SMO: What it means and why it matters

(This entry was first published in NetWorked, the digital media blog for the Society of Professional Journalists.)

The Internet may be omnipresent in our lives but it's becoming more friendly. Credit SMO for that.

SMO is short for "social media optimization," a somewhat new and evolving concept employing social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn to promote content on websites, blogs or across other social media.

Until recently, the top tool for spreading the word online was SEO, or search engine optimization, in which words themselves are used to increase Web traffic by serving as online road signs of a sort for search engines to stop, read and announce to everyone else.

SMO, however, assumes that people, not search engines, are better at doing that. It relies on the notion that ideas are more important than individual words and that like-minded individuals will increase the publicity those ideas receive by sharing them with their family, friends and colleagues.

SMO's origins go back to the mid-1990s when audio and video were gaining traction online and the public realized the Internet was destined to become a kind of clearinghouse for people's whole Web identities, not just individual words. Marketing strategist Rohit Bhargava coined the term and proposed a five-point guide for it to increase one's virtual visibility.

In time, the guide grew to accommodate the Web's evolution and its audience's increasing media savvy, so that now the overall strategy for effective SMO encompasses several key considerations for Web content producers:

Linking — It's one thing to have a blog; it's another to have people read it. Adding links that point to other blog or social media content provide attribution and illustrate depth of research. Other sites in turn may link back, thus increasing everyone's visibility.

Tagging and bookmarking — Tags help describe content and simplify online searches. Embedded buttons for bookmarking services such as del.icio.us also point first-time visitors to specific content that they may want to use frequently.

Making portable content — PDFs and video and audio clips, for example, can be carried by other sites and help drive traffic back to the original source.

Encouraging mashups — A mashup borrows bits of content from several sources to produce new information in a unique way, much as human-interest interviews  can be combined to create a news story. Mashups often incorporate audio, video and mapping elements to tell stories.

Becoming a user resource — Posting interesting information, including information from rival publications, can turn occasional readers into devotees. They'll see the information is always useful, accurate, and devoid of fluff and promotion.

Rewarding users — Giving credit to other information sources enhances credibility and distinguishes those sources as credible as well. It's also a way of saying thanks to people trying hard to get their message across.

Participating — Speaking out, engaging in online conversations and sharing one's knowledge or perspective in forums and other Web-based interaction advance ideas in ways mere words on a page cannot.

Targeting the audience — Location matters in real estate; the same can be said about the Web and its vast, ethereal landscape. Finding a niche is essential in an environment where being vague or general invites indifference.

Creating fresh, original content — Inside that niche, original content has a greater chance of getting noticed. That's not to say though that old ideas should be ignored; even just a slight twist, either thoughtful or humorous, can put them in new and interesting light.

Being honest, staying true to one's beliefs — Tricks and gimmicks intended to drive up Web traffic often have the opposite effect and damage audience loyalty. It's better to be honest with the audience and remain focused and on message.

Thinking about SMO always — SMO should not be applied randomly but be used a tool of constant content creation the way notepads and pens have been for news reporters. It should be at the forefront of planning, at the forefront of organization, and include tactics and strategy.

The skinny on Microsoft's new Kinect

For those of you who didn't know the world of gaming had changed in a big way recently, or didn't care, here's the skinny on what you missed.

* Microsoft released its long-awaited Kinect controller-less gaming experience last week. The infrared webcam for Xbox 360 allows body movement, including facial gestures, and spoken commands to direct action on the screen, making Kinect — formerly Project Natal — a major improvement over the wand controllers available with Nintendo Wii and PlayStation Move.

* Kinect costs $150 by itself, $400 if bundled with a new Xbox 360. The games designed to highlight Kinect's capabilities cost $40 to $70, before discounts.

* The name is an amalgam of the words "kinetic" and "connect."

* Microsoft expects to sell 5 million Kinects this year alone.

* The debut of Kinect today in Europe has been hampered by demand in the United States.

* Key technology for Kinect came from a lab at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

* Kinect translates movement in part by measuring light reflection from 48 points on a player's body.

* You can stand or sit while playing with Kinect.

* An alleged $2,000 bounty for hacking Kinect to use it on PCs may already have been met.

* Rumors that Kinect does not respond well to players with dark skin appear to have been disproved.

* Electronics manufacturer LG is offering a free Kinect with purchase of a television.

* Gamers have been slow to test Kinect's voice-recognition capabilities.

* Speaking of slowness, Kinect has a bit of a lag time responding to player movements. Individual players should stand at least six feet from the webcam, further if two people are playing.

* With Kinect, Microsoft may have taken a step closer to controlling your living room.

* And speaking of living rooms, Kinect may require you to rearrange furniture before playing any games.

* To that end, interior lighting, your clothes and your pets may adversely affect Kinect's performance.

* Expect Kinect to launch a new fitness revolution, just like Wii did.

* If you thought I was at least as impressed with "Call of Duty: Black Ops" as Kinect, guess again.

Olbermann Agonistes

America's brief national pundocratic nightmare appears over. Keith Olbermann, doyen of television's liberal-leaning wordsmiths and current poster child for media ethics, has been given a green flag to resume table-pounding on MSNBC, ostensibly to help square the media's sails against the starboard tack of neighboring Fox News.

All that remains is for Olbermann on Tuesday to don a hairshirt matching one of his shiny ties and with humility aforethought navigate the rough passage between the media's own Scylla and Carybdis: respectability and ratings.

Recall that Olbermann's hands were summarily slapped last week when Politico pried into a batch of campaign contribution records and found his name among those media mavens who reach from beneath their shroud of self-proclaimed journalistic integrity to pad a few candidates' finances, ahead of the just-ended elections. Recall also the berating he received by MSNBC in the name of company policy and the subsequent silence by rival Fox News, who could have joined the flagellation in response to Olbermann's constant harangues but didn't at the risk of turning unwanted attention to Fox's own policies.

We've had a weekend to mull the media quandary Olbermann brought into focus, a predicament long stewing in the mingled juices of outrage and obligation squeezed from journalists striving for objectivity in the employ of an industry driven by market forces. The responses to his behavior have been predictable. Less so are the pronouncements regarding MSNBC's obligation in the matter.

When Olbermann's "Coundown" launched in 2003, its debut portended analysis from a broadcast professional brandishing wit, insight and, it seemed, a ready copy of Roget's Thesaurus, all of which had been apparent in Olbermann's banter with co-sportscaster Dan Patrick during their turn on ESPN's "SportsCenter" through much of the 1990s. Over time however, "Countdown," which examined five timely events in reverse order, morphed into a kind of counterpoise, with Olbermann devoting more time to commentary that skewered official statements made by the Bush Administration. MSNBC's tacit approval of this transition was clarified by the addition to its programming calendar of "The Rachel Maddow Show," whose host has adopted an unbashed liberal stance on issues, and more recently "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," a political analyst who, if viewed at certain angles, can be seen tilting perceptibly to the left.

One wonders then what all the fuss was about at MSNBC, company policy against overt politicking notwithstanding, after Politico revealed Olbermann's contributions worth about $7,500 to Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona congressional candidates Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, all three campaigning as Democrats. MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in defense of Olbermann's suspension that the broadcaster violated a specific policy requiring network employees to state their political proclivities "before" writing endorsement checks, this defense suggesting Olbermann's behavior was justified had he filled out the proper paperwork in advance.

The precondition, if any exists, surely is not that simple. However, the solution is overtly so, and it would require that MSNBC balance its scale of ethical behavior in reality and not in a reality-TV kind of way. Olbermann's show is ratings gold for the network (though Fox News is mining platinum, at present) because its host chooses positions, takes stands, tries to be the last and loudest voice in the room, and does not attempt to sneak his behavior or his politics past the network. If this evolution of "Countdown" to support this was a mistake, an aberration of some sort, then MSNBC should at least admit that much; otherwise, the network should give its cash cow more grazing space, well away from other real journalists in the field.

Don't make me move, Google

I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to move.
Move from my house, that is.

The reasons are, I think, fairly acceptable to most people: My wife and I just put the mortgage to bed — a prodigious accomplishment in this economic climate.

We recently rehabilitated the house's federalist-style facade, giving our 126-year-old abode the look of something worth saving through the 21st century.

And, with other urban renewal inching forward again around the neighborhood, I finally feel confident about walking to the grocery store and not see someone pull a gun on me before I get there (Yes, this has happened to me once already).

The one thing I'm not so confident about is Google appearing to prowl around like a stalker, snapping photos of me while I'm bending over the begonias or picking up the dogs' latest expression of intestinal relief. I have seen the Great Aggregator traipse through here twice, quietly, snapping pictures like a tourist on a two-day trip through 10 cities, and leaving me to wonder whether the photographer got my good side.

But then I go back to what I was doing, unabashed and accepting of the scratch Google just made on the patina of my privacy. I mean, it's not as though Google knocked on my front door and asked if I wore matching socks.

However, I also accept that not everyone takes Google's passing picture-taking with similar grace and indifference. For some people, the sight of themselves or their property in a satellite photo via Google Street View compares to getting caught with their pants around their ankles. They didn't ask to have their picture taken and nobody sought their permission, and so they rail against the slightly surreptitious photography as if the camera operators performed an invasive procedure with the snap of a shutter — like removing a person's spleen without first asking the patient to sign a waiver.

Besides, there's an ethereal sense of presence borne by seeing the results of one's personal space captured by satellite — the creation of a connection that our innate sense of individuality needs time and attuned perspective to process.

This is why an offhanded statement by Google CEO Eric Schmidt this week rubbed all these concerned citizens the wrong way. On CNN's "Parker Spitzer" show Monday, he suggested, with humorous intent, these people "just move" after his company comes through with their Street View cameras. He insisted the shooters pass through neighborhoods once only, that this is not a "monitoring situation," thus making it impossible for Google to track comings and goings from homes and businesses and perhaps allaying the concern voiced by CNN's Kathleen Parker that Google can show others when her car is parked in front of her house.

"They cannot" see that, Schmidt told Parker. "The (image) resolution does not allow it."

In fact, it does, as my own experience demonstrates. After Schmidt spoke, I reviewed Google's visual accounting of my own house, and my car shown parked in front. The photos depicted the same blue car I have driven for years, and though apparent care was taken to distort the image just over my license plates I had no problem making out the bag of groceries sitting in the passenger's seat. Google's Street View shutterbugs passed by that day as I was unloading from a trip to the supermarket.

As for Schmidt's insistence that Google makes just one pass, a screen capture I grabbed about one year ago from the result of a previous Street View photograph proves otherwise. In that image, my other car is on display, and there is evidence for everyone including my mother to see that my yard can indeed look better than it does right now.

If I were I on the lam, or if I knew for certain that my mother had been checking the condition of my yard, this revelation might unnerve me. To a lesser extent, I feel uneasy regarding Google's ability to put faces with places, or connect real with virtual addresses and read license plates, unlike anything we have seen in public record-keeping to date.

In Germany, this ability has fostered outrage and prompted more than 200,000 citizens, or about 2 percent of the total population, to request their places of home and work be obscured ahead of Street View's debut in that country, where history has cultivated a delicate sense of individuality that's difficult to comprehend among self-aggrandizing cultures.

Schmidt told CNN his company acts responsibly at all times with the information at its disposal, but that's not what worries me. The people unaffiliated with Google who view the same photos cannot all be similarly responsible. And that kind of makes me want to just move.

One last word about trivia

On Friday, the St. Louis Pro Chapter of the Society for Professional Journalists turns trivial for a few hours to again sponsor its annual "Hacks vs. Flacks" trivia competition.


Despite the title, anyone with a mind for mundane facts and figures is welcome to participate, at $20 a head or $150 for a table of eight. There will be munchies, cooked up by SPJ faithful, plus beer and wine to facilitate trivial thinking and help start the weekend right. And there will be the added benefit of watching the cream of St. Louis-area media and public relations try to show how much they really know. (Hint: their knowledge varies greatly.)

But the reasons for this trivia contest belie the name. The chapter's chief goal is to raise money for student scholarships and programs such as a monthly luncheon series where special guests speak about new ideas and current events. It's hoped these scholarships and luncheons give the media and other communicators additional tools to do their jobs — or just find jobs. Because today, every little bit we can do to help the protectors of civic fairness and democracy is welcome.

So, please, come by at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow to Immaculate Conception at 2934 Marshall Avenue in Maplewood, Mo., to lend some wisdom and have good cheer, all for a very good cause.

The dad who never died

It was odd timing that two socially relevant icons of popular culture passed away within the week. Barbara Billingsley, the mother on "Leave It to Beaver," died Saturday. Tom Bosley, the father on "Happy Days," died today.

Both represented characters who were stereotypical of their television times — the doting, devoted housewife and the insightful but lovably stern father. Both symbolized elements of a stereotypical family norm that neither existed in the 1950s nor is pervasive today. And though the roles were not meant to be permanent, the impact of June Cleaver and Howard Cunningham continue to impress decades later.

I arrived on the world scene a little past the point of understanding or appreciating who June Cleaver was. Howard Cunningham, however, was central to my life in the 1970s because "Happy Days" dominated the Nielsen ratings about the time TV turned for me from being noisy living room furniture into societal touchstone. My friends talked about the show the mornings after each episode aired, their friends talked about the show, and over time we began dressing like the characters at special school events and parties. In sixth grade, I did a long project with written report, photos and a slide show of the 1950s' impact on the 1970s, inspired no doubt on the impression "Happy Days" left on me.

It was during this time, while conducting interviews for the project, that I learned about June Cleaver, the "Leave It to Beaver" craze and how the show seemed to make a cultural impact on people similar to what "Happy Days" did on me and my generation. And what I came away with from those interviews was this: TV alternately unifies and divides us. It can show us the faith, hope and compassion of humanity through worldly characters such as June Cleaver and Howard Cunningham while portraying an ideal of life we can't hope to emulate. Life is life and Hollywood is Hollywood, and though Hollywood may imitate life the reverse cannot be said with any certainty.

My grade-school friends who watched "Happy Days" — those in particular who came from broken homes — on occasion wished aloud they had dads just like Howard Cunningham, a guy who seemed to trust that his children would learn valuable lessons from their mistakes, and when they didn't would ride to their rescue dispensing the kind of earthy wisdom they didn't expect him to have. They believed in him, because he believed in them.

How many children of the '70s, or today, can say that or would admit it about their own parents?
That's why for me and my generation, Tom Bosley's role as Howard Cunningham — or "Mr. C," as The Fonz called him — remains as rich and relevant now as 35 years ago. Many of us still wish, deep down, we had a dad just like him and wonder, as parents, if we'll be anything approaching him.

That's why Tom Bosley may be gone, but Howard Cunningham lives on.

Taking my work with SPJ one step further

As president of the St. Louis Chapter for the Society for Professional Journalists, my job is simple: assist journalists in doing their jobs and trumpet their successes. As a committee member with SPJ national, I work with others around the country to do the same on a much broader stage.

A portion of that stage will be here, on Posterous, one of the must-visit lifestreaming sites on the Web, and another trumpet heralding new ideas and experiences. Journalists the world over are encountering new technologies and challenges in their jobs — among those challenges, the rise of social media and public newsgathering. Some would say this rise creates interference for traditional newsgathering practices that defined credibility and dependability in the larger media. Others welcome the broader reach of information sharing by everyone, not just traditional media, hastened by fast-evolving technical innovation.

Regardless, both views will find a voice in this space, and perhaps other voices will have their utterances recorded here as well. The key is finding ways to make social media and technology work for journalists, not the other way around. Because when it comes to being heard in the 21st century, intellect must trump ignorance, facts must trump fallacy, and sound judgment must trump noise; otherwise, our wonderful and varied means of communication, no matter how advanced, will devolve from tools into toys. And our republic will follow suit.