Visual Marketing Over/Under or How I Use Scoop.it
Appreciate having this post included in +Scoop.it Feed Your Head Newsletter today: http://eepurl.com/QNdEn

Friends like +Phil Buckley and +Mark Traphagen are curious about how and why I use Scoop.it. Mark is such a major +Google+ guru we many never convert him to +Scoop.it, but I found some great examples about why I love Scoopit.

http://www.scoop.it/u/martin-marty-smith contains three great examples of why Scoop.it is invaluable in my #contentmarketing . There is an important assumption that many walk by when thinking about Google's modeled analytics - modeled EXPECTATIONS exist for everything you do.

Understanding Content Marketing's Over / Under
Content marketing is like going to Vegas. If you play games where odds are with the house you LOSE (in time). If you play games where you can reduce the house's dominate odds (counting cards or poker) you may win. 

You WIN in content marketing by recognizing your "over / unders" or what you stand to gain or lose by creating a piece of content. 
"Protect your modeled values" is an important #contentmarketing   idea. You want TODAYS content to beat YESTERDAYS in key metrics like views, shares and links. 

Fast Feedback Loops
Fast Feedback Loops that aren't DANGEROUS are critical to adding content to modeled systems - Google is a "modeled system". Google needs CONTENT and your content needs consistent support and above average reactions. 

I use +Scoop.it to reduce my content marketing risks, so I use Scoop.it to "card count" content marketing.  

The image below of 3 of my current Scoop.it "magazines" shows three "reduce risks" #contentcuration  examples:

Only 28% of Brands Can Measure Content Marketing ROI
on Marketing Revolution
From my friend +John van den Brink
Today's views: 16
Total views: 124
Reactions: 42
Shares: 14 (figure at 30% of reactions)
http://sco.lt/5SBTI9 

8 Visual Marketing Tips From Vogue
On Curation Revolution
From my post on Curatti.com 
Today's Views: 21
Total Views: 88
Days On: 2
Reactions: 14
Shares: 6
http://sco.lt/8qjz7Z 

10 Visual Marketing Trends for 2014
On Design Revolution
From Wishpond.com
Today's Views: 99
Total Views: 324
Days On: 3
Reactions: 99
Shares: 33
http://sco.lt/8nSI8v

Reading The Data
See how valuable it is to have an apples to apples comparison? Other factors need to be added into results. I wrote the VOGUE visual marketing post based on how well the Wishpond.com visual marketing Scoop is trending. My Vogue post on Curatti.com (http://curatti.com/8-visual-marketing-lessons-vogue/ ) has 93 flares (social shares) after three days. 

93 flares is running a tiny bit behind my Curatti.com averages. I knew I was taking a slight risk with my #longtail  branded post. My Vogue post may not perform as well as Red Bull's Branding Lessons - We Are All Publishers Now (http://curatti.com/red-bulls-branding-lesson-media-companies-now/) with 241 flares, but my Vogue post won't be so below my Curatti means that anything of value is at risk and it was a "boundary pushing" content experiment (need those).  

No single post takes your rank up or down...mostly. The outliers, posts that BLOW UP or that really STINK can move the needle in the short term. In the long term it is all aggregate and "psychohistory" (lol). 

Asimov fans will remember how Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series believed man's future was known at least in the aggregage. As content marketers Google "knows" us in the aggregate too, so your goal is to consistently raise the bar.

Key to watch your metrics to know if you are achieving your goal. Use tools like Scoop.it to lower risks and encourage experimentation. 

I felt comfortable writing the Vogue post due to how well Wishpond.com's Visual Marketing post is performing on Scoop.it. The Wishpond.com 10 Reasons Visual Marketing Dominates 2014 (I modified the title slightly) has been trending for 3 straight days with 100 or more views and lots of shares (this is HARD to do, less than 10% of shares can trend for 3 days).

The performance of the Wishpond.com post on Scoop.it REDUCED THE RISKs of writing about a HOT topic - #visualmarketing  - in a risky way (me writing about Vogue lol). 

The Rub is, at some point, your test tool will begin to rank. +Brian Yanish has this problem. Brian's #SEO  has his Scoop.it outranking his website (PR6 to PR4). PR4 for a blog is very respectable. PR6 for Scoop.it is AMAZING (for a bunch of reasons). 

Brian's Scoop.it is a "trusted source". Brian's Scoop.it feeds should be trusted sources since he shares AMAZING CONTENT. Brian and I were having a debate about link shares vs. value add the other day and I've changed my mind. I think Brian's Scoop.it is BRANDED. 

When I see a Brian Yanish Scoop.it link I know his LENS means the link is worth investigating. I approach my Scoop.it shares different. I always yap my 2 cents (lol). I'm a yapper (lol). Brian's strategy is more effective since the highest PR I have on Scoop.it feeds is 3. 

Brian's winning strategy on Scop.it doesn't mean I should clone him. The most effective thing any of us do on social media is BE OURSELVES. When you are honest, open and, at least in my case, yappy (lol) you create valuable relationships. Brian's Scoop.it strategy is more effective in the aggregate, but mine works for me. 

This doesn't mean I'm closed to the lesson Brian and many friends are trying to teach me (lol). Getting LEANER is an important macro trend and one I'm working on as this 1,000 word G+ post proves :). Bottom line is Scoop.it helps reduce risks and is teaching me, ever so slowly, how to write and think leaner. 

Perhaps THAT last idea is the most important Scoop.it VALUE. I learn how to be a better ME from friends like Brian, +Robin Good +jan gordon +Cendrine Marrouat +Ally Greer, +Bill Gassett +Guillaume Decugis and many more. I try to pay back with support, loyalty and sharing my soon to be much leaner TOMES (lol).

My "tribe" knows me, so Google's expectations aren't the only ones we set, need to be careful of and care about :). Marty

PS. I think Mark's use of G+ does a lot of what I discussed here so our chances of converting Mark to Scoop.it aren't great, but that's okay because I will be sure to share the amazing content he shares so we will have Traphagen's army on Scoopit by proxy :). M  


Thanks to Alley for sharing this post on her Content Marketing +Scoop.it & in today's Scoop.it Newsletter!
http://sco.lt/5pwF6n

Last night had a cool experience. I went to the #discover section in Twitter (don't usually go there) to find Alley's share of How I Use Scoop.it. Fun.


*

Great +Neil Ferree riff on how he uses +Scoop.it

Finding and publishing relevant curated content to your blog and your top social channels and doing it at a fraction of the time it takes to research, compose, edit and publish an original article on your blog has huge upside to those who use the Scoop.it platform.

@Martin(Marty) Smith dives deep into the technical aspects of how he uses and measures his content marketing over/under quotient and for some, that's honey to the bee.

For me, I find enormous value in being able to train my Scoop.it CC engine to find more than just relevant content, I seek content that has 3 things every submission needs;

A Headline with Immediate Click Me Now Appeal
An Image that tells and sells Read Me Now
Copy worthy of a Demian Farnworth byline

What Marty forgot to mention in his well thought out piece is the awesome social content amplification that occurs when you curate awesome content that other Scoopiteers share to their top socials.

Seeing 10 people share your Scooped Story to their social channels with the click of a mouse is good validation you're on the right track

Neil is a great curator. Here is the link to this post and he is a #mustfollow too: http://sco.lt/758XC5

Brian Yanish Note
Great note from +Brian Yanish about how he uses Scoop.it:

Thank you so much +Martin W. Smith. Your words of wisdom and vote of confidence pushes me forward. As I mentioned before +Scoop.it for me is an ongoing test for reach, branding and effort. (RBE)

So now I just had to Google RBE and Wikipedia defines it as Relative Biological Effectiveness. The RBE is an empirical value that varies depending on the particles, energies involved, and which biological effects are deemed relevant. It is a set of experiment measurements.

I think that's where +Scoop.it & +Guillaume Decugis got their algorithm.
Particles = Scoops / Energies involved = Rescoops & Sharing
Biological effect = Social Media

Darn Google you side tracked me again. I can't believe I just read the whole Wikipedia article on RBE in radiology. 
12
4
Kuldeep Singh's profile photoCendrine Marrouat's profile photoNeil Ferree's profile photoVincent Messina's profile photo
15 comments
 
+Martin W. Smith you always have something good to say! I need to get back to providing more content on Scoop.it. I have let that get away from me due to time constraints.
 
+Bill Gassett try +Brian Yanish method and apply your editorial perspective on link shares. You are such an authority already in your space you are on the 90 yard line for that idea anyway. I do understand how it can be hard to create content. Trying to create +CrowdFunde and live by my "process is product" ideas is proving exhausting (lol), but good news is +Phil Buckley worked up an amazing prototype today to show +Heather King tomorrow and +Drew Baird and +Nichole Baird (+MoondashAudiodotcom ) on Friday....so exhaustion worth it (lol). Marty 
 
I think you could have stopped at "The most effective thing any of us do on social media is BE OURSELVES. When you are honest, open and, at least in my case, yappy (lol) you create valuable relationships." LOL

More seriously though, I guess a lot of people see the value of Scoop.it differently. I have been a member of the site for so long that I don't remember a time curating without it. That's where I have been able to share what I feel is the best stuff my audience could use. A lot of people have found me thanks to Scoop.it as well. 

I love Google+, but as you said, Google+ is nothing without the content we provide it and the interactions we have. 
 
Great comment +Cendrine Marrouat and I agree. +Scoop.it has a very different feel to me. I love having conversations on +Google+. The ability to do just we are are doing here is much more advanced on G+. 

I prefer Scoop.its curation look and feel. I like being able to create related content in close proximity to one another. This allows me to do what I shared in the post - move a trending post from Design Revolution over to +jan gordon's Curatti.com (the Vogue Piece) and have those two pieces of related content have density and more of a "billboard" effect.

Sum of parts is always MORE than any individual post on Scoop.it. Not so much on G+, but easier to TALK on G+ so different benefits and uses and why I will continue to use both (and because I won't attain +Mark Traphagen  G+ guru status anytime soon lol). Thanks, Marty 
 
+Martin W. Smith Great post! People are still retweeting it so the jury is still out on the flares -
You're the best, so generous, knowledgable and always making us look at things in a different way. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out :)
 
+Martin W. Smith, well another thing is that you can easily find your curated content on Scoop.it with a keyword search. On Google+, it's not as easy. So, that's a reason why I agree with you on all counts. I love Scoop.it's look and feel. I have always been partial to a magazine look.

I see both platforms serving very different needs and audiences.  
 
I'm still a little "fuzzy" on your Las Vegas Over / Under Analogy +Martin W. Smith but that's OK. One of the many reasons I use and encourage other to use +Scoop.it is the significant social amplification that ocurrs when another Scoopiteer shares your submission to their top 5 social channels w/ a single click of their mouse!

Its not vanity as much as its validation the submission hit the mark when I see 20+ reactions to one of my Scooped stories. Even though I don't have a real estate license when +Bill Gassett shares one of my Scoops to his Facebook, Twitter, LI, Stumble social channels, I like it → I like it a Lot!

Its OK if +Mark Traphagen passes on Scoop (for now) and keeps feeding his awesome Flipboard. All good things come to those who wait ;-)
 
+Neil Ferree the feeling is mutual when either you or +Martin W. Smith share one of my social posts. Now I need to find out the magical formula of how to get you guys to share my important real estate content? Are bribes allowed for Scoop.it:)
 
+Neil Ferree I need to write another post on the arbitrage and how to play it. Quickly - imagine content as a stock. You have a cost of creation, a cost of distribution and maintenance.

Let's call these costs X.

Next you test that content on +Scoop.it. If the content meets a modeled "buy" profile in test your grain (OVER) reaches your magic line requirements - where you've determined the over (profits) must come in relative to the under (costs).

In a meeting today with a supplier of services to car dealers we heard that one dealer had a service OVER of 120% of the cost of running their dealership.

They don't have to sell a single car to make money. Let's say they put their sales in the deep freeze and their model begins to decay. Once their service revenue projections drop below 100% they must sell cars to be in the black.

In that case their OVER (profits) is less than their UNDER (costs) so they are in the red. Scoop.it allows me to know when my OVER (gain) meets my modeled ROI requirements.

Testing will show where the markup relative to cost has to be to make money. Most catalogs work on 3x markup so buy for $2 and sell for $6 (at least). Creating a fully loaded cost structure for #contentmarketing can be hard. I think it is easier to back into it.

Let's say your content and social marketing helps generate a new $1M in revenue (and how you would know that is worth another conversation). I would estimate real content curation and creation costs at least 30% or $300K.

Here's the cool part. Take totals from each channel (Twitter, Blog, Scoop.it, G+) and let's say that total is 10,000 pieces of content and we will treat all content equal.

So each piece of content cost $30 (10,000 pieces of content divided into our $300K in costs and it generated $70 in profit (10,000 pieces of content divided into $700,000). Our "markup" is 2.3 so below our goal of 3x.

3x protects "other costs" like taxes, R&D and savings for a rainy day. So my over $700K exceeds  my under $300K but not by 3x (which may or may not be important).

When I was in the grocery biz they survive on 2% profit margin (or so) a year because they are a CASH machine, but very expensive to modify, change or scale.

Content feels more like retailing to me because we have low costs to produce and distribute  (relative to grocery) and the ability to tune the engine so we get more with less is much easier than grocery.

This is why I like to back into content costs as a % of profit. Attribution is such a bear I like to model based on some logical assumptions.  

In the end we are going to need to arbitrage like a Wall Street broker because NOT doing so will be a sure RX for disaster. M
 
Now that's brilliant Mr. Smith

You kinda remind me of my buddy who worked at CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade) in the Futures Pits ::: One of his classic sayings = Done Size Filled
 
Thank you so much +Martin W. Smith. Your words of wisdom and vote of confidence pushes me forward. As I mentioned before +Scoop.it for me is an ongoing test for reach, branding and effort. (RBE)

So now I just had to Google RBE and Wikipedia defines it as Relative Biological Effectiveness. The RBE is an empirical value that varies depending on the particles, energies involved, and which biological effects are deemed relevant. It is a set of experiment measurements.

I think that's where +Scoop.it & +Guillaume Decugis got their algorithm.
Particles = Scoops / Energies involved = Rescoops & Sharing
Biological effect = Social Media

Darn Google you side tracked me again. I can't believe I just read the whole Wikipedia article on RBE in radiology. 
Add a comment...