#also using tags but don’t necessarily resonate with them for a variety of reasons that i’m not gonna go all into in the tags rn lmao

[untanglingknotsinarope]

we’ve been utilizing tubi (free app) to watch childhood favorite shows of ours (also other stuff as well there’s big cat documentaries🤩) but particularly been focused on magic school bus as of recent

wanted to mention it here bc we utilize media as a way to connect with each other and wanted to recommend to other systems out there <3

bonding moments ya know :3

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

There is of course so much wrong with this phrase, and my tag for it is full of various reasons — among them being that people only ever seem to pull it out when it comes to LGBTQA+ persons; it’s othering; it’s not even anywhere in the Bible; and there is evidence it causes real harm — but...

to me the worst thing is that when you say "hate the sin, love the sinner" about an LGBTA+/queer person, what you're saying is "I see the way that the image of God manifests you as sin.”

You’re saying, “I see the Holy Spirit’s gifts to you as sin.” You’re saying, “I see intrinsic elements of who you are, elements that when nurtured can blossom into good fruit for you and for all who come into contact with you, as sin."

To look at what God calls Good and declare it evil is the real “sin” here.

Matthew 12 includes the story of a time that Jesus healed a man whom the people of the day perceived as demon-possessed. Now, some of the people who heard of this compassionate act reasoned that the only way Jesus could have cast out demons is if he’s receiving power from demons (v. 24. And yes, they were Pharisees — but see my #pharisees tag to learn about how to be mindful about the antisemitism in always painting pharisees as the bad guys.)

Jesus’s response to this is to ask why Satan would wage war against himself, and assert that a divided community is a doomed community. “But if,” he says, “I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then already the Kingdom of God has come upon you.” 

...And then he says a really uncomfortable thing: 

"Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven of human beings; but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. So if anyone speaks a word against the Son of Humanity, it will be forgiven them; but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven them, neither in this age nor in the incoming one” (verses 31-32).

I'm typically wary of accusing anyone of committing this so-called "unforgivable sin" — but. When a person insists on seeing queerness as sin, they ARE saying that something that came from the Holy Spirit is evil. To call a good relationship or way of being sinful is blasphemy against the Spirit who guided and blessed that person, that relationship.

Now, I don't think they're "never gonna be forgiven" for that, because they don't know it's what they're doing. (I also don’t believe in hell / eternal punishment, but that’s a whole ’nother story. Also, does having a sin against you that will “not be forgiven” necessarily = eternal punishment anyway?) But it does put them in the wrong in a major way. They must be held accountable, must be prevented from continuing to hurt other human beings with their words and actions.

But Avery, you ask, how do you know queerness comes from the Holy Spirit?

Jesus answers that in this chapter, too! 

“Either consider the tree good and its fruit good, or consider the tree rotten and its fruit rotten. A tree is known by its fruit” (v. 33).

I have a whole tag about good fruit, primarily the good fruit borne when LGBTA+/queer folk are able to live into their gender and sexuality instead of feeling forced to repress of change those aspects of themselves. As Rachel Held Evans once wrote,

“If same-sex relationships are really sinful, then why do they so often produce good fruit—loving families, open homes, self-sacrifice, commitment, faithfulness, joy? And if conservative Christians are really right in their response to same-sex relationships, then why does that response often produce bad fruit—secrets, shame, depression, loneliness, broken families, and fear?”

The fruits of being told by someone you love that they love you, but hate your “sin” — i.e. certain intrinsic aspects of who you are and how you relate to others — are rotten fruits indeed: shame and self-loathing, alienation, broken relationships, communities fragmented into “us” (those who don’t commit this so-called sin) and “them” (those who do).

Meanwhile, the good fruit of queerness speaks to the goodness of its tree, its source. God is the source of our queerness, as God is the source of all that is good, all that is life-giving, all the diversity of humanity that brings vibrance and an endless variety of ways to glorify God.

_______

Further Reading

Exploring the phrase “Love the Sin, Hate the Sinner”:

A piece that explores the phrase’s origins, whether it’s good theology, and how it harms relationships

Article that emphasizes the alienating and dividing consequences of the phrase (be aware the article uses binary language + makes some anti-pharisee comments)

Tumblr post explaining the shame this phrase brings and that “you only hate what we do, but what we do is living.”

“3 Reasons ‘Love the Sinner Hate the Sin’ is an Abomination”

Exploring how queerness / LGBTQA+ identities are indeed from God and affirmed by God as part of the vital diversity of humanity

Nadia Bolz-Weber’s “Sex; a Benediction”

“Your queerness is a gift”

Video: How queerness is a vital, fruitful part of our faith

God rejoices in our transition(s) with us

The Bible + Christian history are full of trans-resonant figures

“What’s God’s point of view on nonbinary people?”

More info about how being LGBTQ+ is not a sin

[megmahoneyart]

why did you draw michael who is white as looking more remorseful and human on half his face than helen who you depict as a black woman who appears angry with both of her eyes spiraled? even despite michaels vocal insistence that he is wholly an inhuman monster and his cruel actions you draw him looking more innocent and human than a black woman who has not done anything nearly as monstrous as him and held onto her human identity more strongly?

Okay!  So, I use this blog to draw and not to talk, but I’m suuuper long-winded when I write.  And to spare the general public, I’ve put this answer under a read-more.  But it’s a good and valid question!  And I appreciate anon’s concern; I thought the question deserved as good an answer as I could give.  So that answer is below:

That’s a totally valid question!  I didn’t intend to convey “remorseful” so much as, upset, with Michael.  Angry wasn’t necessarily what I was going for with Helen either--so it sounds like my expressions overall aren’t reading super well. Helen was meant to be more, I think enthusiastic, is the word I’m looking for.

The big difference between Helen and Michael isn’t one of them being more innocent or more guilty than the other.  The difference is the amount of conflict.  Helen has repeatedly brought up how much better she is at being The Distortion than Michael ever was.  Michael had a lot of knowledge about the Fears, and The Spiral, in particular, before becoming The Distortion than Helen did.  And, along with that, he brought the baggage of being taught that his job was to fight the fears, and the baggage of being scarred by The Spiral before working for the Institute.  He kind of sucks at being The Distortion because his job was to stop The Distortion from performing The Spiral’s ritual--and that leaves both The Distortion hating Michael for fucking up its purpose, and Michael hating The Distortion because it’s the embodiment of what he hated and feared as a human.  Everything Michael Distortion does is double-minded--because part of him is like “Hey I used to work here, and these guys are technically my co-workers, and I kind of want to hang out with them, but I also hate this place” and part of him is “I want to Fuck Everything Up, and I hate All of these people and would be happy to see them dead.”  

Helen, on the other hand, doesn’t have the baggage of foreknowledge or hatred.  She’s Michael Distortion’s victim, at first.  But the second she has an opening to turn the tables, she jumps on it.  And the reason she had an opening is because Michael and The Distortion were at odds and schisming and in Conflict.  She’s set up in season 4 to be a kind of narrative foil for Jon--as they have both become avatars without really meaning to (like the majority of avatars that have showed up on the show).  In Season 4, Jon is constantly agonizing over what exactly he is now, and futilely circling around the morality of his continued existence.  Helen, in season 4, is beyond this point.  She has already accepted the Way Things Are now, and she’s dealing--constantly telling Jon he needs to deal with it (the reality of being a “monster” too).  By season 5, she’s not just dealing, she’s Thriving.  And in seasons 4 and 5, at any opportunity, she (Helen Distortion) is always down to remind Jon (and co) that she is So Much Better at being what she is (The Distortion) than Michael ever was.  

I think Helen Richardson probably had a stronger character than Michael Shelley did, as humans as well.  Not saying that one was better than the other. But Helen was a successful career-woman.  Michael started at the institute as a scared kid, who was then groomed by Gertrude and psychologically experimented on by Emma.  I could never see Helen Richardson ever being someone Gertrude Robinson could emotionally manipulate, or convince to “sacrifice” herself.

And all of that informs how I characterize these two characters’ personalities when I draw them.  And that doesn’t touch on the race issue.

Unfortunately, TMA doesn’t explicitly describe many characters’ race or ethnicity.  A Lot has been said about the few negative vs positive characters who are explicitly characters of color.  It’s kind of a black-and-grey-morality podcast.  But on the side of the protagonists/positively-portrayed you’ve got Oliver Banks, Adelard Dekker, Basira Hussain, Mikaele Salesa.  On the enemy-aligned side you’ve got Jude Perry, Tom and John Haan, Manuela Dominguez, and Annabelle Cane.  And those on the positive side are pretty flawed (aside from Adelard Dekker who is an anomaly on this show); and those on the negative side usually have at least some alternate-character-interpretations and can be viewed as sympathetic (lookin at you, Annabelle).  A lot of discussion has gone into their characterizations and how that relates to their respective races--and the problems therein (Jude Perry is startlingly devoid of family concerns--when culturally a large part of being a successful businesswoman would usually relate to how it benefits or affects her family; Mikaele Salesa’s setting up an Apocalypse Bunker without the crew he cared for is peak White behavior; bastard cops that are WOC (like Basira) absolutely exist--but should a story about a WOC bastard cop be written by a white guy?; the Haans being avatars for The Flesh is straight-up racist; etc).  

But again, the list of characters that are explicitly characters of color is Short.  And the fandom filled in some gaps.  Almost all of the characters get a variety of designs, and some characters don’t have a Uniform Fanon Race (like Melanie).  But some characters are almost always portrayed as a certain race (Jon is almost always portrayed as Desi or Pakistani, Georgie is almost always portrayed as black, Helen is almost always portrayed as black).  I came into the show late.  By the time I arrived, Desi/Pakistani Jon and black Helen were the only Jon and the only Helen I saw when I showed up.  (The first sketches I did for the show, I did before seeing any fan art, and before hearing any canon descriptors.  As such, Georgie would be unrecognizable to most of the fandom--because I drew her white the first time I drew her; and Martin is Too Small in my first sketches--because they were drawn before I got to episodes that described him as tall and chubby and before I saw the fantart--which gives us the Big Martin we deserve).  So that’s why my Helen is black.  (My Michael is white because he is physically described early in the show--and is one of the confirmed white characters).

That said, I accepted the generally-agreed-upon fan depictions of Helen (and other characters) without a whole lot of critical thought from Me.  I’ve since read a lot of good takes on why Jon is depicted as Desi and why his characterization has resonated with certain Desi listeners.  I haven’t read any dissertation on why Helen is black.  My guess is that, where there were no canon physical descriptions (like with Taz Balance before the graphic novels), the fandom Made representation because they wanted it and because they could.  Maybe there was discourse, back in the day, on why Georgie and Helen are usually depicted as black; but I didn’t see it.  My (completely uninformed) guess is that people liked Georgie.  And people liked Helen.  And if they could make the cool lady with a great cat that is incapable of being afraid black, and if they could make the cool lady who has sharp hands and set up her house in the Institute basement for fun black, why not do it?

If you, anon, do have strong feelings that Helen shouldn’t be black and why, feel free to pass that on to me.  I am Not the authority on Helen’s characterization or her appearance--especially as related to race--as I’m 1) white and 2) just another listener of the show.

If I were to start drawing Helen as white, she’d probably be unrecognizable to people that are looking through the tag for their sharp-handed wife.  And I like Helen.  So without additional information, I’m unlikely to change my depiction of her.  But!  If you (or anybody else) do have additional information, I’m happy to see/hear it, and will take any concerns raised with me into consideration.

[veliseraptor]

I’m sorry to be a bother to you, and if you do not feel comfortable answering my question, I’m perfectly fine with either being unanswered or you can message me privately, whichever you wish. I was intrigued by your tag regarding the Jewish shooting. ‘You chose this and don’t regret it’ which I 100% applaud you for. Can I ask why you chose Judaism? The appeal for you I mean, cause if not mistaken you said your a recent convertee, correct? I apologize if this feels rude, just truly curious.

This is a very personal thing, but I guess I don’t feel that weird about answering it, for whatever reason, and sometimes it’s fun for me to talk about this stuff. Because it’s…I mean, it was a pretty big thing that I did. I feel like I don’t always absorb that, but…converting into Judaism is a pretty serious project. People compare it to an adoption, and I think there’s a truth to that.

There were a few reasons. The initial push was because of @ameliarating. We’d been in a relationship for a number of years, and were talking about our future together, and it was becoming increasingly clear that there was this big part of her life that I wasn’t a part of, and that was hard on us both. There was this piece of her that I couldn’t touch, that I was separate from, and I felt weird about it, and I know she struggled with it too. We had a lot of super emotional conversations. I wrestled a lot with the idea of converting. 

I grew up Christian - my family went to church every Sunday. I started drifting away from it for a variety of reasons in middle school, but I kept going anyway, mostly out of habit. I didn’t feel much of a connection, though. I didn’t really know what I believed. I didn’t really feel like I believed in God, or Jesus, or felt any kind of resonance with the experience. It didn’t feel special to me. There was just…nothing there. So the idea of taking up a new religion was…a confusing and difficult one, and got tangled up with some other personal issues. But ultimately, for a variety of reasons, I decided to go ahead with it. 

So that was where I started, but when I make up my mind to do something I tend to kind of…throw myself into it with both feet. I’d been asking Amelia questions about Judaism for years, watching her practice. I was always curious, always interested, because when people I care about are invested in things I tend to get interested in them (and also because I’m just a curious person). I had a little bit of a background of knowledge, and that gave me a grounding to start from. I started seeing a rabbi on my own, picked up some books to start reading, started going to classes - studying. 

And over the course of the just over a year I spent in the conversion process, I really started connecting with Judaism on my own. One of the things that drew me in first was the ritual. The patterns that guide you through the week, and through each service - the blessings that you say, the songs you sing. And the knowledge, I think very powerfully, that these are all things that other Jews have been saying for thousands of years. That there’s a line of continuity going back and back and back, and now I’m a part of that. There’s something very powerful about that on its own, and regardless of faith, I feel like there’s a holiness in and of itself in that kind of repetition. It engraves something in the world. 

Another thing is the grounding in study. I’m an intellectual in a lot of ways. I thrive on academia, on reading and learning and examining and discussing texts, and that is a major part of being Jewish. There’s a huge emphasis on the importance of study, and a tradition of analysis and re-analysis and re-re-analysis, of commentary and conversation and debate. And that’s all stuff that I love. The energy of digging into a text and unearthing new pieces from it, new interpretations, new thoughts - or just reading old thoughts and turning them over in my head to see what I make of them. Judaism is a religion that argues and self-interrogates constantly, and always has. In the Talmud, while there is usually a final ruling on law, the minority opinion stays there. There’s something very expressive about that inclusion, I think - that even if it’s not the majority decision, it still remains present, written down.

Tied to that is the way that Judaism is a very dialectical religion. I am a person who has a lot of ambivalence. Who exists in tension, in a lot of ways, often caught between two ideas, holding both of them in her head at the same time. And that’s something that’s very much present and encouraged in Judaism, in my experience - a lot of things are built around holding two things in your head at once, two opposites at the same time, and balancing those two things without letting one necessarily overcome the other. I really, really like that. 

I’ve also just found…such a beauty and a power and a strength in my adoptive communities. So much welcome and warmth and a willingness to embrace me, and take me in, without hesitation. On the Shabbat after I converted, when I went to my first service as a Jew (I’d been going for a while, but), got my first aliyah - the enthusiasm and joy with which people responded - coming up to dance in a circle, singing - was I think what set in stone for me that this was where I wanted to be.

[mygoddessmusings]

Slothwoman - Designing Effective Rituals

In my post on ritual in Goddess Spirituality, I discussed how the main work of the ritual is the heart around which the rest of the ritual is designed. It is therefore important to put thought and care into designing or selecting a good main work for your ritual. I’ve come across a number of spell memes and ritual ideas on social media and in personal interactions recently that I feel have been poorly designed one way or another, so I thought I would share a couple thoughts and rules of thumb I use to design effective ritual activities and spot questionable ideas.

Slothwoman

For a ritual or spell to be effective, it must engage what the Reclaiming and Faerie Traditions call the Younger Self and what the Dianic tradition calls Slothwoman. Call her what you will, Slothwoman is your deep, primal, subconscious self. She retains the ability to see the magic and wonder in the world, and to effect real, lasting change in ourselves and the world, we must reach inward to this deep self. Like ripples spreading outward on a pond, if our ritual reaches, touches, changes Slothwoman, the change spreads out from her, at the core of our being, into our conscious, “Talking” self and the web of energy around us.

Talking to Slothwoman

Our Talking Self is our outward self, or conscious mind, who can be appealed to with words, logic, and reasoning. Slothwoman, however, is not one for speeches, sermons, or debate. Rather, she speaks the languages of color, symbolism, music, and the senses. This is why it is preferable to have altar and ritual spaces decorated to fit the theme of the ritual. Being able to engage with colors, textures, scents, and sounds evocative of the ritual theme wakes Slothwoman up and gives her context for the proceedings. Some spoken word is usually desired though, to keep the ritual flowing and engage all participants. So what are some rules of thumb for talking to Slothwoman?

Brevity - Keep it short. This is a personal pitfall of mine. I like to write, and I tend to wax on. However, this not only runs the risk of dissipating whatever energy has been raised for your ritual purpose, it can also bore Slothwoman. Err on the side of brevity for any talky bits leading into the main work.

Poetry - The rhythm, rhyme, repetition, and play of syllable and stress in poetry can be engaging for Slothwoman. Weaving some poetry into your invocations and incantations is usually a good idea. You may think “I’m no poet!” But this does not need to be complicated or overly flowery. Simple rhyming couplets or use of repetition are easy ways to add musicality to your ritual language. I’d recommend checking out my prayers and poetry tag for a variety of examples.

Specificity - Careful what you wish for. Particularly when it comes to spell work, be clear about what you’re trying to accomplish. Try to avoid ambiguous or contradictory language.

Actions Speak Louder - Finally, no matter your poetry, brevity, or specificity, if your actions, symbols, and context say one thing, while your mouth says another, actions trump words every time.

Context is Key

Something that can be a little confusing if you are just starting out in Goddessia is that the same or similar actions may be described in differing rituals to bring about very different results: "planting" something in the ground to make it manifest and "burying" something to get rid of or transform it; burning something to bring it to you quickly and burning something to get rid of it; dissolving something in water to banish it and dissolving it into water to symbolically infuse it. The key deciding factor in what the action "means" in a given ritual is the context: in a Spring Equinox ritual, full of images of budding flowers and new beginnings, placing something in the ground is necessarily going to have a planting connotation; whereas, in a Fall Equinox ritual, with themes of harvest, death, and going to the underworld, placing something in the ground will have a burying connotation. This is why rituals will often advise a specific moon phase or time of day that they should be done. It may seem arbitrary on the surface, but the context of the rest of the ritual as well as the energies of the moon phase/season/etc. will guide Slothwoman on how she is to interpret the proceedings.

Additionally, while the same action may be used toward different ends, it's best to avoid using the same action for two different purposes in the same ritual. If you're planting something to manifest it, for example, you do not want to use burying to banish in the same ritual. Depending on the context, Slothwoman will decide on which interpretation of the action makes sense, and the ritual is not going to have all the outcomes you desire (eg. banishing things you want to manifest or vice versa). Even if there is some difference between the actions that you can rationalize as making them distinct, remember: Slothwoman does not do rationalization; it either resonates on an intuitive level or it doesn't.

Raising Energy

If it is a ritual where energy is raised toward a particular purpose, be mindful of when in the ritual the energy is raised in relation to when it will be put to work. As I mentioned in the post on ritual, in a simple ritual with a single activity, this may be a separate, preceding step, or if the main work of the ritual is complex or multi-part, raising the energy might be done in the middle, or at the end. For example, if you're doing a group ritual, where the main work is a piece of ritual theater followed by a magical working, you probably don't want to raise the energy, only to have everyone stop and observe the ritual theater; rather, the ritual theater would give way into some energy raising activity, which would then be directed into a magical work or intent. Or for a simpler example, say you are doing a solitary ritual to make and bless some sort of ritual or magical item. It will likely be a better idea to make the item first, then raise and direct the energy into it, rather than raise the energy and spend 20 minutes trial-and-error bracelet making (... for example). When looking at ritual ideas, consider how long it would take to do each of the steps, and don't be afraid to switch some steps around or add steps in to suit your needs, particularly if combining ideas from multiple rituals or adapting solitary rituals to a group setting (certain things will naturally take longer in a group setting).

I hope this post is helpful for anyone trying to separate the wheat from the chaff of the deluge of rituals available on blogs and books.

Happy exploring!

Nara

[minnievirizarry]

How to build a better business with B2B social listening

If you’re a B2B brand, chances are you already have plenty on your plate.

However, that’s no excuse to sleep on social listening.

Think about it. Customers and competitors are sounding off like never before on social media, especially in the ever-so-opinionated B2B space.

And so the rules of succeeding with B2B social media are changing. Digging into the data behind your mentions can lead to a treasure trove of insight to help you make actionable business decisions.

That is, if you’re listening.

Want to uncover what exactly what products and features customers want? Looking to get a leg up on your competition? With the help of B2B social listening, those answers are just a few clicks away.

In this guide, we’ll highlight how B2B brands can use social listening to build a better business and how to get started ASAP.

What are the big-picture benefits of B2B social listening?

Some B2B brands might see social media as a black hole when it comes to ROI.

Harsh, but we get it.

Let’s consider how B2B social listening can be a game-changer in terms of what you get out of your social presence, though.

Every interaction and engagement with your customers via social media is a valuable data point. Meanwhile, there’s arguably no better place to conduct competitive analysis and track industry trends.

Rather than treat social media like a time-sink, treat it as a place to gather business intelligence. Below are some key ways that B2B social listening does exactly that.

Make better sense of your shout-outs

People don’t take the time to tag you for no reason.

Maybe they have something to say about your customer service. Perhaps they have feedback on a particular product or feature.

Either way, B2B social listening helps put those mentions into context.

For example, this shout-out from a satisfied Sprout customer reinforces the fact that our customer support team is crushing it.

If you want to know whether or not a new feature or roll-out will be well received, social media is a great place to gather unfiltered feedback. For example, Skype recently reintroduced its “Away” status feature which resulted in a flurry of different responses from followers.

The takeaway? Behind every @mention notification is some sort of sentiment or feedback your business can learn from and act on.

Keep up with call-out culture

Like it or not, we live in a call-out culture online.

Customers and critics are anything but shy on social media. For B2B brands, call-outs for poor customer service, bad product experiences and pricing concerns can be particularly painful for your reputation.

Ignoring these sorts of mistakes is obviously a bad look. Likewise, you’ll oftentimes see competing products recommended in social call-out threads where your name is being dragged. Heck, sometimes competing brands might even swoop in to sound off, too.

Brands are expected to own their mistakes even when they aren’t even necessarily making, well, mistakes. Take for example Slack’s recent logo change which received a somewhat mixed reaction from customers.

Although many customers absolutely adored the new design, there was some pushback as well. Slack managed to respond diplomatically to each call-out and, at times, even took the comments in jest.

And on the flip side, Slack also managed to show love to customers who were supportive of the change.

Reality check: you need to be prepared to deal with the good and the bad when it comes to your mentions. Call-out culture isn’t going anywhere, which is why B2B social listening is so important for maintaining a positive relationship with your customers and industry at large.

Give customers exactly what they want

Want to know what products, features and services that your customers want?

Look no further than the social space.

Whether it’s current customers or prospects, people are constantly asking for recommendations via social to figure out which brands deserve their business.

And if someone is thinking about bouncing to a competitor, you need to take the time to understand why.

Social listening can help highlight the unique selling propositions of your own business in addition to your competitors. Having a pulse on both is crucial to your marketing and positioning moving forward.

Conduct more comprehensive competitive analysis

Speaking of competitors, B2B social listening makes it so much easier to keep an eye on your competition.

For example, monitoring industry-specific hashtags can help you understand what terms and types of content are resonating with your audience. Here’s a snapshot of a hashtag and keyword report from Sprout Social, highlighting branded and industry tags alike.

Consider also that not all conversations surrounding your business are happening on the likes of Twitter or LinkedIn.

Through comprehensive online social listening, you can assess what brands are being talked about on networks like YouTube which are hotbeds for B2B discussion that you may have been overlooking. This again highlights why brands need to not only track keywords for their business, but also take a holistic approach to B2B social listening that spans a variety of sources.

Target your prospecting efforts

As noted, social listening isn’t solely about your current customers: it’s about finding new ones as well.

You already know that your customers are on social media, right? Contacting them directly about your product is totally fair game, especially in the era of social selling and account-based marketing.

How to come up with a B2B social listening strategy

Just like anything else in the marketing world, you can’t just “wing” social listening.

There’s so much information to sift through and plenty of networks to cover.

If it all seems daunting, don’t panic quite yet.

Below is a breakdown of how you can come up with a B2B social listening strategy that makes sense for your brand.

Pick your priority networks

There’s no denying that there’s a lot of noise in the social space.

That’s why you need to focus on your social listening on places the most important conversations about your business are happening.

In terms of B2B social listening, Twitter and LinkedIn are typically considered the “big two.”

Why, though? For starters, Twitter represents a massive customer service channel. If there’s anywhere that customers are going to shout you out or raise a concern, chances are it’s Twitter. Also, many B2B brands and influencers use Twitter threads as an opportunity to sound off on industry happenings.

That said, LinkedIn is crucial to your B2B listening strategy. Given that a staggering 80% of B2B leads come from LinkedIn, you quite literally can’t afford to ignore the undisputed professional social network.

Beyond acquiring leads, LinkedIn offers a place for B2B brands to flex their influence. For example, let’s say you’re part of a “best of” listicle or you have customers highlighting your awesome new product on LinkedIn. These are the sort of valuable interactions that cement you as an industry player yourself.

Don’t neglect “secondary” social conversations

Some of the most important conversations surrounding your business are happening where you might not even be looking

Once you’ve locked down your mentions and tags on your priority network, take the time to dig through additional social sites to see what folks are saying about your brand.

For example, Quora is a popular place for consumers to pit brands against each other. It’s totally fair game to respond to such queries yourself, although many B2B brands don’t capitalize on these conversations.

The same rings true on Reddit. Although responding directly as a marketer might be discouraged, Reddit is a fantastic place to gather real-world industry insights beyond your marketing bubble.

Also, think about the conversations happening on B2B-specific sites such as Growth Hackers. If you’re invested in content marketing or fellow B2B brands see you as an industry leader, you need to be able to leverage those mentions.

Listen beyond your brand name

If you’re just listening to your brand name, you’re inevitably hindering your B2B social listening efforts.

For example, you need to monitor product or industry-specific keywords related to your business. These sorts of queries are what’s going to lead you to prospects and conversations where you can make your brand known.

The same logic rings true for hashtags. Signaling your own content as part of a larger conversation, hashtags can also clue you in on what content your competition is creating.

Take advantage of a social listening tool

Obviously, there are a ton of networks and conversations for your business to sift through.

Rather than do it “by hand,” let a B2B social listening tool do the legwork for you.

Specifically, Sprout’s social listening features allow you to monitor the critical conversations about your business and deliver in-depth analytics that put them into context. With the help of our query builder, you can search specific brand mentions, keywords and hashtags that pop up throughout the social space. Oh, and this also includes those “secondary” networks like Reddit.

With analytics including search volume, engagement and sentiment analysis, you can take a data-driven approach to tune up your marketing campaigns. This ensures that your social presence grows while also improving your sentiment among customers and prospects. Sounds like a win-win, right?

And with that, we wrap up our guide!

Are you on board with B2B social listening?

Listen: the B2B space is crowded. Anything you can do to cut through the noise to determine what your customers want is a huge plus.

With the help of B2B social listening, you can do exactly that.

From emerging trends to improving relationships with your customers and beyond, social listening can clue you in on what your next marketing moves should be. Any B2B brand should make social listening a priority, especially when there are social listening tools out there such as Sprout that can do most of the work for you.

We want to hear from you, though. What are you doing to listen to your customers and competitors? Where do you think the most important conversations in your industry are happening? Let us know in the comments below!

This post How to build a better business with B2B social listening originally appeared on Sprout Social.

from SM Tips By Minnie https://sproutsocial.com/insights/b2b-social-listening/

[chrisaldrich]

Thoughts on linkblogs, bookmarks, reads, likes, favorites, follows, and related links

Within the social media space there’s a huge number of services that provide a variety of what I would call bookmark-type functionality of one sort or another. They go under a variety of monikers including bookmarks, likes, favorites, stars, reads, follows, claps, and surely many quirky others. Each platform has created its own semantics which don’t always overlap with the others.

Because I’m attempting to own all of my own data, I’ve roughly mapped many of these intents into my own website. But because I have the ultimate control over them, I get to form my own personal definitions. I also have a lot more control over them in addition to adding other metadata to each for better after-the-fact search and use within my personal online commonplace book. As such, I thought it might be useful to lay out some definitions (both for myself and others) for how I view these on my website.

At the basest level, I look at most of these interactions simply as URL permalinks to interesting content and their aggregation as a “linkblog”, or a feed of interesting links I’ve come across. The specific names given to them imply a level of specificity about what I think exactly makes them interesting.

In addition to a bookmark specific feed, which by itself could be considered a “traditional” linkblog, my site also has separate aggregated feeds for things I’ve liked, read, followed, and favorited. It’s the semantic reasons for saving or featuring these pieces of content which ultimately determine which names they ultimately have. (For those interested in subscribing to one or or more, or all of these, one can add /feed/ to the ends of the specific types’ URLs, which I’ve linked,  for an RSS feed. Thus, for example, http://boffosocko.com/type/link/feed/ will give you the RSS feed for the “Master” linkblog that includes all the bookmarks, likes, reads, follows, and favorites.)

On my site, I try to provide a title for the content and some type of synopsis of what the content is about. These help to provide some context to others seeing them as well as a small reminder to me of what they were about. When appropriate/feasible, I’ll try to include an image for similar reasons. I’ll also often add a line of text or two as a commentary or supplement to my thoughts on the piece. Finally, I add an icon to help to quickly visually indicate which of the types of posts each is, so they can be more readily distinguished when seen in aggregate.

In relative order of decreasing importance or value to me I would put them in roughly the following order of importance (with their attached meanings as I view them on my site):

Favorite – This is often something which might easily have had designations of bookmark, like, and/or read, or even multiple of them at the same time. In any case they’re often things which I personally find important or valuable in the long term. There are far less of these than any of the other types of linkblog-like posts.

Follow – Indicating that I’m now following a person, organization, or source of future content which I deem to have enough regular constant value to my life that I want to be able to see what that source is putting out on a regular basis. Most often these sources have RSS feeds which I consume in a feed reader, but frequently they’ll appear on other social silos which I will have ported into a feed reader as well. Of late I try to be much more selective in what I’m following and why. I also categorize sources based on topics of value to me. Follows often include sources which I have either previously often liked or bookmarked or suspect I would like or bookmark frequently in the future. For more details see: A Following Page (aka some significant updates to my Blogroll) and the actual Following page.

Read – These are linkblog-like posts which I found interesting enough for one reason or another to have actually spent the time to read in their entirety. For things I wish to highlight or found most interesting, I’ll often add additional thought or commentary in conjunction with the post.

Like – Depending on the content, these posts may not always have been read in their entirety, but I found them more interesting than the majority of content which I’ve come across. Most often these posts serve to show my appreciation for the original source of the related post as a means of saying “congratulations”, “kudos”, “good job”, or in cases of more personal level content “I appreciate this”, “you’re awesome”, or simply as the tag says “I liked this.”

Bookmark – Content which I find interesting, but might not necessarily have the time to deal with at present. Often I’ll wish to circle back to the content at some future point and engage with at a deeper level. Bookmarking it prevents me from losing track of it altogether. I may optionally add a note about how the content came to my attention to be able to better remember it at a future time. While there are often things here which others might have “liked” or “favorited” on other social silos, on my site these things have been found interesting enough to have been bookmarked, but I haven’t personally read into them enough yet to form any specific opinion about them beyond their general interest to me or potentially followers interested in various category tags I use. I feel like this is the lowest level of interaction, and one in which I see others often like, favorite, or even repost on other social networks without having actually read anything other than the headline, if they’ve even bothered to do that. In my case, however, I more often than not actually come back to the content while others on social media rarely, if ever, do.

While occasionally some individual specimens of each might “outrank” others in the category above this is roughly the order of how I perceive them. Within this hierarchy, I do have some reservations about including the “follow” category, which in some sense I feel stands apart from the continuum represented by the others. Still it fits into the broader category of a thing with a URL, title, and high interest to me. Perhaps the difference is that it represents a store of future potentially useful information that hasn’t been created or consumed yet? An unseen anti-library of people instead of books in some sense of the word.

I might also include the Reply post type toward the top of the list, but for some time I’ve been categorizing these as “statuses” or “note-like” content rather than as “links”. These obviously have a high priority if lumped in as I’ve not only read and appreciated the underlying content, but I’ve spent the time and thought to provide a reasoned reply, particularly in cases where the reply has taken some time to compose. I suppose I might more likely include these as linkblog content if I didn’t prefer readers to value them more highly than if they showed up in those feeds. In some sense, I value the replies closer on par to my longer articles for the value of not only my response, but for that of the original posts themselves.

In general, if I take the time to add additional commentary, notes, highlights, or other marginalia, then the content obviously resonated with me much more than those which stand as simple links with titles and descriptions.

Perhaps in the near future, I’ll write about how I view these types on individual social media platforms. Often I don’t post likes/favorites from social platforms to my site as they often have less meaning to me directly and likely even less meaning to my audiences here. I suppose I could aggregate them here on my site privately, but I have many similar questions and issues that Peter Molnar brings up in his article Content, Bloat, privacy, arichives.

I’m curious to hear how others apply meaning to their linkblog type content especially since there’s such a broad range of meaning from so many social sites. Is there a better way to do it all? Is it subtly different on sites which don’t consider themselves (or act as) commonplace books?