LinkedIn has announced the development of LinkedIn Company pages, which allow members of a given organization to create a page for that organization and link their profiles to it.

This development is encouraging because LinkedIn is the leading social network for professional networking. Company pages could be effective tool in helping people within an organization network both internally and externally. Internal networking can be facilitated by providing a map of the organziation's social network; externally networking can be helped by allow staff to see the backgrounds of their colleagues, whom they might contact in order to find resources outside the company.

For higher education (my field of marketing), LinkedIn may provide an especially valuable role. It already can serves as a recruiting platform for students, faculty and staff. If LinkedIn ever gets its API in place, tools and programs could be developed that allow an institution to create more connections among each group: students might be connected to alumni mentors and faculty advisors; alumni might be connected to other alumni in their professions; faculty with other faculty in their field of scholarship. Insitutions might be able to get more information about the career paths of their alumni, helping to round out research into the impact the education. New graduates might be able to use the network to find jobs through alumni. Internship searches might work the same way. Faculty might reach out to research subjects in particular professions.

LinkedIn appears to be trying to following the footsteps of Facebook, seeing the success that the Facebook's Pages application has brought to the network in terms of attracting advertisers to the network. Facebook Pages were announced in November 2007 and already there are ton of organizations using it (in higher education, there are 500+ Pages, which is the highest count Facebook will provide in their search results).

The only thing missing is LinkedIn's API, which they have said that they want roll out but there hasn't been much progress announced. Hopefully, they will get it going in 2008!

Labels: LinkedIn, social media, social networks.

I today's reality-tv soaked environment, it should be no surprise that folks are experimenting with user generated media as a vehicle for reaching out to potential employers. After all, shows like Top Chef require applicants to submit video auditions in order to apply to the show.

Now, we have some folks experimenting with the video resume:















Clearly, the form is still finding its way, but the idea is intriguing and not without precedent. Certainly, actors and entertainers would be a natural fit, as would visual artists. Animators, motion graphic artists, broadcast journalist and videographers are already posting their reels for review, and it won't be long before photographers, artists and graphic designers compile their portfolios into clips.

As for the rest of us? Video might be an interesting way to break through the clutter, if you can move beyond the "talking-to-the-camera" shtick. Think of it more as a linear presentation and the form can take on new meaning.

Powerpoint might be used to make creative graphics and combined with photos and voiceover (plus video) of the candidate talking about their experiences and qualifications. If used effectively, the video becomes a way to convey communication skills, presentation capabilities and plain old passion for your work.

And, unlike an interview, there's always a second take.

Combine this video with a blog, a LinkedIn profile, a professional social network profile, relavant social bookmarks and/or shared search items and you have the makings of Resume 2.0.

Labels: resume 2.0, social media

In my last post about the Watts and Dodds study, I asked the question (to myself, in all likelihood):

1) If you are building a word of mouth or grassroots communication campaign, do you to take a targeted approach and try to focus on opinion leaders? Or, do you take a scattershot approach and try to reach as many people as possible? (Assume you can't do both, given that your resources are limited).

There are advocates of both approaches. Proctor and Gamble has built in house programs (see Tremor) where opinion leaders are identified, qualified and then engaged through sampling, seeding, referrals, etc. For those without P&G's resources, there are agencies such as BzzAgent that offer a database of opinion leaders for rent, folks who can be targeted with sampling and other programs in an effort to build buzz in support of a product or service.

Others approach it from the direction of customer interaction. Brains on Fire, Church of the Customer, and countless other writers, consultants and gurus assert that the way to generate word of mouth marketing is to be nice to the people that talk about you.

Still others (promotion marketing agencies) maintain that word of mouth uses traditional promotion techniques like seeding, sampling, and so forth.

If you are trying to employ word of mouth for marketing or communication purposes, one of your first steps is to figure out which approach to take. Identifying opinion leaders can be a time consuming and expensive process as you try to build a database of influentials. Going with a service runs the risk of targeting opinion leaders who are not truly leaders in your core market--not to mention the fact that the agency may not even have folks available if your business is in a specialized market. So, how do you optimize you decision?

I think the optimal approach is to create a hybrid approach. Build your own database of opinion leaders--folks from your market and your customer base.

Instead of trying to profile them, let them self select into the database by offering things they want and respond to: information and identity.

Labels: six degrees, social media, word of mouth marketing