The irony of this post is,  I was on the Mashable site following some others that had followed me on the Mashable Social Network when I noticed that Mashable itself was advertising for Mashable readers to “Join the conversation by adding Mashable’s Pete Cashmore to your Circles on Google+ .”  The upper portion of the site has a drop down bar telling you to add Mr. Cashmore (see image below).

Google Plus is the new darling of social networks and it is the latest in shiny things that we social media people love to jump in and declare ourselves as early adopters.  We get to try it out and pick it apart piece by piece and provide feedback and add our 2 cents.  I’m somewhat behind that game as this is my first post about the new network.  I must admit that I have been on Google Plus now since I could get an invite when it first launched and tweeting every article I can pass along that I have read on the subject.

Getting back to the issue at hand, Google Plus originally opened up the invitations to its “field test” of their network to the user that had an invite.  This made the invites like the gold standard for a while and everyone in social media was calling all their friends to get in on the gold rush of invites.  Most of my colleagues were in and salivating on the new toy, and I heard tell of brands that were also jumping in and being a part of the fun, the point there is to be an early adopter and get a jump on the competition as we are all seeing how the past rolled out with Twitter and Facebook.  This ended for businesses however as Google pulled the plug on the ability for businesses or brands to sign up on Google Plus. Google went as far as to  suspend those brands they could hunt down and find on the network.

Now enter the folks at Mashable.  The thrive on the metric of eyeballs.  They are a media property that tries to gain as many eyeballs as possible for the businesses that pay them for distribution of their posts.  They are known for reaching millions of readers and have mastered every trick in the book for having those million readers share and re-distribute their content.  Enter the next distribution system in Google Plus and its already exponentially  more than 10 million users and you have yet more metrics and eyeballs to add to your existing pitch of being the most read media property in the world of social.  Last time I checked, Mashable was a business and therefore according to Google, unable to have a presence on its new network.

There are always those that are jail breaking iPhones and those that are gaming the system to get more followers and every other loophole that can be found to get the upper hand.  This apparently is not much different with Mashable and their having a presence on Google Plus.  The route they took?  We will take our leader, Pete Cashmore, and his Google account and use it as a distribution channel.  He is a person and not a business and therefore his account can be used for us here at Mashable.  Is this a gaming of the system?  Are other businesses and brands using their “ambassadors” (Thanks Chris Heuer for that Tweet) to get a jump on the competition and getting an early look as a business on the network?

I have an admission myself, I have not used my Google account for much other than Google Buzz or Wave or whatever else I have needed to use the account for and I suppose my company is getting a leg up on other companies that don’t yet have a Google Plus account, but I am actually at the helm of my account.  I am not sure Pete is the one that is sharing each of the Mashable…err Cashmore shared posts on Google Plus.  It did strike me as funny that they would use advertising space to increase the eyeballs of the Pete Cashmore account.  Are they gaming the system?  Probably.  Do I blame them?  Not really, but I do blame Google for not having a plan on how to better handle this and how they might unfold Google Plus for Business.

UPDATE:  Upon further view it appears that Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land already discussed this in his post and updates.  It appears that Mashable is now just blatantly advertising the fact to get more followers on the account for Pete Cashmore.

There are many social sharing sites and if you wanted to count them it may take you all day to finally include each site in your count. Some of them are well known like Facebook, Twitter, Digg, StumbleUpon, and of course the latest darling of the dance is Google Plus. Social sharing has been evolving as a way to increase page views and cast a wider net to see if you couldn’t create a larger community and get more readers. We use social sharing at Bloggers For Hire as a way to create this very thing. Social sharing has become big business for many and a way to create some dividends in traffic and numbers. The question I have for you is whether your social sharing is properly branded? Let me explain to you, first what I mean about branding, and then I will give you an example.

Branding to me is making sure that at every turn, your community is reminded of your existence, be it your name, a logo, or something that can identify you as the expert in your field, the product that all must have, or a service people should love. We all know when I say Nike, Pepsi, Ford, that all of these bring an image to mind or a thought or something that stirs our brains to think of the company. That is branding. In the sense of the online world, we must always look for ways to have that in place, be it a link, a banner ad, a mention, or in the case of this post, a social share. Making sure your social sharing is also branded where possible is one more way to make sure you are always putting your brand out front.

The example I have seen and been privy to over the last couple of days has been sharing on Twitter. I read a large number of posts daily. I am constantly consuming information and then sharing that information with my community. It helps the person that has produced the content for me to share and it also informs my clients and others with whom I provide the links. It is a win-win for everyone. I also note that when I share information, via the in post applications people use, they have not branded their default settings.

One such instance this morning was sharing a news item from Media Buyer Planner. No I am not picking on them but it was what spurred this post. The have the sharing buttons as everyone on their news item that can be shared via various networks. I hit the Twitter share button and up popped the Twitter window for me to share with my followers, and I saw the title of the post, and the link and then i saw “via @AddThis”. This is the name of the application and not the name of the Twitter handle of the company where I found the article. They have missed an opportunity to brand @MediaBuyer. Many companies don;t put anything in the spot they can for branding. Make sure you are taking every opportunity to brand your company.

I am trying to wrap my had around the idea that Google may possibly be the next owner of our beloved golden child in the world of social media, Twitter.  Are we ready yet to turn the keys to the Twitter kingdom over to the folks at Google?  I have been a serious watchdog lately it seems talking about Twitter ethics and the gaming of Twitter and the eroding of all things pure about the application.

How about if we turn it over to Google and make it a part of that empire?  I know Techcrunch talked about it in terms of Twitter search and that it is becoming the real time search engine.  It makes sense actually and since they turned down the money offered by Facebook due to valuation issues and Facebook’s stock, I think it could be said Google has the bank account for it.  Google and the leadership at Twitter have had dealings in the past with Blogger so in fact there may already be that relationship.  We will see how this unfolds.  I am hoping to get some further analysis from some of the people in our industry to help me grasp the idea but for now I will just try to fathom a life of Twoogle.

Update:  You can read more about it at Techrunch and the rest of the folks on Techememe.

I am constantly finding reasons why I am not a proponent of hosting blogging plans. I am a WordPress supporter yet I don’t recommend hosting your blog on WordPress.com, and in spite of the Google mantra of doing no evil, I tell many to run away from Google’s application Blogger. In a recent article by Tech Dirt regarding Google’s unilateral deletion of blog posts I get another piece of the puzzle that causes me to continue my preaching. In the post, they indicate:

An RIAA source says that the group sends Google a list of URLs it doesn’t like, and Google “then deals with the problem.” Google says that it notifies bloggers after their posts have been taken down, in accordance with the DMCA. But it should hardly be surprising that many of those affected say they’ve gotten no such notice, nor that the offending material was either legally posted and/or supplied by the labels themselves.

I have always been a strong advocate for owning my own content. Be it good or bad content it is still mine. I have heard the stories of whole blogs being deleted that were around for years and all of the data that was in that blog being lost to a black hole never to be seen. I am just not that trusting of others with my blog. I am not keen on the idea of Google being able to subjectively judge a post and remove it without any due process other than an alleged email or notice they sent. Sure it costs a little extra than just the URL and some specialty template, but paying for hosting and controlling your own destiny is something that is worth the price.

Marketing has taken a new look as we enter the digital age. Companies are now looking for a new way to reach customers. They are reaching them in different ways because their customers are finding them in different ways. With everyone, even my 84 year old grandmother, searching the global market through Google, and getting recommendations from every friend in Facebook, Myspace, YouTube and in circles like Twitter with their options to buy or find services and products, businesses are clamoring for the attention of people. The new look and feel of marketing is participation, or what I have been calling participatory marketing.

Social media is really nothing more that participation in a social structure using different tools. All of the vehicles I mention above are merely a community of people. Like a block party where everyone gathers. An online neighborhood. They talk about their lives, they talk about their kids, they stand around the water cooler now known as their computer screen. They talk about you, your business, your product and your service.

Companies are trying to work their way into these communities now and they want to be the most noticed person at the party. The problem is that many of them are doing it wrong. They participate in the community but don’t provide anything of value. I’m not talking about walking into the party and handing out coupons for $5 off your $100 ice cream scoop. That is the way most are doing it. I’m talking about actually participating. Getting into a community of us Daddies and talking about how your 6 month old kept you all up all night is the conversation starter and ice breaker that works to get an in, but again companies open with that and then turn around and say, “Now download my sidebar widget thingy.” Again, what does that have to do with a sleepless night unless my 6 month old is put to sleep by your product? It takes a while for you to be in the group before I want to be approached for life changing conversations, like here let me help you buy a new home. Perhaps I should be calling this Kumbaya Marketing.

It takes a while for you to be in my group long enough to give me marital advice or if you want me to buy your stuff. Some of the companies have already been in my group a while. Some of the big brands and major companies are a part of our everyday lives and they can leverage that into instant credibility. If you come to my community for instance and say hey look at this cool Mac Book Pro, chances are we will all look and perhaps buy. If you want me to send you $100 to have me try your latest blue pill that will change my life, I will probably have to get to know you first.

[photo via mikebaird]*

*Not really relevant to participatory marketing but that is the point. Be relevant. That is one cute critter though. Since we are talking about Otters, check out Otter Box. See what I mean? No they are not a client, but they are a cool company that is using social media. They have been in my community a little. Now if I could get them to send me a new Blackberry case with the actual Blackberry in it.