Digital Biographer™ » Social Media Management Fees, Authority Blogging and Calling yourself Names…

Social Media Management Fees, Authority Blogging and Calling yourself Names… September 10, 2008

Posted by David Petherick in : 2.0, authority, authors, brand, digital biographer, googlicious, online identity, search marketing, social media, Кибер-биограф , trackback

Two terms have come to my attention in the last 24 hours. One was “Social Media Management Fees“, the other “Authority Blogging“.

Social Media Management Fees

Yes. The term makes sense, now that I’ve heard it.Mike Coulter of Digital Agency coined the term today, in a thoughtful blog exploring why what should be an invoice item adding significantly to the bottom line of numerous ad agencies, pr companies, digital agencies and general ‘new media’ outfits, isn’t.

I realise I’ve been charging customers Social Media Management Fees (SMMF) since 2006, but only now realised there was such a concise term to describe what I’m charging money for. I always hated ‘online reputation management’ because it always suggested spin and PR, and glossing over things - something I don’t, and won’t do for customers.

Blog Authority / Authority Blogging

I added the term ‘Authority’ to the list of functions for my company Clarocada in 2005. Clarocada Russia, Clarocada Emedia, which is now termed Clarocada Interactive, Clarocada Barcelona, and Clarocada Authority. I initially was aiming to help authors (those with authority, if you follow) to create a voice online, through blogs and social media, and to help them to promote their work to readers, and to perhaps gain other writing assignments.

I’d forgotten, of course, that authors are, in general, a complete pain in the butt to work with. (There are exceptions, but I am not one of them). So I moved more towards offering my services to those in business, who were idea-rich, but time-poor, in order to let them gain ‘Authority’. The term ‘Digital Biographer‘, which I was tentative about using up until it became the headline in a story on the BBC, has always been one that’s not entirely described ‘the full story’. If it’s good enough for BBC News, it’s certainly good enough for me.

I was also interested to note that in May 2007, Technorati coined the term ‘Authority’ to refer to the number of blogs linking to a site in their ‘Technorati Authority’ - so if 193 sites link to you, you have ‘higher authority’ than if, say, 6 sites link to you.

But it was when I read an article referred to by Chris Brogan yesterday, in his Google Reader Share List, where the term “Authority Blogger” was used to describe a service ‘to learn how to use a blog as a way for growing their profile, credibility and influence’. As I looked at the term, I realised this was what I should have called ‘Clarocada Authority’ three years back.

Never mind. A similar phrase did still appear in the description of the service for writers as ‘Blog Authority’.

Calling Names and Bad Language

It’s natural that as a new set of terms and services evolve, language evolves and new terms are created to describe them - some of which dates and is irrelevant very rapidly, and other elements of which becomes common usage. The term ‘new media’ is already looking a bit tired, but it was all the buzz around 2001. By the same token, the term ‘blog’ is far from universally understood even now, in September 2008. And don’t let’s get started on what ‘Web 2.0′ really means…

However, it’s nice to see that a term I’ve used in the past has come to roost in a niche it describes fairly precisely, and that others use the term with essentially the same meaning. As Mike Coulter put it - “I might be on to something.” An accurate way to describe the service I’m asking people to pay for is most definitely an example of good language!