The sites are supposed to help people keep track of their friends and what they are doing. For businesses, the idea is that if you or I see a number of our friends going to eat at a particular restaurant or watching the same movie, we will be inspired to do the same. That is supposed to increase the business’ sales.

It doesn’t appear to me that people are using those sites as their creators’ intended. Two things seem to be happening.

The first is that people are not just sharing a new restaurant or a good movie. No, they are listing everywhere they go and everything they do. Some of the things I have been notified about are that people are going for run, stopping to buy gas, grocery shopping, going to their office, and a myriad of other things. I can literally track some people through their entire day.

The only thing I haven’t yet seen – and I assume this will happen sooner or later – is someone will notify the world they have stopped to use the restroom.

The second thing that seems to be happening is many users seem to be dropping out of the services after they use them for a time. I suspect that people out on a Saturday night just forget to notify everyone where they are and what they are doing. I have noticed that some people used to notify of every step they took (my apologies to Sting) seem to have disappeared.

What is happening to these sites illustrates one of the pitfalls of social media. Some people seem not to have any kind of brake on their postings. They tell the world everything they are doing. I am not a psychiatrist so I cannot give you a professional analysis of why they do that.

However, it does seem to me to be a trifle narcissistic to constantly announce what you are doing and where you are doing it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I really don’t care if you are at the gas station.

This is causing what I believe is another detrimental effect. I get so many notifications from people that they clog up my inbox. I tend to delete them because of that. I just don’t have time to go through all of them.

That means that if by chance someone does go to restaurant or movie in which I am interested, I am not likely to see it. That’s not good if you own a business. It means your message is getting buried.

Yes, I know that social media marketing calls for businesses to cede control of their brand to consumers. However, if I were a business owner, I would not cede my brand to a bunch of people who spend their time clogging up others’ in-boxes. That would seem to be counterproductive.

That’s just one more reason social media marketing has to be carefully targeted toward and audience and a goal. It should be used as a scalpel, not a meat ax.

Besides, isn’t it just a bunch of tweens, teens and 20-somethings who use those sites? I often hear from executives that my daughter and her friends use Facebook all of the time. My son seems to be constantly playing games online with his friends. Does anyone seriously think I can sell my industrial widgets to that demographic?

After they say that, they are going to lean back into their chair. You had better be able to make that sales pitch.

The first thing you should do is explain pull marketing. In brief, Pull marketing is not about pulling consumers in; it’s about giving consumers a reason to opt into a company. Consumers are in control; they decide where they go and what they experience.

Pull marketing means that companies go to clients, join their communities, give them reasons to voluntarily draw the company into their personal media experiences. They’re opting into the companies, not the other way around. Companies are being forced to give up some control over their brands.

That’s a hard concept of many companies to swallow. For decades, marketers have had it their way. This idea of giving up control makes the leadership nervous. Remember, most leaders are numbers people – accountants, engineers, and the like. They think they can control all the variables that go into selling their product.

Frankly, that’s nonsense. Marketing is an unpredictable thing. Anyone who says differently is naïve, lying, or has their head stuck in the sand. The best that can be hoped for is to reduce the chances of something going wrong.

Social media provides a better chance of that.

Why? Because normally the whole marketing campaign is created at an agency where six 20-something creatives couple their work with a 30-something senior account director, who in turn reports to a 40-something vice-president, who then takes the concept to the client’s 50-something chief marketing officer, who approves it. Throw in a focus group or two, and maybe two dozen people have signed off on the idea. It is then fired like an artillery shell into the general public with the idea that it will hit its target. The hope is the “explosion” will be big enough to sell the product.

Consumers these days, in general, are smart enough to get out of the way. That’s why more and more traditional campaigns fail.

So what needs to be done is to show the company’s leaders the facts on traditional campaign failures. The numbers are out there. I see no reason to repeat them here.

As I said, most CEOs are numbers people. They want everything the company invests time and money in to be quantifiable. That can also be done with social media. Again the numbers are there. I would suggest going to Hubspot – the Cambridge, Mass.-based social media wizards. They have all the facts and figures you need.

Be prepared to gently push back. There will be skeptics. A lot of old line-marketing people feel threatened by social media. As I said, to them it something “those kids” use. Well, I am older than most of the marketers and I think social media is the way to go.

Remember, social media is here to stay. Be gentle, be patient, but be firm when selling it.

Let me tell you where I stand – I am very reluctant to connect with someone who does not include a picture. I am active on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Friendfeed, YouTube, Plaxo and a number of other sites. You will find my mug on every site that asks for it. My feeling is the more information one provides, the better.

Although I have not read every comment in the photo debate – who has the time – those taking the time to write something seem to be split 50-50 on the question. What amazes me is that people are writing fairly long posts on the issue. Of course, like most of these discussions, it wanders off course and ends up being filled with invective.

As an aside, I am continually amazed how people are willing to say things on the ‘Net that they would never say to a person’s face. Someone needs to write an “Emily Post” for the web.

Getting back to my main point, providing as much information about yourself and company is extremely important. Let me count the ways:

• A company that would like to do business is going to do its homework. That means they are going to gather as much information as possible about your business. Make it easy for them. It is human nature to favor the easiest path. If you make them search too much, they are going to look at some other company.
• The same goes for those of you looking for a job. The last statistic I saw showed that 85 percent of human resources people go to LinkedIn first. Besides making it easier, the more information you provide, the better. When things are missing, those make hiring tend to get suspicious.
  • A note about running pictures for those job seekers who, like me, are aging. I have heard the argument that we have a better chance with hiring managers if they don’t see our picture. So what are you going to do when you go to the interview? From your resume alone they are going to figure out how old you are. To me, it is a form of lying not to include a picture.
• The more information provided, the higher your company’s search ranking. That is, of course, if you provide the information with SEO in mind. Of course, you want that higher ranking so more people can find your business.

Now I know many people argue that won’t provide some information because of the fear of identity theft. Well, unfortunately, an identity thief doesn’t need your online profile. There is so much information floating around out there about all of us that it is impossible to keep much things secret anymore.

Of course, no one should post such things as their birthday. That’s just common sense. But one of the things you give up when you go on the Web is a lot of your privacy. It is just world we live in.

So lean into it and post that picture and all the other information. It is going to help much more than it will hurt.

Facebook has more users, YouTube has more viewers, Twitter updates more often but LinkedIn is where the people and companies you want to reach reside. As I tell clients, LinkedIn is the adult Facebook.

“ … what businesspeople appreciate and respect about LinkedIn is that is has significant processes and controls that keep it from becoming like Facebook,” writes LinkedIn expert Wayne Breitbarth in his book The Power Formula for LinkedIn Success. Kick-start Your Business, Brand and Job Search.

I highly recommend Breitbarth’s book. I have over 13,000 followers on LinkedIn. I thought I knew everything there was to know about the site. After reading the book, I realized that I knew just enough to be dangerous. Thanks to Breitbarth’s book, I am a much more savvy LinkedIn user.

So the first question is why used LinkedIn? I will let Breitbarth explain. He explains it through what he calls the Power Formula: “Your Unique Experience + Your Unique Relationships + The Tool (in this case, LinkedIn) = The Power.

What he means is that combining LinkedIn with your existing relationships and experiences will give you a decided advantage over your competitors. By using LinkedIn you can develop and refine your brand by a creating strong LinkedIn profile and expanding your network of contacts. Doing those things will help you accomplish your goals for yourself and your company.

LinkedIn is the place to show your experience and your expertise. It is the place where those you respect can state that in an endorsement. It is where you can connect with potential clients and employees. It is pretty much the Swiss army knife of social media sites.

Now there are many ways to use LinkedIn. But use it you must. You cannot simply sign up for it and expect the masses to find you.

The first you have to do is set up as complete a profile as possible. Breitbarth calls the top part where you list your name, title, business and location the “30-second bumper sticker.” The information listed there travels around LinkedIn with you as you post information, join groups, and comment on other’s activities. As Breitbarth points out this is the more important section of LinkedIn. He has found that many people will look no further than that box. Let me add that when I search for somebody, that’s the first thing that comes up on Google.

I also, and Breitbarth agrees, strongly advocate putting a professional looking photo there. To me not including a photo means you are hiding something. I know the argument that many of my fellow boomers make – that people are going to know how old they are if they post that picture. Well you know what, they are going to find anyway. If someone contacts you through LinkedIn for a job interview, what are going to do – have plastic surgery to make yourself look 26-years-old? So just deal with it.

After that, the key to profile to your profile is being as detailed as possible. The last study I read found that 85 percent of human resources people to go LinkedIn first when looking for a job candidate. You want to give them as many reasons as possible to pick you.

The next key is endorsements. This shows what others think of your work. People have been kind enough to endorse my work. It shows potential clients or customers that you are someone with whom they should do business.

Now, I have a firm rule on endorsements. I will not endorse anyone who I have not worked with. It is simply dishonest. How can one provide an objective analysis of work you have never seen. Likewise, I will not ask for endorsement from someone I don’t know.

Now, I have been lucky in that most of my endorsements are unsolicited. I think those are those are the most objective. On the other hand, I can understand asking for them from people who know your work well. I have also done that.

One more thing – LinkedIn groups. I highly recommend joining as many as LinkedIn will allow. That is currently 50. Those are the place to meet like-minded people, share information, get questions answered, and again demonstrate your expertise.

I don’t think there is any social media site that is as complete at LinkedIn. In fact, if you are going to join only one site, make it LinkedIn.

Granted, it would be better if those residents of the C-Suite had a guide who knew how to lead them throw the social media jungle. Obviously I think social media is the best marketing tool to come along since traveling medicine shows. Both relied on word-of-mouth to sell their products. One was and one is highly effective.

While those executives should do a better job of searching, I also fault we social media marketers. We are part of the problem. We need to make a better case for what we do. We need to show the skeptical executives that the social media sphere is the best place to be. These are people who are used to “fire and forget” marketing. In their world they tell their marketing people to hire an agency and produce a campaign. The only time an executive sees the campaign is in the final approval process. You have to show them how social media is replacing all of that.

What those executives want is a demonstrated method that is going to drive sales and profits. They want to know what the return-on-investment for the money, time and effort they are going to have to put into social media. They don’t feel any need to tell their friends where they are eating or whether they are leading in some kind of faux friend race.

So what do you do to convince them there they should be parking some of their marketing dollars in social media?

First, let me tell you what I don’t do first. I never show anyone Facebook as a marketing tool in the first meeting. To the average 50ish executive, Facebook is where their children post pictures of their dogs and friends. Plus, they have had their personal people tell them a seemingly good job candidate was rejected because of those pictures from that fraternity party. At best they see no need for Facebook, at worst they see it has a huge waste of time. As I once had an executive tell me: “there is a reason why I do not want to connect with people I knew in high school.”

What I do show them are the facts and figures showing how effective certain kinds of social meeting marketing can be. I also show them examples of companies such as Ford, Zappos, and others that used social media to expand their footprint in their marketplace.

When it comes to specific sites, I usually start off talking about what Linkedin can do for their company. Why Linkedin? Well in the business world it is viewed as the adult Facebook. Most likely the executives you are talking to have a Linkedin profile. They understand how it works and its effectiveness. They know their company has found good candidates for open positions.

In short, they understand how effective Linkedin can be when used properly. It is an easier sell. Not easy, but easier.

The second thing I talk about is blogging. It is a little tougher to sell than Linkedin. Executives usually balk at first when I tell a blog is not a sales document. But when I show how potential clients are drawn to the company’s website by a well-written blog that demonstrates the company’s expertise, the light bulb usually goes on.

From there I move onto YouTube. Watching a video campaign – such as “Will It Blend” shows the effectiveness of using sites such as YouTube. After that comes Twitter, which I describe as a billboard for their company. It is a term they understand.

I also make it clear that it usually takes six months to a year to see the results of a social media campaign. By then, having seen the results of successful campaigns, they get it and are willing to make the investment.

What I just gave you was view from 35,000 feet of my process. Trust me works, but only if you are careful to separate the substantive from the nonsense.

The key to marketing is twofold: to build word of mouth about your company and to increase your Google rankings. A blog is the best way to do both.

People who read and like your blog will tell others about it. They will retweet it, post it on Facebook, and generally spread the word. This builds credibility for your company. It builds Google rankings because the more people who read your blog, the higher Google will rank your company.

Look at the chart below from Cambridge, Mass. – based HubSpot. Note that companies that blog receive an average of 55 percent more visitors to their websites. But I am not going to bore you with a lot of data. Instead, I am going to tell how I do it.

Now granted I was a reporter from 26 years. I am used to writing on deadline. I know the rules of grammar. But as anyone who is a consistent reader knows I am not perfect. I strive for it, but I rarely reach it. You don’t have to be a great writer to be a blogger.

So here are my keys to blogging:

• First, lets talk about what a blog is not. It is not a sales tool. You try to sell something through a blog and you will have no readers. The social media sphere hates blatant attempts to sell.
• What a blog is a way to demonstrate yours or your company’s expertise in a particular area. It is also a way for current and potential clients and customers to connect with your company. It is a place for them to comment, compliment, debate, and criticize. It is a place for you to respond to all of that.
• Choose an overall theme. This blog focuses on social media, marketing and public relations. My readers know they come to PR 101 to read about those topics. This is important. Every successful blog I have read focuses on a particular area. Readers want to know what to expect when they come to the blog.
• Coming up with things to write about – this is often the toughest thing. It is what usually stops people from doing a blog. Here’s what I did before I started this blog more than two years ago: I wrote out a list of 24 things I felt I knew enough about to sound semi-intelligent about. That kept me going for about four months. Now I do research and follow what’s going on so I always have topics. I also try to have a couple of “evergreen” blogs in the hopper in case I am not able to write a new blog that week.
• A note about length – I read some blogging guides that say your piece should be no longer than 250 or 400 or 500 words. Balderdash. Some of my most read pieces have been over 1,000 words. Write something interesting and compelling and the readers will come.
• Be consistent when you publish. If you decide to post a new blog every Monday, do it. Readers want to know when they can expect to see a new post. Incidentally, I used to post on Mondays and Wednesdays. I moving that to Tuesday and Thursdays because of my work schedule.
• Do your research on the topic you are writing about. Yes a blog is part opinion. But back that opinion up with quotes and citations from your sources. When you do quote someone, link to the site from which the quote came, unless you actually interview them. If you interview them, make that clear. I do both. I think it provides a nice mix.
• It takes time to build a readership – usually at least six months. So be patient and don’t give up.
• To build that readership, you need to post links to your blog on as many sites as possible. I post on Twitter, Digg, Facebook, Delicious, Stumbleon, Friendfeed, Google Reader and Linkedin. I also have a dedicated group of readers who have requested I send them the link via email. In addition, I use Google Friend Connect, which is on my blog site. Those people also get the blog as soon as it is published.
• Which brings up another issue – make sure on your blog has share buttons so your readers can spread the word. I will always be grateful to those people who share my blog with their followers.

I think that advice should get you started. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

Therein lies the conundrum for many of us. We can write compelling blogs, post interesting tweets, make fascinating videos, add to LinkedIn discussions, and draw people to our Facebook pages. But a lot of us couldn’t sell long underwear to Alaskan oil field workers in the middle of a January blizzard. We have forgotten to acquire that the one key skill that ensures that a business or agency will be successful – sales.

I used to be as bad as sales as anyone. I can do everything I just wrote about and then some. But when it came time to convince someone else that they needed to the same to make their business prosper, well just remember that shivering oil field worker.

Just because we know social media is going to dominate marketing doesn’t mean our prospective clients know or care. They need to shown and convinced why that is so. Too often we social media evangelists make the same mistakes other enthusiasts make: we assume that everyone shares our fervor. Well, that just isn’t true.

I have heard many stories of an internal marketing manager or an agency representative charging into the CMO’s office enthusing all over the place about social media. Done that way the usual result is the CMO tells the interloper to clear out and take the enthusiasm with them. Oh they might be polite about it and all, but they never call back.

You can’t go fishing with a shotgun and you cannot convince someone to buy something based on your attitude. Just like in fishing, you have to be patient. You have to have the right bait and you have to convince the prospect to rise to that bait. That is the only way to do it.

Using pull marketing tactics is how it is done correctly. As a refresher, pull marketing is a method in which you give a potential customer convincing reasons to buy something. You don’t force anything. You let them take their time and make a decision. That goes for both external and internal clients.

Second, you have to make sure you are targeting the right prospects. I have seen too many agencies use the “any company is a good client approach.” I know it is tough in a recession not to go after just about any business. But ultimately you will fail doing that. It is much better to pick out a market niche and target it. Set up criteria for which companies within that niche would be your ideal client and go after that group.

If you are inside a company, you have to make sure you trying to convince the people who actually the decisions. Generally, that would be people in the C-Suite. But be careful to pay attention to internal politics. Don’t bypass someone who has the power to stop you from achieving your goal. Rather get them to buy into your idea.

I once had an editor who would almost automatically turn any idea a reporter had. I don’t know whether he was insecure, busy, or just arrogant. What reporters learned to do was have a general discussion with this editor about the area in which they wanted to do a story. They would then let the editor has the “light bulb” moment and assign them the story.

The same tactic can work with the people you are trying to convince. Not that anyone’s superiors are insecure, busy or arrogant.

The bottom line is before you write that blog post or post that video, you have to convince people that it will work. Only then can you get the camera out and start shooting.

What the Brewers did and didn’t do is also a lesson for any marketer who has an idea that seems to be a surefire winner. I am willing to bet no one in planning the promotion that backfired asked “what if … goes wrong.” Until you think something through from every angle, you are asking for trouble. As the Chinese military thinker Sun Tzu said: “The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand.”

Here’s what happened to the Brewers. As a promotion, the team placed 1,400 statues of mascot Bernie Brewer across Wisconsin parks early Tuesday morning. Some of the statues had a prize attached, including ticket vouchers, player autographs, and merchandise.

The idea was Bernie would tweet clues to the location of each statue so fans could find them. Under the rules, the contest was to begin at 7 a.m. People were supposed to take only one of the statutes. It didn’t work out that way.

Instead, people were grabbing as many as possible. There were reports of people sleeping in their cars overnight near parks where the statutes were to be placed. One woman tweeted she had taken over three dozen. People were trying to sell the statutes on EBay and Craigslist. This caused a lot of angry comments from people who tried to follow the rules.

Clearly no one at the Brewers thought this thing through. This is a clear case I feel of “you know what would be cool?” No one in the meeting asked the “what if fans get greedy and take more than one” question.  It’s a cliché, but it’s true: “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.”

There are hundreds of comments on social media sites posted by angry fans. The story went viral. I read a lot of the comments. People are really angry or laughing at the Brewers. Neither is good. The fact that the Brewers insisted that promotion went mostly okay shows me they don’t understand the power of social media.

Where the Brewers failed was not taking human nature into account. You announce you are giving away for free something people want they are going to find ways to game the system. Once the idea of the giveaway was decided on, the next topic of discussion should have been how to prevent the hoarding.

Brewers spokesman said the promotion went well with the exception of “some isolated” incidents. Wrong. They should have apologized profusely. That’s crisis communications 101.

What should the Brewers have done, or more accurately what would I have done?

First, there would have been no actual tickets, merchandise or autographed items in the statues if I were running things. What there would have been were vouchers for those items. Stamped on each voucher would be the words “One Prize Per Address or Family.” No, it wouldn’t have completely stopped the hoarding. But it would have cut down on it.

Second, I would have implanted a locator chip in each Bernie statue. Once I saw that more than Bernie was in one location, I would have noted the IDs on the chips (yes, the technology exists.) Whoever brought any of those hoarded statues in for redemption would have been disqualified automatically.

Third, to prevent anyone from selling the statutes on EBay or Craigslist, I would make it very public that the statutes can be purchased from the Brewers for $48. That would kill that market.

Fourth, I would have made those statues a heck of lot harder to find. Scavenger hunts are not supposed to be easy.

Now it is true that the people who thought they would corner the Bernie Brewer statue market are not particularly ethical or honest. But that’s human nature.

The failure was with the Brewers and their planning. You have to think these things through. It is why the first thing JJC Communications LLC does with a new client is an analysis what could go right and what could wrong. If you only do one of those, you end up with a lot of angry fans and people laughing at you.

If you want to learn more about how to such an analysis, let me know.

It is the fear of the uncertainty of creativity. I think to the average CEO or CMO who came through a business school being creative is a foreign concept. Most of those people are left brain types. Their dominant personality traits are that they are logical, sequential, rational, analytical and objective. They are not used to operating in an arena where creativity is demanded. Those traits often lead to the creation of boringly beige ineffective marketing.

The idea of doing something where possible outcomes cannot not always be predicted makes them nervous. So when confronted with something such as social media that demands creativity and intuitive thinking, their brains lock. The simplest thing for them to then do is either reject or ignore the ideas. The idea of a truly out there campaign – no matter how effective it might be – scares them.

I realized this at the Milwaukee-based BizTimesMedia’s 2011 BizTech Conference-Expo. EPrize founder and Chairman Josh Linker was speaking at the conference’s opening breakfast about how to empower employees to be creative. A creative company can develop a strong competitive advantage over its competitors, he argued.

Linker should know. The entrepreneur is also a jazz musician. He explained that any jazz musician that sticks strictly to the score is soon asked to leave. “This fluid, improvisation art form is all about taking risks and trying new things,” Linker wrote in his blog. “Going out on limb can be scary, but it is where the magic happens. Extending yourself outside your comfort zone is where the best rewards will be discovered.”

He goes on to say that “Jazz is also about listening. Listening to your fellow musicians, the audience, and your own creative voice. In business, that means listening to your team, your customers, your competitors, your industry, your suppliers, the latest trends and best practice, and of course, your own creativity. Through focused listening comes adaptation. Allowing the environment and your collaborators to influence the outcome as a group. Seeking inspiration and creativity from others, and adapting in real-time to your own Creative Challenge.”

At the breakfast Linker explained jazz musicians expect creativity from those with whom they perform. The jazz band is a collective creative effort.

The problem for many executives is they run their businesses from the top down. The modern corporate structure is essentially based on a military model. Think about it – there’s the CEO or commanding general. Underneath him are the division leaders. Do you think that designation was an accident? There are senior officers and junior officers, enlisted men and non-commissioned officers. The titles are different, but the roles are the same.

Not an atmosphere that lends itself to nurturing creative impulses. What those companies like is an ad agency coming in and saying we are spending $10 million on this television commercial. We are doing 15 million direct mail pieces and placing ads in 15 national publications. The campaign will look like the campaigns of all their competitors. Cut and dried – and there’s the rub. The CEO and CMO approve it and off it goes. The problem it is formulaic. It is result of that almost always fatal directive “that’s the way we have always done it.”

Many executives live the “fire and forget” marketing campaign. They feel they should not have to be involved in selling their own company. That’s the job of the marketing department and the outside agency.

Think about beer marketing or local auto dealers – all boringly the same.

All good marketing has to be creative. It is like jazz. There are core elements, but each player bends those elements, improves on them, while at the same time staying with the group. It demands that the company executives and employees take any active role in the campaign. It is their company, they should part of the effort to market its products. They need to learn to play with the band. Nine times out of ten, it is really effective. Good marketing works the same way.

There is always element of uncertainty in that. I always tell client not everything we try is going to work. We won’t know what works until we try it. Any marketer who says she does is not telling the truth. You can do all the research possible – from focus groups to surveys – and there is still no predicting the outcome.

As an aside don’t confuse that with measuring return on investment. ROI is measurable. That measurement takes place on what does work.

So if a CEO or CMO is told that the marketing effort is going to more jazz than symphony, they get nervous. It is way outside any envelope in which they operate. Someone needs to take them to a jazz club.

So it would seem at first glance that these companies are starting to embrace new ways of marketing. As most of you know, I firmly believe in melding traditional marketing and public relations with social media. That trilogy of marketing methods is the most effective.

However, I always dig a little deeper. I track these companies’ efforts. What I often find is that instead waltzing with social media, these companies are doing the “Zombie Dance.” All of you remember the Zombie Dance from the first dance you attended. The boy holds his rigid arms straight out and places them on the girl’s shoulders. Because of the distance created by the boy’s arms, the girl is forced to do the same. The pair then moves in a circle, barely lifting their feet off the ground and not bending their knees. It looks like the undead dancing.

That’s what a lot of social media attempts done by large companies especially remind me of – a stiff-armed dance that is about as a rhythmic as a drunk trying to play drums. These companies just don’t get it.

Now I know many CMOs would argue social media is not as important as search for attracting clients and customers. Current research would seem to back this contention up. For instance Google Inc.’s dominant search engine supplies about 30 percent of traffic to the top news sites, according to a study done by Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. I would argue that same currently holds true for both business-to-consumer and business-to-business sites.

I know when I am looking for something in particular, I usually turn to Google. It is still one of the best ways to conduct research. However, the Pew study also found that “Facebook and other sharing tools, such as Addthis.com, are empowering people to rely on their online social circles to point out interesting content.” Although I do search for news, more and more I find myself reading stories friends have suggested or Linkedin. The same true when I shop. I will now often respond to tweets or Facebook friend pages when I am looking for a particular item.

This is where a lot of companies fall down, I feel. They are not integrating their social media efforts with their regular marketing efforts. Just having a Facebook page is not going to cut it. There has to be integration of all the marketing efforts. In this many companies are falling down.

Facebook is not the be all or end all. Blog, videos, and many other tools have to put to work. Yet which some notable exceptions – Dunkin Donuts and Southwest Airlines come to mind – most companies are doing all they could do. And I think I know why.

At major companies, people look at social media and consider it just too much work. Too many marketing departments are too used to using traditional advertising and public relations. It’s inertia. They want to move out of the ruts they are in. And then they wonder why they lose business to their smaller, more nimble competitors.

The key to that argument is that everything done in a company has to have a financial justification. Every person’s role has to be justified by the effect it has on the bottom line. The argument is that no one can make a financial case for Social Media.

On the flip side of that argument, too many so-called social media gurus think social media is the only marketing method that should be used. They argue that traditional marketing and public relations are passé. They say that using Twitter and Facebook will solve all your marketing problems.

I take issue with both lines of reasoning. It was the bottom line thinkers who almost killed the American auto industry. While General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were using profit to justify every decision, European and Asian automakers were making cars that people actually wanted to buy. Design and market need came first, not profit.

As for the gurus, they are ones causing problems for Social Media. They make outlandish claims about the power of social media. While Social Media can be effective on its own, combining it with other methods leads to much better results. As I always say to clients, you could build a house using only a hammer and saw, but it would a lot easier if  other tools are also used.

I don’t think either side understands how social media works or what its place is in the marketing firmament. I spent part of Tuesday listening to an excellent webinar sponsored by Boston-based Internet marketing company Hubspot. Entitled “Social Media Metrics” for marketing experts provided more than enough ways to show how using Social Media is not only financially justifiable, it is essential. However, they also convincingly argued it is not the only method that should be sued.

Incidentally, if you want to listen to Hubspot webinar metrics discussion go here.

The problem many pro-social media people have is that they try to separate social media from the rest of a company’s marketing efforts, Maggie Georgieva, an Inbound Marketering Manager at Hubspot.

“Social media cannot be separated from the rest of marketing,” Georgieva said during the webinar. “Being good at social media is not the same thing as being good at business. Social media should be used as one tool in marketing.”

I have been preaching that social media should be melded with traditional marketing and public relations since I founded JJC Communications three years ago. I find I achieve much better results when I combine the three methods.

The problem I think anti-social media people have is that they expect too much too soon. Plus, they focus too narrowly on only one measure of success when in reality there are many.

“It is not about how many you measuring, but it is about measuring the right things, the things that can either save you money or make you money, ” Jay Baer, social media author and strategy consultant said during the Hubspot webinar.

Some companies get too tied in measurement, Baer said. He noted that at some point a company has to decide what’s the ROI of measuring ROI. Spending too much time on measuring takes away from other important items, especially client retention and engagement, he noted.

Simply measuring for measurements sake should not be the goal, added Amber Naslund, vice president of social strategy at Radian6, a Chicago-based social media strategy company. The key is to keep measurement as stripped down and simple as possible so an executive can concentrate on what’s most important.

The other thing companies have to remember is not to measure too soon, Naslund said. Data gathering should become as soon as possible. However, no one should try to draw any conclusions until there is at least four or more months of data in the can, she said.

“The goal is not be good at social media,” Baer said. “The goal is to be good at business because of social media. Those are not the same things.”

If you want to see how this can work for your company, contact me – especially if you are in Southeastern Wisconsin or Northern Illinois. Using the trilogy of social media, public relations and traditional marketing, together we can make your business grow.

Bloggers note: AirTran has been acquired by Southwest Airlines. It will soon be absorbed into the Southwest network.

As I watched the Delta and AirTran pages stream out of the printer, it made me think about marketing campaigns that do essentially the same thing the two airlines did.

A lot of campaigns are just too complicated, complex, and confusing. It’s the old saw about too many cooks. Too many executives, both at the client and the agency, with different views have had to sign off on the campaign. Before each of them gives their approval, they insist on adding in what they think is important. By trying to everything to everyone, the marketing campaign ends meaning nothing to anyone.

My question always is when I see one of these campaigns, wasn’t somebody paying attention. I always think back to what Kevin Brandt, a senior executive at a Milwaukee agency, said to a class I was taking: “the words I never want to hear from my team are ‘hey, you know what would be cool … ’”

Sometimes those campaigns end up just looking stupid. Other times, they are downright insulting.

Look at the recent Kenneth Cole Twitter campaign, which coincided with the uprising in Egypt: “Millions are in an uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring is online at (sorry, but I not dignifying that with the URL). So let me get this straight, people are risking their lives to free themselves from an oppressive, brutal dictatorship. Kenneth Cole sees this as a good platform to sell shoes.

When Groupon’s incredibly insensitive Tibet Super Bowl ad was roasted worldwide, one of the defenses was that people were now talking about the discount service. Yeah, there’s a client meeting I would like to attend. “Well, I have good news. We have raised awareness of Groupon to 87 percent of the targeted audience. Isn’t that great. Of course, they all hate us and are talking about organizing boycotts, but they know who were are.”

One of my “favorites” is the ad for the gout treatment Uloric. It shows some poor schlump hauling around a giant beaker of uric acid. He gets on a bus for goodness sakes. Would you want to sit next to somebody hauling around a container of sloshing disgusting liquid? He then takes the magic drug so the beaker shrinks down to a size small enough to fit into his fishing creel. Yeah, that’s what I take along when I go fishing – something guaranteed to scare away every aquatic animal for miles.

I am not trying to minimize gout. I know it is a serious, painful, often debilitating condition. But there was no way I could focus on that while watching this guy schlep around a couple of gallons of uric acid.

While I don’t know the insides of any of those campaigns, I have worked at a major agency where I have sat in on creative meetings. I have seen what happens to a campaign when too many people get involved. What should have been a simple message about a client’s product becomes a mishmash of bad ideas and bad execution.

That’s why there is an advertising slogan I keep in mind: “Know when to say no.”

The method for turning a product into a brand is a bit like the old alchemist’s dream of turning lead into gold. Expect that converting a widget into THE WIDGET is a process that actually works.

Still, as I said last week, making that conversion is as much an art as it is a science. It involves mixing the hard sciences of research, planning, and design with the art of marketing. And make no mistake, good marketing is an art.

When I first got involved in marketing 10 years ago, I was told the rule was that public relations created a brand and advertising maintained it. It was usually a fairly long process. And although does happen sometimes, an established brand rarely goes away. There were exceptions obviously – the Ford Edsel comes to mind.

Social media has changed all of that. While it is still takes awhile to build a brand, social media can destroy a brand faster than you can say “United Breaks Guitars.”

So what has to be done in this era of social media to create a brand and make it stick in a consumer’s mind as something they need to have?

To be a successful brand, a product not only has to be different, but it has to have value in the consumer’s mind. A brand has to standout from all of the various messages a consumer it hit with. It has to convince a consumer that it will provide quality, it will be dependable and it has value. It has to convince a consumer that this product is the one which to spend money.

The obvious thing is that the campaign starts with a great product. Generally, that’s the foundation of a branding campaign. However, to this day I do not understand how the pet rock ever got popular. Sometimes there is just no accounting for taste.

Now, remember a brand does not exist until it is fixed the consumer’s mind. Until a consumer assigns value to the product and decides its different from other products, there is no brand. So the key is to convince the consumer to see the value in the product.

The product needs to be defined by what makes it unique. The brand needs to not only sell itself by what it does, but it needs to resonate emotionally with a potential customer. In addition, the product has to be able to demonstrate it delivers consistently better performance than its competitors.

That brand message has to be consistent. A lot of brands lose their mojo when for some reason; someone decides to change the messaging. All that does is confuse consumers. Confused consumers go someplace else to fulfill their needs.

The three key points of branding are:

• There needs to be a central point from which the brand flows. Think about Apple Inc. – all of its marketing focuses on creating a digital lifestyle.
• Any slogan has to agree with the central branding point. Think about the Apple IPad slogan: “Thinner. Lighter. Faster. Facetime. Smart Covers. 10 Hour Battery.” It dovetails extremely with Apple’s central branding point.
• The campaign has to define the product’s personality. Again, think about Apple. Go to any of its product’s websites. The same message resonates over and over – its products help you create a cutting edge digital lifestyle.

This where social media makes things better, and at the same, makes things a lot more dangerous. Social media can build a brand faster than any other method. But it can also destroy a brand faster than any other method.

I will talk about that next week.

For the longest time I couldn’t figure out what I was getting so much spam. It didn’t appear to be hackers or anyone trying to do something malicious. I used to just hit the spam delete button without bothering to ever look at anything that in the filter.

Curious a couple of weeks ago about where all this detritus was coming from, I started looking at the senders’ email addresses. The light bulb went on. The spam generators were attempting to use my blog for “Black Hat” search engine optimization. They were attempting to raise their sites Google rankings by placing links on my blog site.

It works this way. Search engines, in particular Google require ways to confirm page relevancy. One method is to examine for one-way links coming directly from relevant websites. The more links into the website, the higher the search ranking.

Since most people searching for something rarely go beyond the first page of Google’s results, companies work very hard to increase the links to their pages. How they do that is called search engine optimization or SEO. I use “White Hat” SEO tactics for this blog.

There are a number of ways to do that, including using key words that will show up in search engines, trading links with other bloggers, and posting links to my blog in public forums. All of that is accepted practice perfectly legitimate.

Then there are the Black Hat tactics. As I like do, let’s use an example. In this case, let’s discuss that well-known department chain J.C. Penney.  During the 2010 holiday shopping period, the department store started showing up on the first page of Google for almost every product it sold. Highly unlikely that would happen on its own.

In February, the New York Times reported that it had “asked an expert in online search, Doug Pierce of Blue Fountain Media in New York, to study this question, as well as Penney’s astoundingly strong search-term performance in recent months. What he found suggests that the digital age’s most mundane act, the Google search, often represents layer upon layer of intrigue. And the intrigue starts in the sprawling, subterranean world of “black hat” optimization, the dark art of raising the profile of a Web site with methods that Google considers tantamount to cheating.

“Despite the cowboy outlaw connotations, black-hat services are not illegal, but trafficking in them risks the wrath of Google. The company draws a pretty thick line between techniques it considers deceptive and “white hat” approaches, which are offered by hundreds of consulting firms and are legitimate ways to increase a site’s visibility. Penney’s results were derived from methods on the wrong side of that line, says Mr. Pierce. He described the optimization as the most ambitious attempt to game Google’s search results that he has ever seen.

“Actually, it’s the most ambitious attempt I’ve ever heard of,” he said. “This whole thing just blew me away. Especially for such a major brand. You’d think they would have people around them that would know better.”

What someone did – Penney’s denies it had anything to do with the effort – was place links on thousands of websites all over the world that led directly to JCPenney.com The more links, the higher the Google search ranking. When the Times notified Google, punishment was swift, the newspaper reported.

Google pushed J.C. Penney search results to its back pages. (The Bob Dylan reference is intentional.) Suddenly it was very hard to find anything the company sold.

J.C. Penney paid the price for someone’s overzealous marketing effort. To me, Black Hat SEO is like an athlete who uses performance drugs. Would that person have won without the chemical boost?

The sad thing to me, beyond the unethical practice, is how Black Hat SEO calls all search results into question. I am willing to be bet that 99.9 percent of people on the Web don’t cheat. But all it takes is few people to try and game the system to make everyone suspicious. That benefits no one.

That is something that often trips a client up. To someone who has been working at a company, or created a product, the brand is fixed and immutable. After all they reason, they know what they created. That’s well and good for them, but to the ultimate consumer that brand doesn’t exist.

While a product is a physical thing, its brand is not. As a speaker in class I am taking said the other night: “a brand doesn’t exist until it is fixed in a customer’s mind.”

A question I have started asking clients after hearing several speakers make this point is: “why would a customer want to buy your product?” Not why you want them to buy it, but why they should want it?

What a marketing agency has to do is create a consistent message about the product. The message helps a company create its image, its brand. It is that branding that lures a customer into making a purchase.

An important point to this is that after that the initial shot, the message and the image always have to be in sync. If there is any kind of disconnect, consumers will notice and turn to another brand. Companies often destroy their brands when they stray from their core message.

Here are the test questions every marketing person should be asking about their brand messaging: “is it true, is it believable, is it unique?” I didn’t invent that test, but I like it so I am using it. What the marketing plan should is make a product something people want to talk about.

As Milwaukee marketing executive Kevin Brandt said: “if you say something entirely new, entirely different, people will pay money to listen.”

Here’s an example that illustrates the point. I grew up near Troy, N.Y., which when I was young was the home of Arrow shirts. The shirt manufacturer, Cluett Peabody & Company, Inc. was an independent company until the 1980s.

In the early part of the 20^th century, a very strong brand was created around “The Arrow Collar Man.” According to Wikipedia “the Arrow Collar ads were a collaborative production of New York ad agency Calkins and Holden; Cluett, Peabody advertising director Charles Connolly; and commercial illustrator J. C. Leyendecker. Leyendecker’s model was his live-in companion, a Canadian named Charles Beach.

“Hundreds of printed advertisements were produced from 1907 to 1931 featuring the Arrow Collar Man. The fictional Arrow collar man became an icon and by 1920 received fan mail. President Theodore Roosevelt referred to him as a “superb portrait of the common man.” He inspired a Broadway musical Helen of Troy in 1923.” The message kept resonating long after the actual campaign stopped.

The Arrow Collar Man

Skip forward about 35 years. When I was about five or six, my parents bought me my first suit. To go with it, we drove over to Cluett, Peabody’s headquarters in Troy to buy an Arrow shirt from their outlet store. It seems to me they had children’s sizes. That first dress shirt instilled in me a strong love of button-down shirts that continues to this day, but I digress.

That was the first of many trips to Troy for dress shirts. I must have been about 16 or so when I first noticed that Arrow wasn’t the only shirt label being sold at the outlet. Along one wall were shirts with labels that included such names Marshall Fields, Filenes, Woodward & Lothrop, Abraham & Strauss. I knew those were department store names. There were many other such labels.

I asked one of the workers there what the difference was between those shirts and the ones with the Arrow labels. If memory serves, he told he there wasn’t much. Maybe a slightly bigger or smaller collar, or a different shade of blue, but essentially the shirts were the same.

Yet, I couldn’t buy one. I had to have an Arrow shirt. There was something about that label, about that Arrow image, that I wanted and had to have. That brand spoke to me. The idea that I would ever look anything like the idealized Arrow man is laughable. Yet, I would only wear those shirts because they bestowed the image of a self-confident, successful man.

That image created at the beginning of the 20^th Century had carried through to the late 1960s. It made myself and thousands of other men want that shirt because of that brand image.

That’s the definition of brand positioning. A good marketing agency will work hard to establish a brand such as the Arrow shirt. Next week I will take you behind the curtains to show how its done. Although be warned, creating a brand is more of an art than a science.

My wife and I recently had an experience that drove that point home. It was a small incident involving a surly clerk. However, the same thing could easily happen to your business. In that case it might not be such a small incident. It could cost you a major customer. That is never a good thing.

Let me explain. My wife and I are wine aficionados. Recently we were at our favorite wine store, picking up an order and buying some wine for my wife’s book club. While we there, my wife wondered if they had more of really good red wine we had recently purchased. Neither of us could remember the name. But we knew it was a red and we knew it had a snake on the label.

So while I went to get the pre-ordered wine from another part of the store, a clerk headed off to search. While he was looking, my wife was one aisle over. As she browsed, she could hear the clerk complaining. “Why don’t people know what the name of the wine they are looking for,” the clerk said. He went on in this vein for several minutes. Mind you, he wasn’t muttering. My wife heard him quite clearly.

He never did find the wine, which wasn’t really that big of a deal. We knew it was a shot in the dark. Now, the manager apologized, and asked us  to call when we had the name so he could make sure he had the vintage. His attitude was much different from the clerk’s. That’s how you should handle a customer’s request.

I didn’t find out about this clerk’s complaining until we were in the car. Frankly, his attitude bothered me. That is not how you deal with customers. You do not verbalize your feelings in any way. You go out of your way to fulfill their requests. That is true whether you are a mom and pop store or a multi-billion company.

Before someone out there gets on me for not understanding life in retail, I should tell you my first job where I got paid a regular wage was in a grocery store. As I have written before store owner John Fanning drilled into us that the customer is always right. There are no exceptions to that rule.

I also worked as a bike mechanic a few years ago. People seemed to trust the mechanics more than the sales people. So we did quite a bit of selling. We always gave honest answers and advice no how silly question might have seemed. We knew that customer might be buying a high-end bicycle. The cost of such a bike could easily be over $3,000. We did not want to do anything to affect that sale. Those sales paid our salary.

So let’s blow my spouse’s scenario up a bit. Instead of a wine shop, she is a buyer for a major corporation. Her company is creating a second product line. It’s needs a customized widget, so it calls the company that had been supplying its widgets for decades. Since this is a new product, the specifications are still somewhat fuzzy.

Instead of getting the help she needs, my wife gets complaints from the supplier’s sales manager. The part is too difficult to make, or it will months to design and produce. That delay with the throw the buyer’s production schedule way off. Not a good thing.

Without naming any names, I know of companies that have run into this situation. What do you think they do? Of course, they find another supplier.

Sometimes the supplier make it even worse by complaining about it in a public way, like that wine store clerk did. That’s really dumb. Now, not only is the company likely to lose a customer, that customer is going to tell others what a bunch of jerks run that supplier. Probably more customers and sales lost. That means less money in the till.

So, if you have issues with a customer or client, go in the closet, close the door and scream. Just make sure the room is soundproof.

Well, I give you a hint. It all has to with Word of Mouth or WOM. If content is king, then WOM is queen.

Since I prefer to work with small and medium-sized companies, the question usually comes from the owner, the chief executive officer, or the chief marketing officer. It is a legitimate question. After all, I am usually presenting plans that can run into the five figures in costs. (I am not a cheap date. But, I am a highly effective one.)

Many of these companies are going to be marketing for the first time in their existence. They have moved beyond the startup phase. To keep growing, they know it’s time to start reaching out to potential customers.

The men and women who started these companies are engineers, lawyers, carpenters, or bakers. So far ROI has been something measurable. They know if they buy X amount of lumber or flour, they will produce Y amount of product. They can usually calculate their ROI after adding in their other production costs.

Marketing is different. There is a product – more customers and hence more profit. But that’s not something stamped out in a factory. These entrepreneurs are now dealing with something more ethereal – a decision by a potential customer to buy their product. These company owners would like a guarantee that what they invest will provide returns. It is a bet that makes them nervous.

It is true there is a certain amount of gambling in every company. You never really know – even after you do your primary and secondary research – whether the product is going to sell. It is only after the doors are open and hopefully the customers come in that you know your efforts were successful.

That’s the first measure of marketing – the first ROI check off. Are customers finding your business and checking it out?

Keeping those customers coming through the door is where people such as myself enter the picture. It is our job to show customers where the door is and give them reasons to through.

A caveat: I always tell potential clients; marketing doesn’t sell the product. That’s up to the company’s employees. Now, if the job is done right, the potential customer will be strongly leaning toward buying your product or service. I will everything I can to make the customer contact’s job as easy as possible. I will plow the ground and plant the seed. You just have to make it grow.

How is that done? As I said in the beginning – word of mouth or WOM. At its simplest level, word of mouth is simply Jane telling John to buy a particular product or use a certain service because she had a positive experience. What social media has done is amplify Jane’s voice so she can hundreds of people about her positive experience.

WOM is the most powerful way to market a product. According to Forrester Research, there are currently an estimated 500 billion WOM annual web impressions. Several studies have found that WOM is the most trusted form of marketing.

Research has shown that for every $1 spent on creating brand advocates there is a $10 return in positive WOM and sales. The Harvard Business Review found a ratio of 1-to-12 ROI for positive WOM. That was twice the return for any other marketing method.

That’s why social media is so effective. It generates that positive WOM and sales through third party endorsements and conversations. It does that with blogs, Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, Linkedin discussion, videos and other social media applications.

So the ROI is there. And social media is the way to generate it.

However, if the complaint is dealt with correctly, the wronged party can quickly become an advocate. I always tell clients that’s why they want to hear the complaints. It gives their business an opportunity to shine. You need to empower all of your employees to be able to take positive action in the face of a crisis because they are usually the ones dealing with the complainer.

Waiting even a couple of hours to fix problem may be too late. The damage may be permanent. Then you are facing an angry customer who might be telling the world not to use your product or go to your business. Ask Groupon, United Airlines, Proctor & Gamble or a number of other businesses what happens when a customer complaint is ignored.

A restaurant I was at Saturday night faced that situation. I was the angry customer. I like to think I am savvy when it comes to Social Media. I was fully prepared to jump on-line and use my social media accounts to rip this place a new one. But the manager turned me from that angry customer into an advocate.

The restaurant in question is named Trocadero. It is one my wife’s and my favorite places. It is funky place that serves French influenced food. We have been going there for a long time. It was one of the early leaders in turning Milwaukee from a beer and brat city to the Foodie town it is today.

So here is the scenario. My wife and I were going to the theater with another couple. No, not a movie, an actual performance. Milwaukee also has a ton of live theater.

At any rate, the performance was to begin at 7:30 p.m. The four of us arrived at Trocadero at 5:45 p.m. and were seated immediately. We figured that we would be eating by 6:15 p.m. and leaving by 7 p.m. But it didn’t work out that way.

The restaurant was packed. Milwaukee has a pretty lively weekend scene. There was a lot going on Saturday night in the downtown area.

The waitress was busy, which didn’t bother us. She took our order at about 6 p.m. We told her we had theater tickets and needed to leave by 7 p.m. She was quick with everything she had control over, primarily our drink orders. So far, so good.

However, we didn’t get our food until around 6:50 p.m. Not good. We were about 15 minutes from the theater, plus we had to find parking once we got there. None of us were happy. The waitress knew that, but it wasn’t her fault, it was the kitchen’s.

Personal note, in high school and college my son worked in a number of restaurants. For a while he considered being a chef. So, I know how restaurants operate.

At this point, the manager walked by and asked how things were. I told her. Now, she could have said something to the effect that we are sorry about the slow order, but that’s just way things were. Then the tone of this blog would have been very different.

Instead, she knocked 20 percent off the bill and apologized. She explained that the kitchen was overwhelmed by the rush. She said she hoped this one experience hadn’t soured us on Trocadero.

She also took responsibility for the problem. Now, she doesn’t work in the kitchen. But she still said it was her fault. That’s a key leadership lesson. If you are the captain, you take the blame. You give the credit to the people working for you when things go well.

Because of this woman, I recommend if you are in Milwaukee, go to Trocadero. I think you will like it.

You see, what this person did was turn a negative into a positive. She saw a problem and she dealt with immediately. That’s how you build loyal customers.

The discount site Groupon ran a commercial during the American football championship game – the Super Bowl – Feb. 6 that appeared to start out as an appeal to help Tibet. It ended as an appeal to use Groupon’s service. Actor Timothy Hutton noted that while Tibet may be an oppressed country, a Tibetan restaurant in Chicago makes a great fish curry.

To me this a case of where a campaign was created in a vacuum with no thought of how the real world would react. Of what I have read of Groupon, its management and employees are 20 and 30-somethings. I think they, along the creatives at Crispin Porter + Bogusky, found the idea hilarious. But there should have been some adult supervision. This stab at humor ended up costing Groupon a lot of good will and might have opened the door for its competitors. They went for edgy and ended up cutting themselves.

It was so controversial that Chicago-based Groupon pulled it on Friday, Feb. 11.

“We hate that we offended people, and we’re very sorry that we did – it’s the last thing we wanted,” Groupon CEO Andrew Mason wrote in the company’s blog. “We’ve listened to your feedback, and since we don’t see the point in continuing to anger people, we’re pulling the ads (a few may run again tomorrow – pulling ads immediately is sometimes impossible). We will run something less polarizing instead. We thought we were poking fun at ourselves, but clearly the execution was off and the joke didn’t come through. I personally take responsibility; although we worked with a professional ad agency, in the end, it was my decision to run the ads.”

This brings to mind that cliche about closing the barn door and the horse. I do give Mason points for taking the blame. Many CEOs wouldn’t do that.

To me, the commercial was at best juvenile and at worst offensive. Watch it yourself and see what you think.

Groupon\’s Tibet Commercial

(Full disclosure: I am Groupon member and user. I was an early adopter.)

Groupon ran two other commercials: one about saving the whales and one about saving the rainforest. Although those two were also spoofs, neither appears to have raised the public’s ire like the Tibet commercial.

The Net lit up almost immediately with criticism. Twitter users called it tacky, vulgar, detestable and other things I cannot use if I want this blog read in offices. Articles in various marketing publications condemned as a wrong-footed move for a company that until now has had a misstep.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Chicago marketing company Alterian, which measures social media activity around Super Bowl advertisers, found that Groupon had the most mentions of every advertiser, but ranked last in sentiment on Alterian’s index.

“Groupon far and away had the most negative conversations relative to its (total) number of conversations,” Scott Briggs, who headed Alterian’s study, told the Tribune.

An AdWeek online column headline called the spot “Bad Taste, Pure and Simple.”

Dallas, Texas agency Team MutualMind and students from the Temerlin  Advertising Institute at Southern Methodist University worked together to monitor the social media buzz for 52 advertisements aired during Super Bowl XLV. Their analysis found that the Groupon commercial was the most disliked of the commercials it analyzed. It was mentioned on social media sites 25,421 times. Of those mentions, 54.9 percent were negative, while 13.8 percent were positive. Presumably the remaining 31.3 percent were neutral.

According to published reports, Groupon intended the campaign to be a send-up of the pompous, self-important public service ads that run on television. More importantly, the company said it was actually trying to raise awareness for important causes.

There were defenders of the ad. I myself got involved in a very spirited debate on Linkedin in which a defender said: “The reason this campaign may have hurt Groupon has very little to do with Groupon and more to do with folks who didn’t get the joke. That is again, on them.

“Groupon was very effective in brand recognition and building awareness and resonating with those who did get it. That’s a win. That some news outlets weren’t informed and missed the point is rather sad imo, because I personally get offended more by the fact that so many are more concerned about an ad than Tibet. That’s the point.”

MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell also strongly defended the commercial. You can watch what he had to say here.

However, I do have to take issue with something O’Donnell said. He noted that Groupon gave over two-thirds of the commercial over to trying to tell people about Tibet. Well VW gave two-thirds of its time to Star Wars, but I don’t VW was trying to tout the movie.

The argument was made to me that any publicity is good publicity. Balderdash. I would never want to walk into a client meeting and tell the client: “hey guess what. We are the most mentioned campaign on the web. Everybody hates us, but look at all the mentions.” You think Toyota was thrilled by all the publicity it got last year?

This commercial was so off, it even details wrong. Tibetans don’t make or eat fish curry. According to the New York Times, the purported Tibetan mountain used in the commercial is in India, not Tibet. I mean, come on, if the details are wrong, why should I believe anything else about the commercial?

I think Groupon made a huge mistake. I want to know what you think. Please make a comment. I will do a follow-up blog if I get enough comments.

What is micro-marketing? According to Answers.com, it’s “Designing, creating, and manufacturing products, marketing, and advertising campaigns for the benefit of very specific geographic, demographic, or psychographic segments of the consumer market.”

In other words, micromarketing means selling to your neighbors.

My exposure to micromarketing began when I came home the other day to find a plastic bag on the front steps. That’s not unusual – somebody is always leaving phone books or fliers or something else on the steps. Most of the time the bag avoids the house completely on its trip to the recycling bin in the garage.

This time the bag contained a dog food sample and two dog biscuits. As Chester the Wonder Dog has a voracious appetite, I always appreciate free food. Biscuits are good, too. He is more cooperative when he knows there’s a reward when I expect him to something.

The bag came from a local pet store called Hounds Around Town. Along with the food, there were two fliers inside the bag. On one there was an eight-paragraph explanation of the food – how it was made locally without any artificial ingredients. There were also a couple of paragraphs about Hounds Around Town, including an invitation to bring my dog whenever I wanted.

Also in the packet was a sheet from a group called the 3/50 project. This really caught my attention. I went to the group’s website and found this explanation from Consumer Reports:

“The 3/50 Project is a campaign to support local merchants. The concept has spread to communities nationwide, and its premise is simple: First, choose three local independent brick-and-mortar businesses—clothing shops, food stores and restaurants, and for the home, independent appliance retailers, hardware stores, and garden centers—that you find essential and want to keep from going under during the recession. During tight times like these, independent retailers suffer since budget-minded consumers are more inclined to shop at chain stores and big-box behemoths.

Then spend $50 or more among those places each month. If enough people in a town make the pledge, the theory goes, the pooled-together funds will prop up mom-and-pop enterprises and help sustain local business districts.”

The sheet quoted the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in noting that if just half the U.S. working population spent $50 each month in locally owned businesses, more than $42.6 billion in revenue would be generated. It also said that for every $100 spent in independently owned stories, $68 returns to the community through taxes, payroll and other expenditures. When a purchase is made from a national chain, $43 stays in a local community. When an online purchase is made nothing stays behind.

Powerful arguments on both counts. In fact, it affected me and that doesn’t usually happen. After all, marketing is what I do for a living. I have seen every kind of campaign that’s ever been done. Most either make me cringe or yawn.

However, this campaign made me think. I do like to shop locally as much as possible and I like products to buy that are made locally. I firmly believe that the only way we are going to dig ourselves out of this recession is to support each other. I have no faith that the politicians who spread all this rhetoric are going to do anything that will actually solve the problem.

In this case, if Chester likes the dog food the odds are good I will shop at Hounds Around Town. This a dog who likes to eat squirrels, rabbits and other small animals, so I don’t think his palate is that discerning.

It is also an instructive example of for small businesses. Many small retailers just don’t have the budget to advertise or do much marketing. Buying a newspaper ad or producing a television commercial can be expensive. Plus, those efforts are more of a shotgun approach. A microcampaign such as the one Hounds Around Town ran can be much more effective because the market is very targeted. It is a very good idea.

Anticipating how to handle a crisis before it occurs should be a key part of any company’s business plan. The one thing social media has probably made more difficult is crisis communications. A company now usually has minutes, possibly no more than an hour, to prevent a small crisis from growing into a major disaster. A response has to be immediate – within those same minutes of the crisis.

There is no alternative, no other option.

Here in my city of Milwaukee is an example of what happens when the crisis is more nimble than the responders. A suburban mall found itself the victim of what was apparently a flash mob that wreaked havoc throughout the shopping center. Then mall management made things worse by the way it responded

Businesses need planning and practice to be ready for a practice. A business has to have a crisis communications plan in place long before the crisis happens. To ensure the plan works when needed, it has to be rehearsed constantly.

Think about it. Fire Departments, police departments, the military and a host of other agencies constantly train. They do it so when they have to go into action everyone knows what to do.

Here’s what happened to Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa, WI. I should note that it is one of the top shopping destinations in the Milwaukee metro area and is almost always crowded. In this case, I think the flash mob organizers decided that the crowd of shoppers would be the perfect audience for their “performance.”

For those who have not heard the term flash mob, Wikipedia defines it as a “large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and pointless act for a brief time, then quickly disperse. The term flash mob is generally applied only to gatherings organized via telecommunications, social media, or viral emails.”

At Mayfair a group of several dozen teenagers raced through the mall, knocking over displays, running up and down escalators, which scared customers and staff. Mall management said the event was too organized to have been a spontaneous occurrence. They suspect it was organized via Facebook, Twitter or any number of other sites. Adding to the commotion was an apparent attempted robbery in the mall parking lot. Authorities have not said if the robbery was related to the flash mob but a shot was fired, which caused even more panic among. Luckily no one was hurt.

Mall management said they monitor social media sites to ensure things like this don’t happen. They said they were able to stop a flash mob planned for two days before Christmas. In that one, a group of high school students was planning on dancing in the mall.

If mall management is monitoring social media, someone fell asleep at the switch on the disruptive flash mob. For something this large, there had to be multiple posts on Twitter and Facebook. That’s how the word gets spread, by constant repetition across the web. Someone should have caught this.

It is possible the word was spread via text message. Unless you work for the National Security Agency, or some other federal investigative agency concerned with terrorism, those messages cannot be tracked. In that case mall management would not have had advance warning.

Even if Mayfair management did not have advance warning, the ball was still dropped after the incident. The flash mob happened Jan. 2. Mall management waited until the afternoon of Jan. 3rd to respond which meant for 24 hours Mayfair Mall lost control of its brand. In social media years that’s a lifetime. The mall was being defined by the hundreds of comments most of them negative made on social media sites and to the local media

When Mall management finally did respond, they did it by issuing a press release. Kind of like using a carrier pigeon to get the message out. What management said was just as bad.

Most of the statement condemned the group who disrupted the mall. It wasn’t until almost the end of the statement that management said: “the safety and security of our guests are always our top priorities.  We will not tolerate any behavior that compromises that safety.  As a result of this incident, we anticipate that there will be operational changes as well as consequences for those involved.”

What the statement should have said was that security was being increased immediately and there would be an even stronger policy governing when teenagers could be in the mall. The mall later did announce that it was changing its policy regarding when teenagers would be allowed in the mall. But that happened after the initial flurry of reports on the incident, which didn’t have the effect it would have had if the mall had made the announcement on the same day as the incident.

Plus Mayfair competitor Bayshore Mall announced changes to its policy for teenager access at the same time. There have been no incidents at Bayshore so that mall looked proactive. Mayfair suffered by comparison.

In other words, management be nimble, management be quick, or the business is going to be burned by something a lot hotter than a candlestick.

I want to give a huge thanks to Heather Asiyanbi, a Milwaukee-area writer who generously has given her time to become my editor. I owe her a huge debt of gratitude for her work.

A cherished belief of mine about the Internet was crushed yesterday, making me rethink the whole idea of search engine optimization. Let me explain.

I have always encouraged my clients to make sure their customers have a place to comment on the client’s products. It makes sense for a lot of reasons, including the most important – Google rankings. The higher a Google ranking, the easier it is for a potential customer to find one of my clients.

Now, I always thought it was the good comments that drove a customer’s Google rankings. After all, it is illogical to think the bad comments would influence page rankings. Why would Google allow a company with terrible customer ratings to dominate the rankings? If you had a bad experience with a store, you certainly wouldn’t send a friend there.

Well, apparently Google is not so discerning. A Brooklyn-based company known as DecorMyEyes.com has some of the worst customer rankings I have ever seen. Yet it shows up on the first page of a Google search for eyeglasses.

As reported Nov. 26^th by The New York Times’ David Segal, company owner Vitaly Borker discovered that it really doesn’t matter what is said about a company. All that matters is that something is said.

In response to the negative comments, Segal said Borker wrote a blog post using a pseudonym. He thumbed his nose at all of his dissatisfied customers.

“’Hello, My name is Stanley with DecorMyEyes.com,’”the post began. “I just wanted to let you guys know that the more replies you people post, the more business and the more hits and sales I get. My goal is NEGATIVE advertisement.”

“It’s all part of a sales strategy,” he said. Online chatter about DecorMyEyes, even furious online chatter, pushed the site higher in Google search results, which led to greater sales. He closed with a sardonic expression of gratitude: ‘I never had the amount of traffic I have now since my 1st complaint. I am in heaven.’”

That burst my bubble, I must say. I always thought Google, and other search engines, looked for the positive results when considering rankings. I assumed that the wizards at Google had created an algorithm that considered the tenor of comments.

As Segal wrote: Which means the owner of DecorMyEyes might be more than just a combustible bully with a mean streak and a potty mouth. He might also be a pioneer of a new brand of anti-salesmanship — utterly noxious retail — that is facilitated by the quirks and shortcomings of Internet commerce and that tramples long-cherished traditions of customer service, like deference and charm.

“I’ve exploited this opportunity because it works,” Borker told Segal. “No matter where they post their negative comments, it helps my return on investment. So I decided, why not use that negativity to my advantage?”

This bothers me. What this appears to mean is no matter what one posts about a retailer, it helps them if they know how to game the system.

There is an old adage from the early days of public relations that goes, “any publicity is good publicity.” The other is, “I don’t care what you say about me as long as you get my name right.”

Those are both from public relations’ dark ages – the days of press agents, three martini lunches, and sometimes out-and out-lies. I had hoped we had moved beyond all of that. This kind of thing could destroy consumer confidence in web searches. That is not good for any reputable company that relies on the web.

I hope Google steps up and figures out a way to deal with this.

A lot of people though flounder when it comes to creating, implementing and running a social media campaign. Many people I have dealt with seem to think that the new stuff can be done the same way as the old methods. It just ain’t so.

What is often misunderstood is that social media takes a lot more involvement from a client than the old way of doing things. I think that’s the reason a lot of CEOs and CMOs balk when presented a social media campaign proposal. Advertising doesn’t require a whole lot of work from the client. A concept is hashed out with the agency, the campaign is created with input from the client, the client approves it and then it goes live. That’s all.

Social media demands a lot more work from the client. While any good social media agency will work with the client to create a Facebook page or a Twitter campaign, it’s up to the client to use collaborate in using those and other tools.

Which brings me to an important tangent. I often run into marketing people who want to do it all at once. They want to set up a blog, start posting on Facebook, put up videos on YouTube, post pictures on Piscasa and maybe through in Twitter campaign. I never let clients do everything at once. It’s a cliché, but it’s true: you gotta crawl before you can walk, and you gotta walk before you run.

I think this is another issue CMOs and CEOs have with social media. Advertising usually happens all at once. Social media is done as a graduated approach.

I usually suggest starting with a blog and perhaps a Twitter campaign. Blogging is the hardest thing to do, but research shows it is also the most effect. Blogging is something a client should do. After all, they know their company and product best. If they cannot do it, or are unwilling, I will write articles for them. I will not do their blog. Blogs are assumed to be a personal expression of a company’s plans, outlook, and what-have-you. No one but a company person should write it.

Twitter is one of the easiest applications to do. It allows a company to start a conversation about their brand without a lot of effort. I will monitor a company’s Twitter stream to see what is being said about the brand. That’s important to do obviously.

This leads me to my second tangent. Many people in the C-Suite are not prepared for negative comments. I often have a hard time explaining that it is a good thing. When the negative comments come in, a company can identify and deal with problem areas. It is good for a company to acknowledge that it has made mistakes. It builds confidence in the company when they correct them. People like that.

See, social media is different. But it is also a lot more effective.

I received an email Tuesday from Kiehl’s, the New York City-based hair and skin product company. In exchange for reviewing one of the company’s products, Kiehl’s will give the reviewer two of the company’s most popular products. One does have to spend $35 to get the freebies. However, it is very easy to spend $35 at their website.

That Kiehl’s is soliciting products reviews to me is a good thing. It shows its leadership wants to know what customers are thinking. It means the executives understand that positive reviews and word-of-mouth are the best marketing tools. That says that this is a company that knows its needs to jump into the social media stream.

Many companies are doing what Kiehl’s is doing. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of companies using social media to reach out. As I have said before the adoption of social media is like a snowball rolling a mountain. At first, it is just a baseball-sized piece of snow that’s barely noticeable against the background. But it gathers both speed and more and more snow as it moves. Soon it is an avalanche.

I should note that I am a longtime Kiehl’s customer. My wife and I use many of their products. I have no contact with the company other than being a customer.

The request of reviews struck me as very interesting. The company’s leaders have to know that not all the reviews are going to be positive. I think it shows courage and foresight to do that. No company pleases all of its customers all of the time. I am curious to see how Kiehl’s handles the negative comments.

If the company’s leaders are smart, they will use the information gathered from the negative reviews to improve on whatever customers don’t like. I always tell clients the negative comments are as important that the positive ones.

Positive comments pull in potential customers. Those comments endorse a decision a potential customer makes to buy a product. Numerous studies have shown that third-party endorsements are the most powerful lure for making sales.

Negative comments are important because it tells a company what it is doing wrong. Prior to social media often the only a company knew a campaign was wrong-footed is when it didn’t get the results it expected. It and its agency might have created a multi-million dollar campaign. Focus groups might have said it was a great campaign. But it fell flat on its face and cost the company millions in lost sales.

As a note, I do not like focus groups. I have never believed accurate information can be gleamed from six or eight people sitting in room eating donuts and drinking coffee. It is an artificial environment. One person can dominate the room and the research results.

That’s why unsolicited comments are such so more valuable. They are generally honest opinions from real customers. So if something is wrong, they will not be afraid to say it.

The value to a company is that it gives a change course during the campaign. The mistakes can be corrected. Correcting those mistakes shows a company cares about its customers. Customers will generally return the feeling and buy more products.

That’s why comments are important. Companies and customers can share the love.

Facebook is doing the same thing, although in a much less violent way obviously. The difference between the Borg and Facebook is that people want to join Facebook. It is remaking the way we interact with our fellow human beings. It has become the key site for any advertiser or marketing company that wants to build or extend a brand.

(Note to Trek Fans: I do not want to hear from you about the nuances of the series. I don’t care.)

I was reminded of the other day when I received the latest numbers on Facebook’s penetration of the wired world. Facebook now has 512 million followers in 212 countries, according to the Sept. 22 issue of World Internet Stats News. The News says that as of Aug. 31, there were approximately 1.9 billion Internet users on Earth. If you want to read the entire report, go here.

What makes Facebook’s assimilation of the Internet even more amazing is that the estimated 420 million Internet users in China cannot access the social media site. It has been banned in China since 2009.

So, the Earth’s estimated population is an estimated 6.84 billion people. Facebook is reaching just about 10 percent of it. There is nothing else in the world that reaches that many people on a continuous basis – with one exception. The World Cup soccer championship reaches over 700 million people during its run. But that only happens once every four years.

I think Internet Stats Editor Enrique De Argaez puts its best: “Mark Zuckerberg, without being a political leader and without planning to do so, has sparked the only true revolution taking place today in the world: the — Social Web Revolution –. The main characteristic of a revolution is a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. This is precisely what has happened worldwide in the Internet due to his now famous Facebook network. More than 517 million persons in 212 different countries have joined the Facebook Social Web, in the surprisingly short period of time of six years.”

Argaez is the chief executive officer of the Bogota, Columbia-based Miniwatts Marketing Group.

Keep in mind that Zuckerberg just turned 26-years-old. If you want to know more about him, read this article from the New Yorker. I suspect it is more objective than the movie “Social Network” about Facebook that is scheduled to be released Oct. 1.

What Zuckerberg and company have done is create and grow the dominant social media application. Facebook has become the must place to be for social media marketing.

“The company has developed a potentially powerful kind of advertising that’s more personal—more “social,” in Facebook’s parlance—than anything that’s come before, Bloomberg Business Week reporter Brad Stone wrote in the magazine’s Sept. 22 issue. “Ads on the site sit on the far right of the page and are such a visual afterthought that most users never click them. These ads can evolve, though, from useless little billboards into content, migrating into casual conversations between friends, colleagues, and family members—exactly where advertisers have always sought to be.”

As Stone points out in his article, Facebook has nailed the essence of social media marketing: “Facebook’s promise to advertisers isn’t to get consumers to buy their products—or really even to get them to click through to their website. Instead, it wants to subtly park the advertiser’s brand in the user’s consciousness and provoke a purchase down the line. More immediately, it also aims to get you to ‘like’ the brand yourself, which then serves as a sort of all-purpose opt-in, allowing the advertiser to insert future messages into your feed.”

That’s the real key to social media. It is why I now tell my clients Facebook is where they need to be. They should use other sites, but without using Facebook, it is like trying paddle kayak with a spoon. It just makes sense.

You can follow me on Facebook at Jeffrey Cole.

(Note: that’s why there were no blogs last week.)

Because of the distances traveled, most of the guests flew into Milwaukee. What struck me is how no one said they had even a fair to middling experience on the airlines. I think there were at least four airlines involved in transporting people. I suspect if I had been doing a consumer survey, the highest grade any of those carriers would have received would be a “C-.”

There were major complaints – flights that were rescheduled two or three times, overcrowded planes, uncomfortable seats and surly employees. There were also the minor complaints, such as the “gourmet” pretzels my son-in-law was served on his flight. They were thumbnail-sized pretzels – there was nothing gourmet about them. Or another guest who said she was charged for a blanket she wanted for her sleeping four-year-old.

As bad as the major complaints were, I think it is the little things that really frost passengers. It is bad enough when you are crammed into a seat that would be considered a war crime under the terms of the Geneva Convention. However, when all you receive for sustenance is a dried-out bag of pretzels that often becomes the proverbial straw.

Of course the airlines can get away with this because there is often no alternative method of long-distance travel. You want to get to California or Florida in under a day; an airplane ride is often the way.

I put great store on good customer service. It is one of the most important kinds of marketing. One of the reasons I am an Apple aficionado is the fantastic service I receive at the Apple stores. I am willing to pay more for a good meal at a restaurant that has great waiters than I am for a great meal with a restaurant with bad service.

This is marketing at its most basic. Any company that knows what it is doing wants to have happy customers. Happy customers tell potential customers about how good the company is. That usually gets those potential customers to check out a retailer or a service provider.

Now I get that times are tough in the airline industry. Rising fuel prices, the depression caused by 9/11, and the current recession effects on leisure travel have combined to deal some hard hits. But as I have noted in other blogs, the companies that invest in their product and customer service during those times are the ones that dominate when times get better.

What particularly surprises me is that after the video United Breaks Guitars, airlines still haven’t learned. I have read estimates where that YouTube effort cost United Airlines $100 million in lost sales. If that is not a wake-up call, I am not sure what it will take. Unfortunately, airlines just don’t seem to be listening.

As I was cleaning and oiling the machine, I realized there was a metaphorical relationship between social media and that typewriter.

The typewriter was my wife’s college machine. It is really nice Smith-Corona manual. For those of you who never used a typewriter, manual means that it’s not electric. The insides are quite elaborate and sophisticated. It takes a series of levers to move each key so the letter strikes the paper. This thing was state-of-the-art 40 years ago.

Today that state-of-the-art machine is viewed as a quant reminder of a bygone era. Sure some people still use typewriters, but some people still use candles. But just as almost no one relies on candles for their primary light source, almost no one uses a typewriter as their primary source of document production.

Computers have taken over almost completely from typewriters. It has changed the way things are done. I tried to type something on the typewriter yesterday. I found the way I think and formulate ideas has changed. My MacBook is much more efficient and a lot faster. No more using White out correction fluid to paint over mistakes.

Yet when the first word processors came along, there was a lot of a resistance. I worked in newsrooms then, a typewriter dense environment if there ever was one. The old reporters argued those word processors were just not as good or efficient as a typewriter. They were too complex, to prone to error and what would happen if the power went out? Better to stick with the Royal upright typewriters. Again an explanation – an upright typewriter looked like an upright piano.

A lot of people look at social media the same way as those old newsroom bulls looked at word processors. It is too complex, it will never work, why don’t we just stick with what has worked for the last 100 years.

The reasons why not are obvious. Social media works better.

The people who ran newsrooms had the foresight to realize that those word processors were the best choice. They saw they were more cost efficient. Sections of the old production processes could be eliminated, keeping costs down and the product competitive.

You know how most newsrooms got the old ones to accept the word processors? One day it was announced that new equipment was being brought into the newsroom. Anyone who wanted to could take their typewriter home at no charge. It was theirs to keep.

When everyone got in the next day, there were shiny new word processors sitting at each desk. A course in how to use them was given. It was a swim or sink move. It worked. It was a pretty painless change. The veterans realized the change was for the better and it was inevitable.

I think a lot of companies need to do the same thing. Instead of dithering about social media, they need to make the change. It will be for the better. And it is inevitable.

So my son just got married and my daughter is getting married soon. For both big events, I decided to buy suits. We are not a tuxedo kind of family, but for such major events, I didn’t think my normal summer uniform of a t-shirt, cargo shorts and sandals would cut it.

For my son’s wedding, I went to my local Kohl’s Department Store. Kohl’s is a Wisconsin-based company and I like to support the locals. I was pleasantly surprised by helpful the people at Kohl’s were. I could not find pants in my size. A helpful sales woman I flagged down was able to help me. Remember, Kohl’s touts itself as low cost store that sells quality merchandise. Usually that means fewer employees on the floor. Not at Kohl’s though.

Sadly, finding a sales person who was both helpful and knew what she was talking about is getting to be a rare experience. That’s why I shop on line more and more. My experience with customer service at online retailers such as Amazon, Performance Bike and REI has been pretty extraordinary – extraordinarily good.

I cannot say the same thing for many of the experiences I have when I shop. When it came time to buy a suit for my daughter’s upcoming nuptials, my wife and I watched the sales. The lowest price was at a Milwaukee-based traditional department store. So, we drove over to look at suits.

In the hour we were there, we were completely ignored by the sales people. One walked by my wife and asked how she was doing. Now, what he should have asked is if we needed help. A salesman stationed the register seemed to be half asleep. I had the feeling we woke him up when we went to check out.

Yes, we did a buy a suit. The salesman screwed up there too. The suit was unfinished and needed to be altered. He should have asked if we wanted department store’s tailors to do it. I have to believe that’s a profit center. The guy cost his company an extra $60 or so.

It gets even more interesting. I also bought a pair of dress shoes at the same store to go with the suit. When I got them home, I discovered a flaw. So, I trundled back to exchange them. What should have taken 10 minutes took 45 minutes. There was no one staffing men’s shoes. I eventually had to go the store’s offices to get a manager to help me.

Sadly, that experience is becoming all too common. I rarely go to most large stores anymore because there is no one there to provide help. I don’t mind paying a bit more if I am getting exactly what I want and need.

For instance, I do most of my shopping for tools and other hardware at my local Ace Hardware. It is a much smaller store than the three big box hardware stores that operate in Milwaukee. But, I can always find someone to help me who knows what they are talking about. I don’t have to wander through plumbing if I need an electrical part.

That’s why I like online shopping. Every time I have a question, I can reach someone. So far, everyone I have talked to seems to be knowledgeable. It is just a much more pleasant experience. Yes, I sometimes pay a bit more that I would if I bought it from a physical location. But, I will do that for the service and selection.

Which brings me to another point. It is easy to find what I want when I shop on line. Google is very helpful in finding just the right item. I don’t have to ask some know-nothing-doesn’t care clerk if something is in stock.

It seems odd to me that on-line retailers have solved the customer service conundrum at the same time retailers have forgotten it. But, that’s way it goes.

It’s high time that a C-level individual engaged in social media, and – once and for all –created a high-level overview and synopsis, crystallizing all of the strategic benefits and critical value streams, and distilling them into a language that speaks to executives everywhere in our native tongue – bottom line stakeholder value. So here you go. I’ve done the work for you. What follows is an “Executive Summary” of my findings.

Social Media Value #1:  Unfiltered Feedback

As you already know, some of the scarcest (rarest) yet most valuable information a CEO can obtain is honest, unfiltered feedback. Think about it. You interact all day with managers, employees, and handlers working to keep the boss happy and therefore keep their job. Sure, being surrounded by “Yes men” can be more comfortable, but it can also insulate you from the stark realities of your business. If done correctly, social media enables CEO’s to hear raw, candid feedback from real people – people who aren’t afraid of being fired because they CAN’T be fired. The truth is, leaders with their ego in check are already fully aware that they work for the customer – the customer is his boss – so if the customer doesn’t like dropped calls on their iPhone or the sauce on their Domino’s pizza, it’s their job to make it better.

Now, every customer is not always right (or wrong), but if 850 out of 1000 user comments say tthe new Sketcher’s Sport shoe caused them to sprain their ankle, then something needs to be fixed – and fast! CoolCleveland’s Founder Thomas Mulready is a perfect example of a CEO with this customer orientation. After emailing out his weekly eMagazine for 7 years, he decided that it needed to be updated, and set about introducing a new format with much fanfare. In doing so, he also did something revolutionary – he asked all 90,000 of his readers for feedback on what they thought of the new style – and boy did they reply with scores of comments submitted over the span of a few days. But then he did something else revolutionary – he actually listened, modifying and improving the new site to reflect reader tastes and preferences. Yes, it takes humility (“Who are these people to give me feedback?  I invented this product! Don’t they know they can just click the links?) but the end result is an engaged audience who now feel genuinely empowered to provide even more feedback, emboldened by the knowledge that their comments actually impact (and can improve) the end product.

Social Media Value #2:  Authenticity

Hand-in-hand with the unfiltered feedback above is the ability to leverage social media to authentically communicate with your employees, partners, customers (and non-customers), investors, and media, directly engaging all of your brand ambassadors efficiently and economically. Rather than layers of staff, spokespeople, and sterile press releases, social media now offers an elegant and effective medium for disseminating information either “straight from the heart” or “straight from the horses’ mouth” depending on your preferred idiom. Dan Gilbert’s recent LeBron James “rant” would qualify as both, capturing the owners’ anger, frustration, and competitive resolve just moments after James’ announced his departure. As you’ve probably noticed, nobody can tell the company story and embody the company brand like the CEO (think Steve Jobs) and by offering the ability to immediately and directly engage stakeholders – whether on a typical day, during a product launch, and/or especially during a time of crisis – social media provides an invaluable medium for maximizing brand value and minimizing potential brand degradation. Social media helps firms “keep it real” but couches it in a positive brand-reinforcing context.

Social Media Value #3: Six Sigma (Low Cost)

In case you were wondering, executives LOVE things like Six Sigma because:

1. It reminds us of our Greek fraternity days in college.

2. The other soccer dad’s don’t understand Value Stream Mapping.

3. Six Sigma and lean processes are all about speed and cost sacvings, two of our favorite topics.

By its very architecture, social media is positioned to leverage firms’ Six Sigma orientation by expediting interactions, exchanges, customer service, feedback loops, product launches, marketing, and advertising, and enabling it at a fraction of the cost of traditional media, to a much more targeted audience, and in a far more nuanced and contextual value exchange. Social media options allow your message distribution format to evolve from shotgun to sniper, from billboard to message board, and from broadcast to narrowcast.  Plus, it takes your marketing posture from a one-way, blanketing, bullhorn approach to a more intimate, just-in-time interaction; offering the opportunity for a more detailed, valuable and more profitable conversation and connection with your audience (and you don’t need a Black Belt to do it).

Social Media Value #4:  Balancing Transparency AND Privacy

The only thing worse than not using social media tools is using them in the wrong way. Your firm could very easily invest time and money on social media, and then end up spending even more time and money doing damage control because you did it wrong the first time – talk about a lose-lose situation. With social media, there’s a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do things – so if you’re going to do it, do it right. Remember, anywhere-anytime-anyone social media channels must be handled as the “nuclear options” that they are, with the capability to destroy your brand value in a single Twitter, email, or YouTube video that goes viral.

With great power comes great responsibility, and a healthy respect for the global reach and impact of social media must emanate directly from the CEO, who knows better than anyone that the same programs allowing firms to connect and influence the marketplace can also be turned against you to alienate them. And just as social media can provide the market with a transparent window into the soul of your company, it can also showcase you at your worst, doing more harm than good.  Let’s face it, your firm is already dabbling in social media as it is – so you might as well manage your risk and liability by codifying corporate expectations, establishing specific ground rules, and educating your stakeholders regarding proper use of these seemingly innocent yet powerful tools.

Social Media Value #5: Supporting Statistics

Executives rely on market research to support and substantiate any designated course of action, and devour facts, stats, and data-points like shrimp at a wedding reception. Summarized below are a few statistics buttressing the explosion of this social media trend, and detailing how Corporate America is leveraging it to realize significant revenue and market share growth going forward.

• In the last 7 years, Internet usage has increased 70 percent a year. Spending for digital advertising this year will be more than $25 billion and surpass print advertising spending (forever)

• Lenovo has experienced a 20 percent reduction in activity to their call center since they launched their community website for customers
• Blendtec quintupled sales with its “Will it Blend” series on YouTube
• Only 18 percent of traditional TV campaigns generate a positive ROI
• Naked Pizza set a one-day sales record using social media: 68 percent of their sales and 85 percent of their new customers came via Twitter.
• Software company Genius.com reports 24 percent of social media leads convert to sales opportunities,
• Dell has already made over $7 million in sales via Twitter.
• Thirty-seven percent of Generation Y heard about the Ford Fiesta via social media before its launch in the US and currently 25 percent of Ford’s marketing budget is spent on digital/social media.
• Seventy-one percent of companies plan to increase investments in social media by an average of 40 percent.
• A recent Wetpaint/Altimeter Group study found companies that widely engage in social media surpass their peers in both revenue and profit.

(Sources for Statistics: meyersreport.com, lenovosocial.com, George Wright, Blendtec, Mashable.com, econsultancy.com, businessweek.com )

Getting Your Board On Board

Lest we forget, even the Boss has a Boss – they’re called the Board of Directors – and these are the people that recruit and hire CEO’s for the purpose of serving as a charismatic and visionary leader of their organization. And so I urge you, don’t disappoint them when it comes to leveraging social media within your organization. The “Bang for the Buck” value proposition is too compelling to ignore, and the fact is – your competitors are already entering this arena and establishing new service baseline norms and minimum threshold expectations – so standing still amounts to losing ground and therefore is not an option. What you need is a plan.

Do I still hate social media?  No, but I’m only going to embrace it on the “executive terms” that have served me so well to this point in my career and they are, “If you’re going to do something, go all in and do it right.”  From now on, all social media, social marketing, and social networking will be discussed in the context – not of a campaign (which starts and ends) – but as part of an ongoing, strategic, and systematic dialog with our stakeholders and marketplace.

Executives have the focus and vision to road map strategies playing out three, five, and 10 years into the future. But, we’re also “plodders” and are comfortable with short, measured, consistent steps – day in and day out – as long as we know that they are aligned with reaching a desired goal. When we discuss your social media strategy, the focus will be on consistency and sustainability over the long haul. Remember, executives don’t have the ego needs, risk profiles, or the time to be on the bleeding edge, or even the cutting edge. We just want it to work.

I can confidently predict that every month for the next 100 years there will be a new “Must Have” application, portal or community that one of your employees will discover, and then try to convince you that your company will implode if you don’t immediately join, link, or Retweet. In five years, all but three of these ideas will probably be forgotten.  During our meeting, we will discuss how to frame out an enterprise-wide social media strategy, predicated on the foundation of proven tools and that have stood the test of time and offer “Best-In-Class” results, so that you will be empowered to handle these conversations proactively in the context of a larger road map, rather than reacting to these weekly ambushes in a dismissive defensive way. Remember, our goal for social media is not a lark, but a lifestyle and work-shopping a strategy which builds on stable, scalable tools, yet also affords the flexibility to address unprecedented “Black Swan” technology developments, provides you with a welcome buffer from being whipsawed by a weekly website.  Between the two of us, we’ll finally take that reliable “80/20 Rule” and apply it to social media, and then spend time focusing on the 80 percent of stakeholder value that can be extracted with 20% of the effort (while knowingly and purposefully ignoring the remaining 20 percent of value which takes up 80 percent of the effort).

The Bottom Line

In the Forward of Geoffrey Moore’s bestseller “Crossing the Chasm” Regis McKenna writes:

“Fundamentally, marketing must refocus away from selling product and toward creating relationships. Customers don’t like to be ‘owned’ if that implies lack of choice or freedom. But they do like to be ‘owned’ if what that means is a vendor taking ongoing responsibility for the success of their joint ventures.  Ownership in this sense means an abiding commitment and a strong sense of mutuality in the development of the marketplace. When customers encounter this kind of ownership, they tend to become fanatically loyal to their supplier, which in turns builds a stable economic base for profitability and growth.”

While there will always be a “me” in media – social media, social marketing, and social networking tools were designed to work best as a conduit for enabling information exchange, establishing a dialog, and creating a two-way conversation with your audience. At the end of the day, social media is simply about creating and maintaining relationships – and even and executive can do that.

I’m an executive and I hate social media. There, I said it. It’s finally “out there.” But before you Twitter a flaming flash mob link to assemble pitchfork-wielding Second Life villagers outside my door, I urge you to take a deep breath, put down your double frappuccino, remove your earpiece, step away from your iPad, and set your iPhasers to stun, for I come in peace.  If you’ve ever wondered why your CEO also hates social media, social networking and, well, socializing in general, I urge you to continue reading.

Just as Fox TV’s Masked Magician series demystified the tricks of the world’s most famous illusionists, I offer the following as both a behind-the-scenes peak and a confessional of sorts, into the mind of the executive. For to truly understand the conflicting yet predictable stonewalling in this domain, one must search deep below the surface, plumbing the depths of the executive psyche, motivations, and worldviews, for only then will you be able to “crack the code,” engage us in our native tongue and communicate in a vocabulary and language to which we will respond.  Consider this your own personal backstage pass to the inner sanctum of the Executive Suite.

Executive: More Perception Than Position

For starters, the term “executive” isn’t a title as much as it is a mindset or a set of attributes – often leading to career success and the achievement of such rank – but what might surprise most is that this ambition and executive mentality often begins to manifest itself early in life.  For example, while most were partying and hanging out in high school, we were already taking college-level classes while holding down several part time jobs.  And when most were “finding themselves” in college and still deciding on a major after three years, we were serving in student leadership, doing internships, or doubling up on classes to finish college a semester early. And when most were finally in the workforce, instead of clubbing and playing in multiple softball leagues, we were completing an advanced degree in night school, pursuing professional certifications, and framing out retirement plans.

Executives are high achievers – that’s just how we’re wired. Give me a mountain and I’ll climb it. And if you don’t have a mountain, I’ll find my own mountain and I’ll climb it.  And if I can’t find a mountain, I’ll build one – just so I can climb it. But here’s what most people don’t get about executives. Once a CEO climbs a mountain, he doesn’t feel the need to Tweet to the world that he did it. He doesn’t have the natural desire to blog, “Look what a great climber I am” and include multiple pictures with links to his Facebook and LinkedIn account. He did it because it’s in his DNA. He doesn’t require the attention, approval, or applause of others, and therein lies the fundamental source of the problem – executives are non-narcissistic in a YouTube world. We’re outliers. In a society that brags, blogs, and Tweets about the tiniest personal minutia, we could care less because, frankly, we expect success, it’s normal to us. It’s like Vince Lombardi’s admonition to his running back after an overly exuberant display, “Next time you make a touchdown, act like you’ve been there before.”

Eagles Don’t Flock

Executives are “eagles,” and unlike seagulls, eagles don’t flock. We’re not joiners and we’re not groupies, which is why we overwhelmingly prefer challenging single-person sports like running, cycling, weightlifting, and our one concession to “group sports” – golf (which is still technically a single-person sport, but more fun in groups). Lance Armstrong didn’t win his titles without leaving the peloton,and ditto for greats like Sampras, Tiger, and Arnold. They had to go above and beyond the group to achieve greatness, and for this reason it truly us lonely at the top (not that we mind).

Social Networking: The Problem is “Networking”

The reason we hate social networking is the same reason we hate regular networking. Exchanging small talk for two hours in a room full of strangers, with a drink in one hand and a business card in the other, and a “Hi, I’m Doug” name tag peeling off my lapel, and standing – my goodness the standing – and looking unsuccessfully for any food with some protein in it, and wondering if this guy with the too-firm handshake is going to see if we can “LinkIn” after sharing an elevator ride, before glancing at my watch and counting the minutes until I can leave and get back to work. It’s a nightmare. Why? Because – surprise, surprise – most executives are actually introverts, who value their time and their privacy and are constantly evaluating the ROI trade-offs of every hour of every day. (Quiz:  How many times have you heard a CEO describe himself as a “People Person”?)

To say that we are anti-social would be a huge misrepresentation, but when you combine the word “social” with “networking” – let’s just say it sends shivers up my spine. Do I like the company of others? Sure I do – but I want the time to be well spent. Instead of random, shallow, unfocused small talk, CEO’s would much rather sit around with a small group of peers for 2 hours and discuss BIG specific challenges – and their solutions. In fact, the reason so much business gets done on the golf course is because it’s one of the few places leaders actually congregate and feel relaxed enough to discuss what’s really on their minds.

Social Networking: The Problem is “Social”

The next hurdle for executives with social networking are the implications of the root word “Social”, and, by its very spelling, its association to Socialism. Socialism is defined as, “Any system of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively,” and further, “An economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.” (At least that’s what someone wrote on Wikipedia). The premise and value of the “social media” movement is the power of the collective in the production, distribution, and ownership of goods, and the reason executives resist this model is that it flies in the face of their existing worldview which, quite frankly, has been pretty successful to date. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? Most of us have a pretty big chip on our shoulders, attributing our career success to the years of diligence, education, ambition, delayed gratification and sacrifices we’ve made to reach the leadership levels we’ve achieved.

Therefore, the anti-capitalistic notion that my work and contributions would be homogenized with the uninspired masses, and that ultimately my value would be determined by the randomness of the collective is a jarring and unpalatable departure. I want to control my company! I want to control my brand! I want to determine my destiny! It’s too important to leave it to chance (or simply be outvoted by the uninformed bourgeois)! Unfortunately and tragically for us executives, the beauty and power of social media is only fully unleashed when we let it go, and that, my friends, is the hardest thing for us to do (…and also explains why we hate checking luggage at the airport).

Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts

Okay, I promised that this would be a confessional, so here’s a shocker. Over time, there is a tendency for CEO’s to get inflated egos.  Now granted, a healthy ego can serve as a necessary defense mechanism to provide protection from the relentless attacks from subordinates, peers, and the media, but too much amounts to just plain pride. We like to think of ourselves as a pretty smart bunch, and our position is such that even if we don’t completely understand something, we often project to our colleagues that we do.

A classic example of this phenomenon transpired during the Enron debacle, where ranks of senior executives refused to admit that they couldn’t comprehend the mechanics of this powerful conglomerate, until it was too late. It’s the same with new advances in technology, which has accelerated during our careers from “hit or miss” to “mission critical,” going from bricks to clicks and from mortar to mind share, while serving as a platform for everything from infrastructure, billing, and product development, to security, scheduling, and sales. The rapid rate of change in digital innovation has caused CEOs to feel extremely vulnerable around technology because it is something on which we have become very reliant, but which we understand and “control” so little, and this vulnerability leads to fear, and this fear to irrational decisions and suboptimal outcomes. When CEOs don’t have the confidence in their staff to delegate, or lack the humility to admit their ignorance regarding technology advances, they get defensive and act out in fear – or fail to act altogether.

Social Media: Justified Fear?

Executives justify their fear of social media by pointing back to a historic drumbeat of disappointment and unfulfilled promises. They recall with vivid detail the never-ending parade of new online engagement vehicles and “paradigms” introduced over the past 15 years by turtleneck-wearing gurus with names like Kip or Seth, which were then propagated by self-proclaimed “New Economy” experts sporting titles like “Chief Innovation Officer” and “Director of Chaos,” and then championed by side burn-wearing hipster foot soldiers who never met a filter they didn’t like. In the 90’s, we were promised that customers would beat a path to our door if we created something called a “web page” and then “posted” it on this thing called the Internet or World Wide Web or something. Then they convinced us to buy electronic lists and send out “Email Blasts” to our target markets, and next it was a website redesign, push technology, pull technology, exchanged links, partner intranets, eBusiness, eCommerce, blogging, webinars, podcasts, search engine optimization, YouTube videos, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, yada, yada, yada. Each time they promised that this time it would be different, and that this new product/protocol/portal/potion would somehow (magically??) drive revenue, increase efficiency, and optimize utilization (or some other buzz word or invented metric). You told me to blog, so I blogged. You told me to Twitter, so I Tweeted. What’s it going to be tomorrow – scan my body into a mashup simulator to create a hologram so I can telepresence myself into sales calls in Madrid via FourSquare using Flickr? All I know is that I’ve spent a lot of time and money on a series of disjointed initiatives and campaigns and so far none have performed as advertised.

Don’t Feed Me Another Fad

Look, executives aren’t that complicated. While I can handle the many nuanced “gray areas” of business leadership, I prefer to see things in black and white; victories and defeats; profits and losses. I don’t mind making significant, strategic multi-year investments and committing to enterprise-wide initiatives which will improve the future performance of my company – in fact, I ENJOY it – what do you think got me to the Executive Suite in the first place? Just don’t insult me. I don’t want to waste any more time or money on the hype of  “the next big thing” or the newest tool or toy, only to be disappointed when the latest flash-in-the-pan fad fades and goes the way of Harvard Graphics. It’s not that I have a fear of commitment – frankly, it’s just the opposite. I have a healthy fear and distaste for doing things randomly just to be doing something; or because someone saw an article in USA Today, or CNBC did a story on it, or out of fear that I’ll be the last one in my circle to “get on board.” (Believe me, the things that keep me up at night can’t be solved in 140 characters or less). The truth is, I would love to commit to social media in a significant way, but so far nobody in my organization has stepped forward with a cerebral, strategic, multi-generational, integrated, systematic, and sustainable methodology and road map for synergistically capitalizing on this medium over the long haul.

Your Network is Your Net Worth

Executives are uniquely conflicted because we know better than anyone the power of relationships, and the truth of the old axiom, “Your network is your net worth,” yet we are inherently introverts, and gravitate towards solitude versus socializing. We understand on an intellectual level that none of us individually are “too big to fail,” and that even the Lone Ranger had Tonto and Batman had Robin, yet we find initiating conversations and exchanges with others to be draining, distracting, and exhausting rather than invigorating and inspiring. Hence we yearn; as a group we pine; for deep within our heart of hearts burns a great bright hope that somehow and in some way this social media movement or platform or culture or whatever could be harnessed and leveraged to cross that chasm and create valuable, authentic exchanges and relevant, real-time dialogue with stakeholders of all persuasions. If we could just develop an all-encompassing framework for how this would integrate into our enterprise-wide strategy, and manage it like a mission-critical project (complete with milestones, deliverables and accountability instead of fuzzy metrics like “buzz”), I am supremely confident that we could achieve escape velocity and – for the first time – truly establish and be able to articulate a synergistic, sustainable, and quantifiable strategy for leveraging “Best-In-Class” social media options to achieve desired corporate outcomes and maximize financial returns.

A Gift From Media To You

You know, it’s interesting. Somewhere in the convoluted catharsis of composing this confessional, I came to a surprising realization.  Maybe I don’t HATE social media after all. Maybe I just hate the Quixotic context in which most social media conversations exist, featuring a perpetually moving target, combined with an obsessive, cult-like worship of the default worldview, “If Something is New = It Must Be Good”, and where subjective criteria like “mindshare” and “impressions” are considered quantifiable deliverables and irrefutable barometers of success.

Come to think of it, maybe it’s high time that a C-level individual engaged this topic, and – once and for all –created a high-level overview and synopsis, crystallizing all of the strategic benefits and critical value streams, and distilling them into a language that speaks to executives everywhere in our native tongue – bottom line stakeholder value.

Part Two will run Wednesday.

This is, to me, is the beginning of the end game for the music business as it is presently constituted. As anyone with marketing experience can tell you, this is an industry that is doing itself in. The music industry didn’t do the same thing American car manufacturers didn’t do – respond to a changing market place.

“Billboard magazine recently predicted that summer 2010 could be the toughest touring market artists and promoters have had to face since the mid-’90s, citing a spate of nixed shows and canceled tours,” The Washington Post reported July 2.

Performers including the Eagles, John Mayer, Christina Aguilera and Simon & Garfunkel have either canceled dates or “postponed” entire tours because of weak ticket sales.

Why is this happening? Well, let’s get into the way back machine and look what happened when CDs were first introduced. That’s when the problems began.

In 1982, Sony and Phillips Electronics introduced the first CD recording – “The Visitors” by Abba. One would have thought that choice of a first release would have strangled the fledgling format in its cradle. Incidentally, the first CDs had a capacity of 74 minutes. That’s the length of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. I guess that makes up for the Abba release.

This is where the recording industry made its major mistake. Vinyl albums contained between eight and 10 songs. Whether out of hubris, stupidity, greed or something else, the recording industry put the same eight to 10 songs on those first CDs. Those CDs sold for $21.50, according to a 2007 report prepared by Recording Industry Association of America.

That worked until CD burners were first sold to the public in the middle 1990s. People discovered a blank CD actually held between 15 and 20 songs. That was a “hey, what a minute” moment. True, CD prices had dropped to just under $13, according to the RIAA. It was too late. A lot of people felt they were getting ripped off and got angry.

Free file sharing sites such as Napster rose up in response to that anger. The feeling seemed to be if the record companies were going to rip us off, we are going to fight back. Without rehashing the history, this eventually led to the creation of ITunes, where a complete album can be purchased for $9 or $10. The recording industry essentially ceded control of its product to Apple and other such sites.

Plus, feeding that anger, I feel, was rock stars went from being one of us to one of them. The Rolling Stones bought estates in the south of France. Eric Clapton flies around in a private jet. Why should a college kid making $60 or $70 a week delivering pizza or a laid-off worker feel any sympathy for some over-privileged musician?

Apparently not wanting to give up the valet and butler, those fat and happy musicians raised concert ticket prices to make up for the lost CD income. That is so damned odd to me. Did they think somebody not willing to pay more than $10 for a CD is willing to pay over $200 a ticket? I mean, Mick Jagger went to the London School of Economics. Did he skip the lecture on “elasticity of demand?”

What that term means according to the Business Dictionary is “responsiveness of the demand  for a good or service to the increase or decrease in its price. Normally, sales increase with drop in prices and decrease with rise in prices.” Or the less you charge, the more likely people are to buy your product. Well duh!

As I said at the start, I think what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the music business in its current form. Unlike the American auto industry, they are not pulling up before they crash. I don’t think they know how. Rather than find a solution, they would rather waste their time going after teenagers downloading music. Sad really.

I think the Internet is heading the same way. In fact, it has already started. YouTube used to allow anyone to post anything – including copyrighted material. No one sued for the simple reason that YouTube had no money. When Google purchased YouTube, all of the copyrighted material was taken down. The reason for the reversal was simple. Google has lots of money. Pots of money as big Google has make litigators drool. Google knew the owners of those copyrights would come after them.

Companies and organizations work very hard to build and maintain their brands. Those organizations want to maintain as much control over what they created. They don’t want their messages distorted by an outsider, no matter well meaning that outsider might be.

Plus, those logos mean money. Why do you think an official league jersey costs so much? Everybody gets a cut.

Now I know the social media argument about companies having to be willing to give up some control of their image. I make those arguments and I understand their relevancy. It reflects the major change that is happening in marketing – companies no longer can rely on looking for customers, customers have to find them.

More and more businesses get that. They understand they have to provide the right offerings to attract their customers. However, more and more companies and organizations are also drawing lines about what the public can use.

Like any sports fan, I have joined Facebook pages of the teams I back. I looked at some of those pages. On a fan page for the Green Bay Packers, there is the Packers helmet. I cannot tell if the site is blessed by the Packers. I don’t know if the people who created the page realize this, but the Green Bay Packer “G” logo is trademarked.

This is nothing new, by the way. When George Halas founded the Chicago Bears right after World War I, he paid Carroll College in Waukesha, Wis. $100 to be allowed to use the now famous Bears’ “C.” It was Carroll’s logo first, they owned the rights, and Halas had to get permission to use it.

Now, I realize that much of the use of logos, trademarks and other such things is often perfectly innocent. Fans just want to show how much they love their team or their automobile. The law does not make that distinction though.

What has saved both groups, so far, is that the Internet has been the Wild West of the law. Meaning currently there is not a lot of law governing this kind of thing. But there will be. Eventually, national and international courts will establish guidelines on the use of logos and other proprietary material. Treaties will be negotiated and boundaries will be drawn.

Like the Wild West, eventually the Internet will be plowed, fenced and “civilized.” The free range will be taken away.

I don’t watch a lot of television, but when I do, I pay close attention to the advertisements. As a marketer, I like to see what major companies are doing to drum up business. Granted, I think social media would be far more effective, but a lot of companies still feel comfortable with what they view as the tried and true.

Watching commercials always reminds me of a major reason reasons I don’t like traditional advertising. The copywriters and producers constantly use stereotypes and half-truths to make a point. It is a lazy way to make a point. As times, those ads can be downright insulting.

As an example, Kellogg’s has been running a commercial entitled on YouTube “Fruit Loops Doctor Commercial 2009.” The commercial has a small boy playing the doctor, a small girl playing the nurse, and a small boy as a patient.

The commercial claims Fruit Loops can be good for you because it now contains fiber. That claim alone I find dubious. According to Kellogg’s, a typical serving contains three grams of fiber. The American Dietetic Association says children under 12 should be consuming at least an amount of fiber equal to their age plus three. There are a lot better ways for a child to get enough fiber. Fruit and vegetables come to mind.

In addition, the first ingredient listed for Fruit Loops is sugar, 12 grams in a typical serving. The American Heart Association says that’s the amount of sugar a child should consume in an entire day. Somehow, the ad doesn’t mention that.

What really frosts me though are the gender stereotypes. As I said, the doctor is male, the nurse is female. According to the May 6, 2010 New York Times, almost half of medical students are women. The last number I could find – from 2006 – said 33 percent of practicing physicians are women. So why did Kellogg’s or their agency decide the doctor had to be a woman?

Plus, since women make most grocery buying decisions, wouldn’t it be logical to show a sympathetic character?

As for another stereotypes, AT&T has been running a commercial showing a family that has just signed up for AT&T’s Internet service. With that service comes Wi-Fi. Only Dad doesn’t seem to understand how Wi-Fi works. He keeps asking for a cord to connect to the Internet.  He is told the cord is invisible. He asks for his own invisible cable. I mean, come on.

It always bothers me when a campaign singles out a parent – be it mother or father – to ridicule. Why make fun of anybody?

As for the dad in this commercial – I don’t anyone who calls a USB cable a cord. Second, anyone using the Internet on consistent basis must know what Wi-Fi is. What kind of a dolt is this dad?

To me, this kind of commercial is just a very lazy way of doing things. And, no is it not satire. It is just a lack of creativity.

Did you ever notice how hard businesses work to attract new business? Yet, once they make the sale, they act like a two-year-old. They lose interest and move on to what looks like another shiny opportunity. They only notice the old sale when some other company tries to take the customer away. The two-year-old mentally kicks again. They suddenly want to keep what they ignored because someone else wants it.

The problem with being reactive is that it’s usually too late. A customer ignored is usually a customer lost.

That has always struck me as a strange way to do business. Yet, I see it all the time.

I am reading a book called “Flip The Funnel. How to Use Existing Customers to Gain New Ones” by Joseph Jaffe, president and chief interrupter (a title I love, by the way) of the Long Island-based consulting firm crayon. It lays out the reasons why more efforts should be focused on keeping existing customers.

As Jaffe says in the book: “why – if our customers are the lifeblood of our business – are we not relatively investing in them according?”

Jaffe cited a number of examples of why marketing to existing companies is extremely important, but I will give one. In 2008, customers who made more than three purchases from online shoe retailer Zappos accounted for 50.2 percent of the company’s business. In comparison, those people who only ever made one purchase accounted for 28.6 percent of sales. The remaining 21.2 percent of sales came from those who made two or three purchases.

So, a little more than half of the company’s business came from loyal, committed customers. Now, Zappos works hard to serve to that group of people. As they should – these people are the company’s most reliable revenue stream.

According to the website 1000ventures.com:

• Acquiring new customers can cost five times more than satisfying and retaining current customers.
• A two percent increase in customer retention has the same effect on profits as cutting costs by 10 percent.
• The average company loses 10 percent of its customers each year
• A five percent reduction in customer defection rate can increase profits by 25-125 percent, depending on the industry.
• The customer profitability rate tends to increase over the life of a retained customer.

Yet, despite all of those facts, most companies work harder to attract new customers than they do to keep the ones they have. I have to say marketing agencies are part of the problem. When was the last time you read about an agency touting its ability to hang onto existing customers?

Yes, it is important to attract new business. But, I would argue that it is more important to hold onto the business your company already has. As Jaffe points out, churning business is a bad thing.

That churn forces companies to focus too much energy on replacing lost business. It takes less energy and effort to hold onto an existing customer than it does to attract a new one. The energy used to attract new business could be better used coming up with new ways to satisfy existing customers. After all, happy customers don’t leave.

Which brings me to another point. It is an axiom in the agency business that a client will want to shift its a business when a new marketing manager takes over. I suspect the same axiom holds true in other businesses, although it might when a new buyer takes over or when management changes. The argument goes that the new executive at the client will like some other agency and will make a switch for that reason alone. I have seen a lot of companies that just give up when there’s a change in the client’s executive team changes.

It doesn’t have to be that way. The mindset needs to change.  Social media is an excellent way to maintain a brand and hence hold onto clients. In the coming weeks, I will be talking about some companies that do customer retention very well. I am always looking for examples. Let me know which companies you think do it well and how they do it.  If you have examples, I would like those too.



All of that effort would have gone nowhere if the people charged with integrating social media didn’t take the company’s culture into account, Tim Blair, IBM’s vice-president for Marketing and Communications said. Blair spoke at the PR + Social Media Summit held at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI. Marquette and a number of Wisconsin companies sponsored the summit.

I wanted to hear Blair speak because IBM has a reputation in the social media world of being one of the most open companies when it comes to social media.

What makes this particularly interesting is that IBM is almost a century old. This is a not a Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, or Zappos. Those companies are all fairly new. Their corporate cultures are still forming, so it would seem to me to be easier to incorporate social media.

IBM, on the other hand, used to be known for its rigid corporate culture. When my late brother worked there in the late 1960s, the standard uniform was a white shirt, subdued tie, and gray suit. You did not deviate from that.

For a company such as IBM to change its culture to allow its employees to act as individuals is a stretch. It impressed me that such an institution is willing adopt a new way of doing things. It reminds of how the U.S. is also willing to stretch its culture to allow its members to use social media. The company accomplished because people such as Blair understood what would it take to make the change.

“Social media needs to be derivative of business model and corporate culture,” Blair explained. “Culture always wins. You have to figure out to stretch the culture. Not changing the culture, but stretching it. Social media needs to be a derivative of the business and corporate culture.”

The first step in moving into social media is knowing where a company wants social media to take them. There has be a definition of the destination, Blair said.

“You need to know where are going or you will fail,” Blair said.

Stretching means working to ensure social media becomes a part of it. It is almost impossible to change a corporate culture, Blair said. If you try to do that, you will fail. What needs to be done is to demonstrate how social media will fit into what the company is already doing.

“Social media does fundamentally change how you manage communications,” Blair said. “When I arrived at IBM, communication was very linear. But social media has helped flatten that out.”

IBM now uses social media for internal and external communications, Blair said. It has three primary uses within the company: to flatten communication channels, to help employees learn and to influence the conversation going on among all of IBM’s stakeholders.

As example of internal use, Blair cited the company’s management training program. IBM used to fly all of its managers into its Armonk, N.Y. headquarters for training. It now trains them via the Internet. The training is as effective ever and it saved IBM money, he said.

A key to using social media is empowering employees, Blair said. IBM does not lock its employees out of the Internet. That would be counterproductive, he said.

“At the end of the day, we want to empower everybody, Blair said. “Our brand is experienced by the expertise our employees in the field have with customers. We have to trust those employees.”

Every IBM employee is seeped in the company’s values. That’s important because it ensures those employees will hew to those values when they use social media, Blair said.

In fact, the company’s social media policies – first created in 2005 – were created by the employees. There are now 17,000 blogs written by IBM employees, he said.

There was a learning curve for senior executives, Blair said. They had to shown why it was important to deal with bloggers whom they had never heard of before. It took them awhile to understand the influence bloggers could have, That doesn’t mean the company ignores traditional media, he added. Engaging with the traditional outlets is still important, he said.

As I said, it was impressive. I think a lot of companies can learn from the computer giant did.

When clients hire me, the first thing I tell them is that I will help do everything possible to convince potential customers to come through the client’s front door.  That might mean blogging, it might mean using Twitter and Facebook, or social bookmarking. I also might encourage them to use traditional public relations tactics, such as issuing press releases or a media event to gain coverage in the local press and on television.

All of that should be done, but none of it will complete the task. As I said, it will get that potential customer into your lobby. But, that’s as far as it will take them. The next thing that needs to be done is for you to come out into that lobby and talk to that person. I mean that literally. You need to be in the same room to close the deal.

Any number of anthropologists and social scientists have documented the importance of face-to-face meetings. Much human communication doesn’t include talking. Gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and posture are all important.

In doing the research for this particular blog, I found a report from the Harvard Business Review Analytic Services that explained it well. In a 2009 survey of 2,211 Harvard Business Review subscribers, 95 percent those responding felt face-to-face meetings were the most important part in their efforts in establishing long-term relationships. The survey found that “across the board, face-to-face meetings were seen as the most effective method for conducting business with key stakeholders, compared with videoconferences, teleconferences, and webinars.”

A note on the study – it was commissioned by British Airways as part of its campaign to get business people traveling again. However, I feel the results are still valid.

Those responding to the survey said that people-to-people meetings were seen as most effective for:

• Negotiating contracts (82 percent)
• Interviewing potential staff (81 percent)
• Understanding customers (69 percent)

Face-to-face meetings are how I prefer to find new clients. I do a lot of networking. I belong to several groups where I can meet those who might need my services. That’s not the only reason I belong. I also do it because I can learn things by attending meetings.

One thing about joining groups – I belong to my professional association, the Public Relations Society of America. However, that is not a place where I try to, or expect to, find clients. These are people who do the same thing I do. I belong for professional advancement and to advance my profession. Plus, it’s good to talk to people who do the same thing I do.

For networking purposes, join groups such as your local Better Business Bureau or Kiwanis or the Lions or some other group. However don’t join just for picking up new business. You are there to contribute and learn. Other members are going to quickly figure out you don’t have any real interest in the organization if all you are doing is trying to sell yourself.

To bring this full circle, personal meetings in this setting are a lot like social media. You want to give people a reason to consider hiring you or your company. Saying “I am the best there is, hire me” is not a reason. You have to demonstrate why hiring you makes sense. Pounding your chest is not going to work. In fact, it will make most people head in the other direction.

Remember, social media is about having a conversation. That means you to listen to others, be it at a group’s meeting, or with a client. You need to hear what they are saying. How else are you going to learn what their needs are?

The ultimate goal is creating good word-of-mouth about you and your company. That will lead both to more business and good relationships. I can tell it has happened to me because I follow what I preach. Do what I do and it will happen for you also.

My wife and I get a lot of emails – both personal and professional. Between us, we have four addresses. I am talking about receiving perhaps 200 message a day or more. Many of them are for me. I monitor a lot of different social media trends and belong to a lot of different sites. I follow those sites via either RSS feed or email.

There is no problem with that part of my email load. In fact, most of the professional sites to which I belong has policies limiting themselves to one message a week or one a day. What bothers me is the retailers to whom I have given my email address.

I am a very picky about where I shop and what I buy. I have rules about comfort, style and ingredients. As much as possible, my wife and I shop at stores headquartered in Milwaukee or Wisconsin. Because Wisconsin produces everything from cheese to underwear to cleaning products, it isn’t hard.

We also tend to be loyal to the companies who produce what we view as good things. Because of that, we follow those companies on their social media sites. We also used to sign up for their email lists. We don’t do that so much anymore.

Why? Because these retailers don’t seem to understand there’s a limit to how many emails should be sent. It get’s very annoying very quickly. What’s really annoying is when the same retailer sends multiple copies of the same email. I know this is an automated marketing tool these retailers use. I also know that times are tough for retailers right now. I know they are desperate to drum up business anyway they can. The recession has hit them particularly hard.

I also know they are not going to dig themselves out of it by annoying their customers. I get so many emails from some of them that my spam filter kicks in. That’s annoying because I then have to go through my spam filter to sort through the messages.

I know these retailers are not spammers. They are not trying to sell me a timeshare in Kuala Lumpur or tell me I won the Irish lottery. (Don’t ever try that last one on someone who knows Ireland. It ain’t gonna work. My grandfather used to buy me Irish lottery tickets. I know how the Irish lottery works.) Yet, sometimes they act like spammers – they send out multiple emails each week trying to get me to buy something.

I try to be a careful shopper. I check online reviews, talk to friends, and compare prices. I am a very good collector of information. I don’t need five emails in one week from a retailer.

What usually ends up happening is that I will skim the message line. If it doesn’t grab my attention right away, I just delete the email. It never gets opened. I am way too busy building my business. I don’t have time to wade through 20 or 30 emails from companies that want me to buy something.

That means the company loses a sale. I suspect I am not alone in this.

As a note: reporters cannot accept anything of value. It is against most publication’s ethics code. So don’t send anything. Anything I received went to charity if possible. If it was food, it went to a food bank. If it was perishable food or beer (hey, I work in Milwaukee) I shared with the entire newsroom. I always said – maybe I have my price, but other than Bill Gates, I doubt anyone could pay it. A box of cookies wasn’t going to influence me.

When I left journalism just over seven years, I went to work for any agency run by a former reporter. It was a great place to learn. Like everyone else, I did the traditional things one does in P.R. and marketing. The only difference for me was that my pitches and writing were better. I had a good track record there and at my next job.

The appearance of social media four years ago changed everything. It was also when I learned that traditional public relations and social media go very well together. I had a client that couldn’t get employees to open emails. After doing some research, we decided to a series of podcasts. The podcasts were very successful. It wasn’t even called social media then, the usual title was Web 2.0

The employees found out about the podcasts through the traditional channels. There was an announcement in the company’s newsletter; each department head received a written announcement to read to their employees. We also got some press coverage because at the time what we did was unique.

Without going into a lot of tedious detail, I soon learned when I went out my own that social media is becoming the dominant form of marketing. I have done everything I can to learn about it and how to use it. Still, the growing dominance of social media doesn’t mean that there is still not a place for traditional methods.

Do not discount the power of a story on the front page of a local newspaper or on the local television station. While it’s a shrinking group, many people still get their information from traditional media. That includes elected officials. It is silly to ignore those people. They are probably also on line, but what’s wrong with reaching them through multiple channels?

Yes, I advise sending out a social media press release. See last Monday’s blog for the reasons. But it is still a press release. Just in a super-charged form.

Twitter is a great place to release news. Many, many journalist now follow Twitter. Rather than call 50 reporters, you can send out one tweet and get journalists to call you. They might be working for a traditional outlet, but you reached out using social media. See, you married the two methods.

As for employees, I always advise a combination of social media and traditional methods. In any kind of many workplaces, manufacturing, retails, and others, employees are not going to have constant access to the Internet. They probably have it at home, but they are not at home at times when you want to get the word out. If it’s really important, you should have a face-to-face meeting. If it is not that important, but if you want employees to know something, there is nothing wrong with posting a notice where they can see it.

None of this changes my opinion that CEOs should be blogging, companies should have Facebook Fan pages, should be posting videos on YouTube, creating groups on LinkedIn and tweeting company news. That should be the primary focus.

But just as I use a hammer on home improvement projects that first belonged to my grandfather, traditional tools still have a place in marketing and public relations.

For the past few years, I have thought the press release was an outmoded way of getting the word out. From my own experience as a reporter, I know how little time reporters have to read all the stuff they get daily. However, the old fashioned released has morphed into a social media release. It is press release on performance enhancing drugs. I am starting to see how effective that kind of release can be.

When I was a reporter, press releases were a fact of my workday. Before the Internet, dozens arrived daily in the standard number 10 business envelope. As a young reporter, I dutifully read through each and every one of them. I thought it was the right thing to do. Who knew, maybe the key to next Pulitzer Prize was in the one of those envelopes.

Reporters get a lot of mail from every imaginable source. Not just press releases, but letters from convicts who feel they are wrongly accused, happy readers, angry readers, story ideas written on pencil on legal paper and a lot of other stuff. That avalanche of envelopes is what stopped from reading every press release. I just didn’t have time to weed through them every day. I would quickly sort through the pile, keeping only the ones with return addresses that told me the company might have to say.

The people I dealt with soon learned the best way to get my attention was to call me. We would discuss a potential story and if I was interested, I would request more information. Even then, I didn’t want a press release. What I wanted was background information that provided basic facts – things such as the size of company, number of employees, annual income, size of the project, that kind of stuff.

I don’t think I ever missed a story by not reading the press releases. My sources knew if they gave me a good story, I would fight like hell to get it into the paper. I was usually a pretty good salesman.

When I switched to public relations seven years ago, I brought the anti-press release attitude with me. Because I spent 26 years as a reporter, I have great contacts all over the U.S. and even some internationally. Reporters used to be professional nomads. We would continually switch jobs, always striving to get to a bigger paper with a larger circulation. You make a lot of friends doing that. So, if I had a client who needed a story placed, I could usually reach a person who could make that happen.

Even when I didn’t know somebody, I was pretty skilled at getting a story into a publication. I speak the language of reporters. I know what gets them excited. I know the first four words you say to any reporter when you call. I should make this a quiz, but I won’t – the first four words are: “are you on deadline?”

That’s all changing with the rise of social media and the shrinking of regular media. There are fewer reporters chasing more stories. They need stuff they know is accurate and can access quickly.

As I said at the start, enter the social media press release. What is it?

As I also said, it is press release on steroids. It is so much more than the old paper press release. When I set up one up for a client, I include pictures, background material, contact information, video, links to my client’s website, their Twitter feed, their Facebook fan page and the LinkedIn pages of key executives. It is so much more complete than the old ones.

And sites such at Pitch Engine allow you to send links to the information out to just about anybody to whom you want.

What I usually do is call the key contacts I want to receive the information to give them a heads up that it’s up. Then I email the link so they can access the data. I have found universal acceptance for this.

Reporters and bloggers seem to love it. At one of the click of the mouse, they get anything they need for their story. It makes their job easier, which makes them happy, which means they are more likely to a do a positive story. That in turn makes my client happy, which makes ultimately makes me happy.

So, you see, while the traditional press release is going, going…. , the social media release is on its way. Once again, social media takes a traditional method of doing something and improves it.

Last Wednesday, I said Toyota was slow out of the blocks to respond to the various crises it has faced of late. I think I was blogger 10,143 to state the obvious. However, I also said the company is showing signs of regaining its equilibrium.

Note: I drive a 2000 Camry. Both my children drive Corollas.

The company is running ads in every print and broadcast outlet it can find – including a lot of radio. It has shown pictures of its idled factories to demonstrate how serious it is in identifying the accelerator and brake issues. It also has a very active presence on Facebook.

Still while this is a good start, I think the company could do more. I think they if they handled it as I suggest, they would turn a negative into a positive.

Do What Datsun Did

The first thing Toyota’s C-Suite executives should do is plan road trips to every dealer in every country where Toyota is sold. The road trippers should be Chairman Fujio Cho, Vice Chairmen of the Board Katsuaki Watanabe and Kazuo Okamo, President Akio Toyoda, and in North America, Jim Lentz, president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor Sales, USA. If there are people who hold the same positions as Lenz in Europe, Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa, they should also pack their bags.

They need to take a page from the handbook of retired Nissan executive Yutaka Katayama.  It was Katayama who made Datsun (which later returned to its original name of Nissan) into the first Japanese automobile success story in the United States, according to the late journalist and author David Halberstam. It was Halberstam who detailed Datsun’s success in “The Reckoning” – his account of the rise the Japanese auto industry.

Katayama lived in the United States. He traveled constantly around the U.S., meeting, customers, dealers, reporters and anyone else who talk to him. Halberstam explained that Katayama made Datsun a powerhouse because “he (Katayama) was a rare man. He brought a face to the Japanese mercantile presence; meeting him, Americans felt they knew, understood and liked the Japan that was behind his products.”

This is what Toyota’s executives should be doing. Going to every place in the world where there have been problems. Once there, they should personally apologize to their customers. They should be interviewed by the media in each city and repeat the apology. They should honestly answer the tough questions about what they knew and when they knew it. They should be speaking to every group that will listen. There should be town hall style meetings at dealerships for the customers and the general public to air grievances.

These public appearances will, in my opinion, do much to quell the anger and rebuild trust. Most people are willing to forgive a mistake, as long the one who makes the mistake sincerely apologizes.

Cut Prices

Second, a simple thing to do would to be slash prices on all models. Not a token five percent cut – a real one in the neighborhood of 25 percent. For those who have a car with a defective accelerator or brakes, give them a new car. I would throw into five years free maintenance for every car sold. Not just for oil changes and other minor things, but for all repairs from replacing a headlamp to replacing a transmission.

More Social Media

Third, I would make better use of social media than they are. Both Cho and Lenz should be blogging every week. Craig Newmark – the Craig of Craig’s List does, as does Jonathan Swartz, president and chief operating officer of Sun Microsystems and my personal favorite CEO blog, that of Southwest Airlines Gary Kelly. It has helped all three companies when they have hit rough patches. Explanations sound so much better when they come from the person in charge.

Finally, there are many, many people out there who are still strong Toyota supporters. Anecdotally, I know that because as Chester the Wonder Dog and I walk each day, I talk to Toyota owners. I have yet to find one who would get rid of their car.

I have also been on the Toyota Facebook page for U.S. owners. The level of support is amazing. Toyota needs to get those people more organized around company support. Most kind of companies would kill for that kind of support.

Put this all together and I think Toyota will be just fine.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw what can happen when employees buy into a company’s overall marketing plan. I also saw what happens when a company representative ignores what a company should be doing. In the first case, I will recommend the company to my friends and to you. In the second, I will never talk about them, never endorse them, and if asked, will tell people what I think.

Case One – The Good Guys

The first case involves clothier Lands’ End. I buy a lot of my clothes from them. They are a Wisconsin-based company (albeit now owned by Sears.) I try to shop local whenever I can. But, that doesn’t mean I will forsake quality just because something is made in my home state. Lands’ End makes quality clothing.

(Note to FTC: I have not received any form of payment from Lands’ End. I doubt they even read my blog.)

At any rate, a few months ago I bought a pair of blue jeans from the Dodgeville, Wis. – based company. I wear jeans a lot. If I am working in the office all day, I wear jeans. When I am doing a repair project at home, or working outside, I wear jeans. I expect them to be comfortable and to last for a couple of years.

While the Lands’ jeans were comfortable, they started showing signs of wear with a few weeks. When a hole appeared where I sit, I went to return them to a local Lands’ End store. I had not saved the receipt.

The people in the store could have not been nicer. They looked at the jeans, checked the computer to find my account, and took the pants back no questions asked. The manager credited my credit card for the money I had spent.

What that manager did was ensure I will buy Lands’ End products for a long time. Among the other things it does, Lands’ End promises superior customer service. I am sure it is written into their business and marketing plans. More importantly, I am sure the expectation to provide that kind of service is communicated to the company’s employees.

That’s key to a company’s ethos. It isn’t enough to have a great marketing plan. Employees have to buy into it.

Now, for the other side

Both my children are getting married this year. My son and daughter are marrying wonderful people whom I really like

Since my wife and I parents of the bride in my daughter’s case, we are responsible for handling a lot of the arrangements. One of the key things we are doing is hiring a caterer. I suggested ordering 50 or so pizzas, but no one went for my idea.

Actually, my wife is handling most of the arrangements. She is smarter than I am and much better at this kind of thing.

So, she started contacting caterers. Milwaukee is a large city and we had a lot to choose from. One thing I should note is that my daughter is a vegetarian. When my wife contacted a number of caterers, she specified there had to be a vegetarian option. My wife also did her homework. She contacted friends and some food suppliers to ask which catering companies were best.

After narrowing the list down to two finalists. She emailed them both and asked for information. One responded quickly and provided all of the information requested. We were impressed. The other, frankly, took its time.

When the second caterer responded, they did not include a vegetarian option with their menu. Now, my wife is a very nice person. She patiently explained to the second caterer they did not provide the requested information. We got a nasty response that claimed the information was never requested. Wrong, we have the emails. My wife suggested they be more careful next time.

The reply my wife received read as follows: “THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUGGESTION.” Yes, it was in caps. That means the person was shouting.

I am not naming the caterer because it is not going to mean anything to most of you. And, I still want to give the company the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this person is not representative of the organization. I would not want to sully the entire company because of one idiot.

That being said, if anyone asks my wife or I what we think of this company, we are going to relate the above story. Would you want to hire them after hearing it?

The Moral

Now this caterer might have great business and marketing plans in place. Those plans might call for superior customer service. If they do, it doesn’t matter. Those plans are just so many meaningless words because one employee forgot their job to serve the client.