’ Center (in this blog, you will also find posts about how Visitor Bureaus across the country are using Twitter).  You simply Tweet a question including the #inpdx hash to have your query posted to everyone following that conversation — and almost immediately you have an answer.

Most of the other success stories I hear about are similar.  Someone at a conference needs a laptop charger.  Someone else there has one.  They connect and problem solved.

I know the other famous stories about Twitter are things like the fact that the first reports of the Mumbai terrorist attacks were sent in tweets.  These real time alerts are important, but for the day to day, I think the search function is the killer app. It’s a perfect extension of the interactive logic of the Internet.

So, Web 3.0?  If we can have user generated content = Web 2.0, why not user generated search = Web 3.0?  OK.  I agree,  neither one is really a game changer in the biggest picture.  But the growth of the Internet tools we have — enlarging and enriching the network — is pretty amazing.

John Battelle is pretty dismissive in his recent post about Twitter.  Not dismissive about Twitter — the opposite:  he’s dissing a report in the NY Times by Sanford Bernstein analysts that Twitter will never develop a revenue stream. Sanford Bernstein says that Twitter is unlikely ever to generate positive cash flow, and will either just fail or last until it is overcome by the next web 2.0 phenomena.

In retort, Battelle says:

Twitter is a very promising service directly in the center of these trends [web 2.0 business applications], trends the “analysts” at Sanford Bernstein clearly do not grasp.

Battelle lists 3 ways Twitter might monetize its traffic:

1. Tweetsense – an advertising platform somehow linked to the content of the tweets.
2. Branded licensing – Twitter collects fees to promote Twitter-based services, for example.
3. SMS revenue sharing – Twitter drives millions of SMS to mobile devices, and there may be some leverage for them to share these revenues.

This deal is not done, but from Battelle’s history with search and the evolution of the online conversation, I wouldn’t bet against him on this one.  And it doesn’t take much imagination to see how powerful Twitter can be as a conversation-carrier that is loaded with search and linking potential.