I have previously written about selling social media to a company, but that’s only the first step. There is more to be done after completing the initial sale than there was before the sale.

We who do social media full-time forget what a culture change it is for most organizations. Not just for those people in the C-Suite, but for everyone down to, and including, the receptionist. Remember, up until to about six years ago, most employees didn’t have to worry about social media or marketing their company in any way.

“Too often, people from company “A” will recognize great success that company “B” is having by doing XYZ with social media,” Blogger Adam Christensen wrote. “So, logically, they decide to do the same at company A. But the results are dramatically different. Why? Because they didn’t account for the corporate culture variable which is inevitably different between the two companies.”

Christensen is currently the director of social and digital communications and marketing at Juniper Networks in San Francisco. Until April, he worked for IBM in communications and marketing where he led IBM’s social business strategy and execution globally. He worked on projects including IBM’s Watson and Smarter Planet.

So first, what is corporate culture and how’s it formed?

Well, corporate culture is essentially an internal brand. It doesn’t exist until the majority of people at the company buy into it. The company’s leadership and employees who have the same values and assumptions about their place of work create it. Although it can awhile for a company to form a culture, once formed it can be difficult to change.

Why? Because it provides a sense of belonging and safety to the people who work there. Remember, in every company there are the written and the unwritten rules. The unwritten rules are that which forms the culture. By following both sets, especially the unwritten one, an employee can generally minimize surprises and things out of the ordinary.

The problem is that same culture can keep a company from taking the calculated risks they need to stay viable. Consider the bookseller Borders or the video rental company Blockbuster. While I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened to each, I know from being a customer of each that their cultures were wedded to a way of doing business that was clearly no longer viable.

Those examples are not going to stop other companies from making the same mistakes. Staying in one place is usually the normal human state.

So along comes someone like myself telling the leaders and employees they need to adopt social media if they want to remain in business. Yes, they know about Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and the other social media sites. They might even say they want to do it. But it still means a huge culture change.

So what do you do? Well, first it takes an intensive education program. You need to show everyone how social media works and what it can do for the company. You need to show each employee how they fit into the plan.

You also need to get their input. You need to find out what they are comfortable with and what they are willing to start with. As I always say, you have to crawl before you can walk.

Once you and the leadership feels that employees are ready to dip into social media, start out internally. Set up internal blogs, an employee Wiki and other applications. Let as many employees as possible play, learn, grow, build relationships, and develop the needed collective awareness. Once the employees are comfortable with it, take it public. It will work then.

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.

So I get an email the other day from a Linkedin connection. He wants me to invest in the next generation Groupon. It’s not going to happen. Why? Well because frankly it wasn’t a particularly creative idea. Creativity is what drives business success.

This is what I said in reply to the request:

“You don’t get rich by doing something somebody has already done. The Groupon space is getting pretty crowded, especially now that Facebook and Google are both jumping in.

“You get wealthy by coming up something entirely new, ala Facebook, Linkedin, or something like that. Each company founder identified an unmet need and filled it. That idea goes back to the founding of the Republic. Look at Edison, Bell, Ford, the Wright Bros., Watson, Jobs, Gates and others. They got there first and built empires.

“Come with up with a completely unique concept. I will be interested then.”

Being unique and creative are two keys to business success. It doesn’t matter if your company has one or 100 competitors. If your product and the way you market it are something new and exciting you will beat your competition like a drum. Actually the product doesn’t have to be that creative. If it a fills a need better than its competitors, you are going to be ahead of those competitors. Add in marketing in a way that attracts and engages your potential customers and you have driven the ball over the fence.

My agency works with established companies of all sizes. . Our clients, no matter the size or age of their company, are entrepreneurial. Their founders saw a need for something, came up with the product to fill that need, and took it to market. They didn’t copy anybody else. Because management has stuck with that, the companies are growing and dominating their competition.

Not wanting to just do what everyone else was doing in Milwaukee was why I decided to found my own agency. A lot of agencies still don’t understand what social media is or how to use it properly. A lot of them have seemingly rejected it. As importantly they also don’t know how to meld social media with traditional marketing and public relations. To ignore any of those three marketing channels seems to me to be the height of folly. It pretty much ensures creativity will be stifled. That’s the key to our success.

Entrepreneur and author Josh Linker drove that point home at Biztimes Milwaukee’s BizTech Conference-Expo last week. He spoke about companies have two choices: be creative or die.

In 1999 Linker founded an Internet copy called ePrize. He saw that while on-line advertising was taking off there was no online promotion company. ePrize is the company that developed all those games, contests and sweepstakes on-line companies offer. It has swamped its competition.

Linker points out in his book “Disciplined Dreaming” that: “Great companies are built on ideas. They discover new and compelling ways to solve problems for customers. They play to win rather than not-to-lost. In fact, we’ve reached a time when playing it safe has become the riskiest move of all. General Motors played it safe all the way to bankruptcy. Maxwell House played it safe as the more daring and creative Starbucks supplanted it as the leader of the coffee industry.”

Risk and creativity are two of the reasons I like social media and marketing in general. There are no guarantees, but the chances of success are much than just sitting on the bench. Think about it.

Why did it fail? Because despite the sometimes dozens of leads generated for those local dealerships, the salespeople didn’t buy into it. What they wanted was instant gratification, Strong explained. They didn’t want to cultivate those potential sales, none of which were guaranteed to buy a vehicle. What they wanted was someone to walk into the dealership who wanted to buy a car immediately, he said.

Many of those listening to the presentation faulted the salespeople. How could they not want to accept a bunch of leads handed to them on that proverbial platter? Boy, those men and women were lazy, many said.

Well, I disagree – they weren’t lazy. I think it was just that no one sat down and walked them through how social media works. Not just how this sales program worked, which I believe was demonstrated, but how social media in its entirety works.

Look I know social media is taking over marketing. Still, it is only about five or six years old. To a lot of people it is new and somewhat scary. It is such a shift in the way things have been done that it still hard for many of the rank and file to grasp.

A lot of that has to do with the Great Recession. Companies from coast-to-coast cut employees. No one wanted to stand out for fear they would be the next one out the door. So they hunkered down in their cubicles, did what they were told, and did nothing to attract attention. The Japanese have a saying that goes “the nail that stands out is hammered down.” No one wanted to be that nail.

This was not an atmosphere that lent itself to creativity and risk taking.

Chrysler’s management loved and endorsed this program, Strong said. Unlike many CEOs and CMOs, Chrysler’s management actually got it. I think being the smallest U.S. auto manufacturer gave management the impetus to try something new.

Well, as Shakespeare said, “there’s the rub.” Given what’s been going on for the past three years in corporate America, do you think most people actually trust management? It appears to be no one bothered to get buy in from the people who would be the beneficiaries from the program.

Getting buy in does not mean just mean explaining this new marketing program. It means starting at zero and showing employees the benefits of social media. It cannot be assumed that they know what’s going on just because you tell them it is going to work.

Let me give you an analogy from own family’s history. My grandmother grew up on a dairy farm in upstate New York in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. For most of the time when she was a girl, her father used a team of horses to power the farm. The horses were used for everything from pulling the plow to taking the family into town.

As the farm grew more prosperous and larger, the horses could no longer handle plowing the growing acreage. So the men on the farm debated what to do. This was a tough decision. We take these things for granted nowadays, but in 1920 a growing, sparking, loud tractor was a scary concept. Apparently only after the three men had decided unanimously – with buy-in from the women – that a tractor was needed was a purchase made. The key here was everyone agreed about the need and understand the benefits.

This is what companies need to do. Even if the CEO and CMO agree on the need to a new way of marketing, it is doesn’t mean the employees will understand the need. The days of top down management are gone. That Chrysler program demonstrated that to me. Employees have to be shown and convinced that something new will work. Otherwise the entire effort is a waste of time, money and effort.

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.

Doing branding so it’s effective means melding traditional media, public relations and social media. Using just one of those methods might be effective in creating a brand. While there are never any guarantees, using the three methods as a trio greatly increases the chances that your product will resonate with potential customers.

Remember, a brand does not exist until it is fixed in a customers mind. Until then it is just something up shelf space.

So, what do you to meld the three? Well, the first thing is to sit down with the client and discuss their goals. Then take a deep breath and do that client sanity check I have talked about. One you have realistic goals, write a plan.

This is what I do. I sit down with a client and talk. We hammer out what is unique about the product or the client themselves. This is important for doing traditional media. You need a hook, something that will make a journalist take interest in the story.

Make no mistake; traditional media should still be in the mix. By that I mean free media. There is no need to buy an ad in a publication or spend thousands of dollars for a broadcast. Those efforts rarely, if ever, resonate with a consumer anymore. Yes, there was a time when they did, but there was also a time when people had to start their car with a crank.

If you convince a journalist to write or broadcast a story about a product, that is a huge endorsement. I think print journalism still has come cachet with consumers, especially those over 50. Yes, print is dying, but it’s not dead yet.

The same goes for broadcast, only more so. With the rise of DVRs, fewer and fewer people are watching commercials. But every study I have seen shows they are still watching local news. A piece of local news is another good way to build a brand. Most local news shows still have credibility.

Of course, that is only leg of the marketing stool. Social media has to be part of the plan – in fact it should lead the plan. The tools are many and should be used in tandem with traditional marketing methods.

I usually start my clients out with blogging. Every study I’ve ever read shows blogging is the best way to build credibility. Remember, a blog is not a sales document. It is a way to build credibility. No one is going to think a product is credible if the company making it is not viewed that way.

What a blog is a way to demonstrate expertise and ability. No one likes it when a company thumps its own chest. What readers do like is when a blog provides answers to questions or solutions to problems or just general knowledge.

A blog is also good for monitoring what customers think. I know I continually hammer on this point, but you want to hear both the good and the bad comments. The good can be used to help build the brand; the bad can help correct mistakes.

Facebook pages can be used the same way. Twitter is a billboard that allows you to tell people wants going on with your product. YouTube is invaluable for actually showing people what a product does.

Then there are such things as trade shows, samples and all that other good stuff. I could write a complete blog on each of these items. But enough for now.

Next week I want to talk about once cutting edge marketing vehicles that no longer work.

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.”

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.

The other day I received an email through my Linkedin offering to sell me a high-end golf villa near Disney World in Orlando. When I replied I wasn’t on Linkedin to have people try and sell me things, the emailer said he was trying to provide a service. Say what? A sales appeal is not a service.

Besides being incredibly tacky, the would-be seller violated a central tenant of social media. He was trying to push marketing by making statements that included “buy it now,” “there are limited quantities”, “they are going fast,” etc. Nowhere in the email did it tell my anything about these “villas.” Only that they were low-priced and they were seeking foreign buyers. There was a link provided.

In social media, you want me to buy something reasons must be provided. Those reasons cannot come from the seller. Why should I believe the seller who has a clear self-interest in making things look good, no matter the real condition? I want third-party endorsements. That’s what influences my decision to buy.

Incidentally, my ever-present Webster’s Dictionary defines villa as “a country house or estate, especially when large or luxurious and used as a retreat or summer home.” The company’s website says these “villas” are Villa Condominiums. A condo is defined as a multi-unit building or a series of connected buildings. So, saying something is a villa condominium is an oxymoron. Sorry, I am a language geek.

Unfortunately, this kind of pitch is happening more often I am seeing posts promising 50,000 followers if I only do this or that. Would you really want to pick followers that way? It is true that I have a lot of followers on Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter. But I have never used any kind of automated program. I have built my following organically, one at time.

What these people are doing is not what social media is all about. Quite the opposite actually. I think it is fair to say social media became popular because of tactics like that erstwhile real estate salesman and others operating like that.

One of the largest appeals of social media to me is honesty. You expect people who marketing to be honest. If they are not they get outed. As I am sure you all know, that’s a very bad thing. Many a company has rued the day when they got caught fudging the truth.

On the same theme, I keep getting requests from people I have never met to endorse them. My rules for endorsement are I have to know you, worked with you, or had a long on-line relationship with you. I do not endorse strangers. I am lending my authority to people I endorse. It is not something I do lightly.

In fact, that is something that is beginning to disturb me about Facebook’s BranchOut. People join my “empire” and then I am asked to endorse them. I don’t know most of these people. I am sure they are fine people, but I just said I don’t endorse those I don’t know.

This is all just indicative of what can wrong with social media when the people who use don’t understand its purpose. What to do about it? Whenever you run into one of them, call them out. It is the only way to deal with 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 surprises me is how many people believe what they read. They apparently have no built-in B.S. filter. Seeing something posted on Facebook or tweeted apparently bestows some kind of seal of approval. Well, to time burst that bubble. People can and do lie on the Internet all the time. As a reader and a consumer you have to determine whether what a company is telling you, or a blogger is saying, is true.

Here are two things that spread all over the net in which everyone should have known better to ever believe. The first one is funny; the second one had serious repercussions that are still being felt around the world.

In the first case, the Weekly World News reported that Mark Zuckerberg was exhausted. So exhausted that in fact he was going to shut down Facebook. The Weekly World News is the same “newspaper” that reports that aliens regularly meet with the president of the United States and other world leaders.

“The questionable story apparently sent Facebook users into a panic,” The New York Daily News reported. “The phrase “is Facebook shutting down” was the 14th most searched for on Google Saturday (Jan. 8th) and the 10th most as of Sunday (Jan.9th) morning.

“On Facebook itself, groups like “Against shutting down Facebook on 15th of March” popped up with the slogan “No Facebook, No Party”. On Twitter, users fretted about what would happen to their pictures – not to mention social lives.”
That people believed this amazes me. I assume that it spread through the Internet pretty quickly. Didn’t anyone check the source? Didn’t anyone notice Facebook is thinking of going public?

Remember what I said in Monday’s blog about the need for speed when it comes to social media. This is a perfect example of why. Many people will believe something no matter how outlandish it might seem.

Facebook quashed the rumor Sunday evening by issuing a press release saying it had no plans to close. “We didn’t get the memo about shutting down, so we’ll keep working away,” the company said. “We aren’t going anywhere; we’re just getting started.”
The second rumor actually began about 12 years ago. While the conventional media initially spread it, social media kept it alive a lot longer than it should of. In this case, people died because of the idiocy of others.
In this case, “in 1998 English Doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in another British medical journal, The Lancet suggesting that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine could cause autism,” The Washington Post reported. “The study triggered international alarm about vaccines, but quickly came under intense criticism, was discredited by follow-up research, and was eventually formally retracted by the journal.

“Nevertheless, the incidence of childhood measles rose in Great Britain and elsewhere after Wakefield’s study was published, as worried parents refused to have their children vaccinated against the potentially deadly disease. Parents have also shunned other vaccines. And even after Wakefield’s work was debunked, he continues his research in the United States and to have loyal, highly vocal supporters.”

There were four reported deaths of children in England and Ireland caused by their parents’ failure to immunize them with the MMR vaccine. Hundreds of children were unnecessarily ill because of the failure to immunize.

As a personal note, I had measles as a child. That was before the vaccine was developed. I was very, very ill. I do not recommend any parent putting their child through that.

Yet despite all of the evidence to the contrary, there are people out there who still insist that it was a vaccine that caused their child’s Autism. Google Autism and vaccines and look at the some of the results. A study released last March said one in four Americans believe there is a link between Autism and vaccinations. Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, people seem more willing to believe bloggers and others using social media. It just amazes me. I don’t understand it.

As my late father used to say: “people don’t seem to know how to use the brains they were born with.” To which my grandfather would add: “there’s so sense in being stupid unless you can demonstrate it.”

This piece’s headline is my professional mantra. I operate in three complimentary, and often overlapping, areas: social media, public relations and marketing. It is my firm rule when working in any of those areas that I am there to further my clients aims, not my own.

Too often I see other companies that operate in the same areas who don’t adhere to that rule. That bothers me. I think they’ve forgotten that they there to serve the clients, not themselves. I am not going to name any names. It just isn’t right. It gives my entire profession a bad name.

Let me tell you how I view the relationship between client and agency.

When a client hires me, the first thing I tell them is they are going to be their company’s face. The reason is simple – they are the best representatives. Since the person is usually a senior executive, they are going to know far more about the place that I will. Plus hopefully the enthusiasm they have for their employer will show through. If they don’t have that kind of enthusiasm, perhaps they should think about working someplace else.

The primary objection to that idea that I hear from clients about that is “well, I don’t how to handle myself in front of the news media and public.” This is where many agency types trip. They take the executive’s words at face value and make themselves the spokesman. Now it is as much about them as it is the client.

It is very frustrating to most journalists when the subject doesn’t know the answer. When I was a reporter, I would make it point to go around some public relations people. I needed information and I knew that the public relations person would have to ask someone for it. Most of the time that process took too long. So I identified who had the information I needed and called them.

That does not apply, by the way, to in-house public relations counsel. They are almost always very knowledgeable.

When a client tells me they are nervous about being out front that to me I reply: “don’t worry, I can train you to handle yourself.” I spent over two decades as a working journalist. I know how interviews go. I can take an executive through just about every scenario that will be encountered. I know them all because I use to create them all.

Where I do step in is arranging coverage. As I said, I worked a reporter for a long time. I know how to approach a reporter in a way that gives the client best chance at coverage.

That’s another thing that bothers me – agencies that guarantee coverage. No one should ever do that. What a lot of agencies don’t seem to understand is that media outlets have different needs and agendas than their clients. It is much easier to make a client’s needs conform to the media outlet than the other way around. What I mean by that it’s better to pitch a story in a format that the outlet use rather than conforming to the client’s outline.

The bottom line is agencies should realize they are planners and counselors. They should stay out of the spotlight. It is their job to make the client look good, not to pump themselves up.

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.

As an aside, I was told by my professors three decades ago we would living in a paperless society by now. But a lot of trees are still dying.

Be that as it may, it seems to me these companies are working very hard to make me their friend. But once I acquiesce, that’s the last I hear from them. Oh, I might get the occasional email telling me about a sale or something, but that’s it. They don’t post anything on Facebook, they don’t blog and if they do tweet, it gets buried among all the other tweets I get.

Or even worse, they send me snail mail fliers. I don’t like junk mail. Maybe it is because my mother was a mail carrier. She used to complain how much weight the junk mail added to her bag. She knew that most of the people on her route were just going to toss them anyway. It seemed ridiculous to her to have to schlep all those ads all over the place.

It seems silly to me to have a company ask me online for information so they can mail me something. That shows a complete lack of understanding of social media.

What I think is happening is that somebody told the CMO, or even the CEO, that the company needs to have a presence on the Web. But once they have that presence, they don’t know what to do with it. Maybe it’s fear, maybe it’s ignorance, or maybe it’s just laziness.  Whatever the reason, they are letting a fantastic opportunity just lay there. I cannot believe they don’t know how effective social media can be when done properly. That has been demonstrated over and over again.

They could also be causing themselves problems. The social media universe demands interaction. It is one of the cores of social media. If there is no interaction, people will go away. They will look to a competitor who better understands what to do with social media.

I think CMOs and CEOs want it both ways. They want to continue to use the old methods. Those methods are not as effective as they once were, but it’s something they still understand. There is always a fear of the unknown.

Still, they know they need to do something in the area of social media. Yet, they don’t want invest the time it takes to do it right. So they stay in the shallow end of the pool. As I already said, that’s wrong place to be. The only thing they are accomplishing is crippling their own company’s efforts.

A few days after the accident, the letters from lawyers started arriving. I think he got close to a dozen altogether. All offered to take his case so he could get “the money he deserved.” There were even a couple of phone calls from medical groups offering their services to treat his injuries.

That got me to thinking about all the solicitations I receive everyday by mail, email, and occasionally even by phone. None of them ever work with me – not even the charitable ones. It is simply waste of time and effort, I feel.

Given all of the new media outlets and other ways to effectively market I find is amazing that this kind of marketing still exists. Does anyone really hire a lawyer based on a one-page solicitation? For doctors to do it surprises me even more. Is the economy that bad that physicians actively have to recruit patients by checking accident reports? Does anyone give to a charity simply because they received a stack of return address labels?

My father-in-law, or the colonel as we call him, has a lawyer. As a retired Army officer he goes to the local Veterans Administration hospital for treatment. So he didn’t need either service. He simply filed all the solicitations in the circular file. I wonder if a cost/benefit analysis has been done on sending out those letters? It cannot be cost effective.

I say that because I don’t know anyone who has bought a product or used a service based on direct mail or email. If I need work on my house, I ask friends who they have used and what their experiences were. If I am going to stay in a hotel, I check the rating services and guest comments. When I donate to a charity, I check their Form 990s to see how much actually goes to help their cause. (If more than 10 percent goes to administration, I won’t give.) It just pays to do the homework.

This kind of pushy marketing has been going on for a long time. When I started out as a reporter 35-years-ago, I covered fatal accidents. In the small town where I started my career such news was important because usually everyone knew the victims. I can remember being in the police station reading the reports when lawyers would come in and ask to the see the same reports. I wanted information, they wanted business.

The police officers and I used to joke that some lawyers drove by accidents and threw their cards out as they went by. I never saw it personally, but nurses at the local hospital told me that some attorneys would show up in the emergency room to solicit business. Would you really hire anyone while laying on a gurney?

The people who still call to try and get my business are about a half step above those lawyers. What particularly frosts me is that we are both the state and federal do-not-call lists. The callers try to get around that by saying they are conducting a survey. The questions are so obviously geared toward getting us to buy something. I do two things then: I get the name and phone number of the company and then I hang up. I want the company information because I report them for violating the list.

The sad thing is, as I already said, there are much more effective, less intrusive ways to sell your service or product. These people just wake up and use them. I think they would be happy with the results.

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.

These actions apparently has ties to the growing field of companies that build detailed databases on people in order to track them online, the Journal reported. Using sophisticated software, these tracking companies can determine by your online behavior what movies you watch, what brand of clothes you wear, and a lot of other information you might not want others to know. Companies crave this data. They use to target sales pitches to specific consumers.

There are a lot of issues that arise from what they are doing. But to me the biggest one is the fact that they are learning far more about than they need to know. It frightens me to think what a government could do with that information. The only solution is a federal law barring the gathering and dissemination of such data.

Look, I understand that companies need to know consumer trends. It helps them produce the right amount of goods for the right markets. But that information is readily available from any retailer. Retail chains, big and small, track what sells and why. To me it would be a simple matter for those companies to sell that information to manufacturers without impinging on anyone’s privacy.

However, these companies are collecting information that is frankly none of their business. They don’t need to know whether you buy Wrangler’s or Levis. They don’t need to know which websites you visit or how long you stay there. On a personal level, they are stalking you. If you found out if a person was collecting this kind of personal information, you have them in court very quickly.

How long before a hacker breaks into one of these databases and steals all of the gathered information? This would be a gold mine for an identity thief. Not only would have they have your social security number, your passwords and your financial information. They would know all about you. They would know your likes and dislikes. At least on the Internet, they could become you completely.

Think of the potential for blackmail. Let’s say someone buys something perfectly legal from an adult website. Most people don’t that want that kind of information made public. A hacker could a person’s life hell if they found that data. Think what a politician would do with that kind of information.

Now these companies say they do not collect names or identifying information. We now know that’s not true. What else are they collecting and what’s being done with the information? There have been stories in the last couple of days about the Federal government working with cell phone companies. The government wants to make sure that changes in technology do not take away the ability to tap phones.

What’s to say that some future government administration will decide it also needs to review all of your personal information? It will be done under pretense of some great national need. Does anyone really want someone on the outside seeing how you spend your time on the net? Do you want some bureaucrat passing judgment on what you on the Internet? I thought not.

This is information should remain private. What I wish would happen is a law would be passed akin to the federal HIPPA Privacy Rule. The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides federal protections for personal health information held by covered entities and gives patients an array of rights with respect to that information, according to the Federal Department of Health and Human Services’ website.

The Privacy Rule, a Federal law, gives you rights over your health information and sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information, the HHS website says.

That kind of law is the only thing that will keep our information private. Remember what Ben Franklin said: “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I was really saddened to read about the suicide of Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi. Reading the stories about how the gay student was harassed by two other students, I was struck by how social media played a part in what happened. It also struck me how social media seems to have in this case broken down the wrong boundaries.

Every time something as all encompassing as social media comes along, a lot of boundaries are broken down. That’s a good thing usually. However this is case, I think the tsunami that is social media destroyed some boundaries that need to be reestablished.

I was a member of a high school class that liked to have a good time. We partied a lot on the weekends. However, we always very careful about publicizing the party’s location. It was strictly word-of-mouth. Notice of the party was always kept from adults. Locations were on a need-to-know basis.

Once at the party, there was another strict rule – we always ensured there was no permanent record of the event. Cameras were never allowed. No one wanted pictures of Saturday night’s revelry to show up on a parent’s, teachers, or coach’s desk. The boundaries were rigid and we knew exactly where they were.

We also respected each other’s personal space. If a couple wanted to go off by themselves, no one followed them to see what was up. If someone wanted to indulge in an illegal substance, they usually went off somewhere private with others of a like mind. They certainly didn’t take pictures of it and put them out in the public.

Those boundaries seem to have broken down. I am amazed sometimes by how many of today’s social media users seem to have no filter when it comes to posting things. In Clementi’s case, prosecutors have charged Molly Wei, of Princeton, and fellow Rutgers freshman Dharun Ravi of Plainsboro, both 18, allegedly used a webcam to broadcast the encounter on the Internet between Ravi’s roommate Clementi and a man who hasn’t been identified.

The tragic result of that is Clementi committed suicide. I don’t think anyone knows all the facts, but clearly he wasn’t ready for the world to know about his sexuality. The boundaries around what he thought were his private life had been blown up.

While this is an extreme example of that lack of boundaries, there are so many others. Look at the number of teenagers who attack someone, film it, and post it on YouTube. A lot of vandals seem to delight in recording their antics and then telling the world about it on Facebook. I know of companies who have decided not to hire someone because they posted pictures online of themselves drunk or naked or both. Then there’s sexting, another thing I don’t understand.

I realize a lot of this behavior went on before social media. I am not blaming social media per se for what is happening. Social media is just a tool. There have always been exhibitionists. Most teenagers are not equipped to look a couple of years down the road. I am really glad there is no record of some of the things I did 40 years ago.

The difference now is that it possible to tell the 1.9 billion Internet users exactly how you screwed up. Plus, once something is on the Internet, it is forever. As I said, social media is a tool. The issue people a lot of people are misusing this tool.

I don’t know the answer. All I know is we have to find a way to reestablish those boundaries.

By now it should be clear that any company that wants to have a successful marketing campaign has to use social media in its mix. Other have said, and I agree, that social media is the 21^st century’s industrial revolution. Leaving other forms of marketing out of a campaign will usually not affect its success. Leaving social media out can cripple a campaign before it begins.

Not just any person or agency can create and run a social media campaign. It takes an experienced marketing person who has both the training and experience in using social media. Too often companies stumble because they try to take shortcuts.

Many companies do seem to realize they need social media. The people in charge see their competitors are successfully using social media, so they decide to jump into the game. But social media is still pretty new. That leads to a lot of uncertainty among chief marketing officers. They look at the social media toolbox that’s filled with dozens of sites and are confused.

When that happens companies do one of two things: The CMO hires someone fresh out of college 22-year-old who must know they what are doing because they have a Facebook page and they tweet; or they turn to their advertising or marketing agency and ask them to put together a social media campaign.

The problems with the two approaches should be obvious. In the first case, a 22-year-old may know how to “like” on Facebook, but won’t have any idea on to plan and run a campaign. In the second case, a company will often find their agency has hired a 22-year-old fresh out of college to do social media for clients. In some cases, I know of old-line agencies have tired to talk their clients out of using social media arguing that traditional media will work just fine. I think that’s because they don’t want to admit they don’t know how to create and run a social media campaign.

I have noticed lately is there are many companies offering for-fee webinars, high-priced conferences, and expensive books. These companies all purport be social media experts. But as far as I can tell, none of these actually have done any social media campaigns. Who trained their trainers? What’s their background? That’s why I am always suspicious of those offers.

What of course a company should do is hire an experienced social media agency. That agency should be experienced in both social media and traditional marketing and public relations. Why traditional public relations? Because social media marketing and traditional public relations meld quite nicely. While it is important to use the new channels, you cannot afford to ignore the old ones.

So, when a company decides to do the right thing and hire a social media marketing agency, what skills and abilities should those making the decisions look for? Here are my suggestions for what should be asked:

• What is the agency’s experience in social media? How long has it been doing social media marketing?
• Who will be working on the campaign? An experienced account executive who has extensive training in social media and its uses or that recent college grad with the Facebook page?
• What social media applications does it use for its own business? Does it have a Facebook page, does it use Twitter, do its principals blog, does it post videos on YouTube, and does it know what social bookmarking is? There are many other questions that should be asked. This is just a sample.
• How many social media campaigns has the agency done? What were the results?
• What will the client be expected to do? This is a key question. Social media demands client involvement to a much larger extent than other forms of marketing. It is one of the things that makes it more effective.
• How does the agency measure ROI on the social media campaign?
• How will the agency integrate traditional public relations methods with the social media efforts? This is an area where a lot of social media agencies stumble. While social media is taking over rapidly, there is an important segment of the audiences who still read newspapers, watch television and listen to the radio. Don’t ignore those people. Many of them occupy the C-suite. Remember to a lot of CEOs the apex of public relations success is seeing their name on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. This is an important group to keep happy.

There are a lot of other questions that should be asked. But those should get your started.

I object to using that line for two reasons: the late Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein coined one the phrase. That’s like quoting Hitler in an ad. Two, it’s just lazy writing. Rather than come up with something original, the copywriter fell back on something easy. Of course, the client approved the script. But, that’s no excuse.

Using clichés is never acceptable in my book – except in an ad that is deliberate satire. On that matter, I beg you if you are creative not to try satire unless your name is John Stewart or Jonathan Swift. Most people are just not any good at it.

Getting back to clichés, there are so many phrases that shouldn’t be used; yet they are. Let’s run down a few:

• “To be perfectly honest – so you have perfected honesty. What imperfect honesty, lying?
• Pushing the envelope – that phrase originally came from test pilots, who were pushing the limits of their planes. It meant they could die if something went wrong. That is not how that phrase is used now. You really thinking you are going to die with the new campaign?
• For the record – a legal phrase that originally meant something to be entered into the court record. I have heard and read this in too many campaigns. Is this campaign meeting some kind of legal requirement?
• World famous – I see this on restaurants a lot. So, the next time I am in Dublin, can I ask what they think of Joe’s Hot Dogs?
• Fantastic and amazing – Usually used when describing some new product, such as a cleaning soap. I got news for all of you, chemically all soap is exactly the same. I am rarely amazed by ketchup or beer bottles.
• Prices will never be this low again – yeah, until the next sale. That one is a favorite of car dealers. While I am the subject of car dealers, why do they always shout? Why would I buy anything from anyone who shouts at me?
• We always give 110 percent – mathematically impossible.

I could go on, but I am curious what clichés you crazy. If I get enough responses, I will publish them.

In Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s inaugural address in 1933, he uttered that now famous phrase: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” What he meant was that what keeping the economy from recovering from the greatest economic disaster in U.S. history was people’s inclination to hunker down.

Unfortunately, I see the same thing happening today, especially with US companies. They are afraid to do anything right now, especially spend money. Their fear is very specific. Publically traded companies only really want to do one thing – please Wall Street. I think that is one of the biggest problems in our country right now. I think it is what is holding us back.

My friends know this is a common rant with me. I think American business pays way too much attention to what some pimply-faced MBA/analyst has to say. How many company’s justify layoffs, or moving a factory by saying Wall Street demands it? Every state in the United States has seen this happen. If some analyst says a company should be make $1 share and it makes 99 cents a share, the stock price is pummeled. The Board of Directors and the CEO both talk about how cuts need to be made to make that $1 a share.

Now the company might be wildly profitable, but that doesn’t matter. It suddenly doesn’t want to spend any money or hire more workers because it has to make that Wall Street imposed goal. In my mind, it is a stupid way to do business.

That’s why three of my favorite companies are S.C. Johnson Wax, Jockey, and Kohler Corp. They are all privately held companies. They can do what needs to be done without having answer to some analyst 800 miles away. I wish more companies were like them.

This is going to be a long one. There is nothing that says you have to read all of it or any of it. If you like it, let me know. If you don’t let me know that too.

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you know my rants are usually about something marketing misfire. I try to call out campaigns or companies I feel need to be chastised for missteps or incompetence.

Well, this time I am calling out the whole economy, or more specifically, how companies, politicians, bureaucrats, and all of us are reacting to it. I will admit this is personal to a point because I cannot convince anyone out there to spend any money on marketing. I am feeling the pinch and it’s a hard pinch. Expenses are rising while income is flat.

I know I am not alone. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with other small business owners about the same topic. We all hear the same things from potential clients – not now; I am not sure we can afford this now; I will find something who will do it for half your price; things are too uncertain; your service is not that important.

Or my personal favorite, give us a proposal. Which I labor over for many hours and then send off. The company decides they cannot afford me right now, but then uses my ideas. I know it has happened. I know people on the inside of many companies. What can I do – sue?

What frosts me is that no one has a solution and I mean no one. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not any level of government, not corporations, not the media, and no individual that I have heard. Since I think they all deserved to be skewered equally, I am going to make this a series.

Not that I think it is going to do any good. I am not sure most of you are going to read this far down. But, it might make me feel better, so that makes it worth it.

Let’s start with the two political parties – the Republicans or Tweedle Dum and the Democrats – Tweedle every bit as Dum.

First, I do not belong to either party. I used to lean Democratic, but lately I have decided they are no better than the party across the aisle.

So let us begin with a quote from my favorite philosopher, cynic and curmudgeon: “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.” H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

Mencken sums it up quite nicely. No matter how many ideals or plans any newly elected candidate has at the beginning, within about six months all they care about is being reelected. Which means instead of coming up with a real solutions to a problem, they pander to whoever has the most money or shouts the loudest. To steal a phrase from an English writer, most politicians are intellectual pillows. They bear of the impression of the last person to lay on them.

Lately, they so want to stay in office, they will not admit the other side might have a good idea. I honestly think that if one party in either Washington, D.C. or any state capital introduced a bill saying the sun rises in the morning, the other would oppose it.

Also, all politicians are very good as distracting their constituents from the real issues. At a time when we are still fighting two wars, the economy is the toilet, the unemployment rate is somewhere around 10 percent, and the national debt is somewhere north of $1 trillion, they get people fired up about gay marriage? Give me a break. What a waste of time and effort. Time and effort that could be spent solving real problems. Both sides are so stuck in their positions they are not open to any new ideas.

All the Republicans want to do is give tax breaks to rich people, who frankly could afford to pay some more to the government. Their mantra is government is evil and must be stopped. Judging by their positions, I think they must be anarchists. Their perfect government would be no government.

In the perfect Republican world, a business would be free to do whatever it wanted. They could pollute the water, blow the tops off mountains, treat people like disposable tissues and never be called to account for any of it. Of course, they wouldn’t be paying any taxes. I don’t want to see rivers catch on fire or try to explain to my grandchildren where all the forests went.

As for the Democrats, well they want to coddle people so they are so dependent on government they no initiative of their own. They think government is the solution to everything. They expect us to pay for things like free cell phones for poorer and to rebuild houses of people dumb enough to build in a flood plain. In this case, I don’t want to have to explain to my grandchildren why 90 percent of their income is going to pay taxes.

Both parties cater to the wing nuts on the left and right. Of course, some of them are wing nuts. It never fails to amaze me what comes out of some elected officials mouths. As a friend used to say, they run their mouths in fourth gear and their minds in neutral. Or as my father used to say: “they don’t even have the brains they were born with.”

Is their solution to all of this? I don’t know. I am not very optimistic. I do not see a Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman on the horizon.

I will end this with a song written by a brilliant man, Pete Townsend:

Won’t Get Fooled Again

The Who

We’ll be fighting in the streets

With our children at our feet

And the morals that they worship will be gone

And the men who spurred us on

Sit in judgment of all wrong

They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around me

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

And I’ll get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

Don’t get fooled again

Change it had to come

We knew it all along

We were liberated from the fall that’s all

But the world looks just the same

And history ain’t changed

‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around me

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

And I’ll get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

Don’t get fooled again

No, no!

I’ll move myself and my family aside

If we happen to be left half alive

I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky

For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There’s nothing in the street

Looks any different to me

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

And the parting on the left

Is now the parting on the right

And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around me

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I’ll get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

Don’t get fooled again

No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

That is changing however.

“It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet,” Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, told the Los Angeles Times

“Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously. Some postings have even led to criminal charges,” the LA Times reported.

This is my rant for this week. Just because you have a laptop and an Internet connection does not mean you can ignore the rules.  As many bloggers are now finding out, pretending those laws don’t apply get them into a whole heap of trouble.

Yet for some reason many bloggers continue to act like they can write and say what they want. There is something about the Internet and the feeling of anonymity that leads people to write things they would never say in person.

What also bothers me is that many blogger could not define libel if it bit them on the butt.

Here for your edification is the definition of libel from the Associated Press Style Book: “at its most basic, libel means injury to reputation. In some states libel is distinguished from slander, in that a libel is written or otherwise printed, whereas slander is spoken; in either case, the word defamation generally includes both terms. Words, pictures, cartoons, photo captions and headlines can all give rise to a claim for a libel.”

One of the very first things drilled into every rookie reporter are the rules of libel. Lawsuits are expensive. Editors don’t like to use their budgets on legal fees.

“Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online,” Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University, told the LA Times. “A whole new generation can publish now, but they don’t understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, ‘My dentist stinks.’”

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster’s identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

That’s right, you cannot hide behind a false identity. Keep in mind that to everyone at your Internet Service provider – with the exception to those who send you the bill – you are a series of numbers. Those numbers are unique and cannot be changed by you. In other words, they can identify you quite easily.

“There’s a false sense of safety on the Internet,” Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University said to the Times. “If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment” before posting a comment, she said.

So, think before you hit that publish button.

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.

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.

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.

My brother died 13 years ago. My mother died 11 years ago. Neither ever lived Wisconsin. They lived in Florida.

Yet, at least once a month, sometimes more often, we receive mail for them at the Cole household. They have  been offered credit cards, had requests for donations, to buy health insurance, and in my brother’s case, offers to help him manage his diabetes. A little late on that I think.

We started receiving mail for them about six months after my mother died. I was the executor of the estates, so my address did end up on all correspondence. However, both estates were closed out years ago. I haven’t sent out anything involving either of them in at least seven years.

Yet, somehow, a bunch of lowlife list companies and lazy marketers still send mail for them. Initially, right after both deaths, it upset me. The wounds were still raw. I used to return the mailings with “addressee deceased” written on the envelope. I gave up after awhile because it stopped nothing from coming. Now, I do not even bother to open anything. They just get tossed.

Now, I have to say, I hate junk mail. I always have and I always will. I cannot believe it is all that effective. All it does kill trees. Since the advent of the “no-call” lists blocked telemarketers, direct mail has to be the dumbest way to try and reach customers. Okay, spam email might be worse, but at least I can block most of that.

Do the people who do this really think I am going to buy a product from an unsolicited mailing? Do these people even read marketing research? Do they not know that there are other more effective, less annoying, and less intrusive ways to reach their marketing goals? Have they not heard of the Internet or social media?

And as long as I am ranting, what about these groups that send address labels? Do they really think some sticky pieces of paper with my name and address on it are going to move me to make a donation? It won’t. I have no qualms about using the labels. I just don’t send any money back.

Least you think I am a scrooge, I volunteer with several charities in the Milwaukee area. My wife and I also make donations to groups whose work we want to support. But we choose the groups to which we are going donate. We do our research, check out the group’s federal tax filings and then write a check. Research is key. I want to make sure at least 90 percent of our donation is going to go help someone. I don’t want pay for a large office or a trip to a seminar.

I also do pro bono work for a Milwaukee group that needs the help.

As a note, do not send me a solicitation for anything based on this blog. I will not answer it.

Getting back to my point about how of much of a donation goes to help the given cause, that’s what really bothers me about mail solicitations. How much does it cost to write, print, prepare, and send out those direct mailings? Wouldn’t that money be better spent helping people?

Instead of licking envelopes, find another, more effective way to reach people. Don’t know what they are? Send me an email.

I have been watching the debate over Royal Caribbean’s cruise lines decision to continue to cruise to its private beach. I have been thinking about what I would tell the company’s leaders if I was the company’s media and marketing maven. So, here it is:

From: Media and Marketing Maven Jeff Cole

To: The Royal Caribbean C-Suite

Re: Again cruising to our private beach at Labadee, Haiti

There has much internal debate about whether we should again take our cruise ships to Labadee. I have read the memos about going back. Frankly, there is not one argument that convinces me that this will not be an unmitigated public relations disaster.

My concern is that our thinking is too short term. We need to think how this decision will look five or 10 years from now. Yes, people will forget much about the incident in a few years. But, it is selective amnesia. What they are they liable to remember is that we cruised to Haiti during a disaster – not that we donated money and brought relief supplies.

So, let’s look at the current arguments for cruising to Haiti and my responses:

• The Haitian government has asked us to continue our cruises because we provide a valuable source of income to their country. First of all, I would question how much thought the government of Haiti gave to that invitation. They have much more important things to worry about. And even if they did, we have to consider how the people of Haiti will view a bunch pasty white tourists frolicking while they are burying hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. Governments and attitudes change. The next government could use what they view as our callousness to kick out us and turn the Labadee over to a competitor. Do we really want to lose that access to for good?
• We employ several hundred Haitians at Labadee and support hundreds of others by allowing them to sell their wares to our passengers. We provide a valuable source of income for those people. So, why not pay these people to help in the relief effort? Continue their salaries, but allow them to go to Port Au Prince to help.
• Many of our cruisers are taking the cruise of a lifetime. They are honeymooners or elderly couples who have saved their pennies for years to make this trip. We would destroy their dreams. You mean to tell me we couldn’t simply reroute the ships to not stop at Haiti? We have other private beaches in the Caribbean.
• All those people who would be angry they didn’t get the trip they wanted will sue us. First, don’t we have insurance for that kind of thing? Second, I would urge if that happened that we post the name of every person who sues on our website. We send a press release to their hometown newspaper and television station announcing the lawsuit. We state in that release we decided helping Haiti was more important a vacation. Who looks callous then?
• We are a giving a $1 million to the relief effort. Ladies and gentlemen, I can hear Dr. Evil saying: “$1 million dollars” and the UN snickering. Our net profit in fiscal 2008 – our last complete year – was $573.72 million. Granted, it has been a tough five years. But, we could at least give say $5.73 million, which is only one percent of net.

Now, for some positive public relations idea:

• We have a deep-water port at Lababee that can handle our ships. I assume that means it could also handle relief ships. Why not turn Labadee over to the United Nations for say six months? Let them use it as a staging area. We could make it a condition that the UN hires the people we employ to aid in the relief effort. That’s another way to negate any loss of wages caused by the ships not coming.
• In addition, allow an organization such as “Doctors Without Borders” to set up a hospital at Labadee. As I understand it, Labadee has better infrastructure than 99 percent of the country. It is a perfect place for such a facility.
• If there is still insistence on going to Haiti, charge a $25 a head “relief fund surcharge.” Have the company match whatever is raised. With approximately 12,000 cruisers a week going there, we would be contributing $600,000 a week. Think about how much money we would raise in a year.
• Instead of carrying some relief supplies on each cruise ship, each week designate one ship as a relief ship. Pack it to the gunwales with everything and anything Haitians need.

These are my ideas ladies and gentlemen. I think you will agree we can turn into a winning situation for both Haiti and Royal Caribbean.

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.

Okay, social media scares many C-suite people. That’s no surprise. Because if you are honest when you present, you should make them realize that using social media means acknowledging they don’t have complete control of their brand. Of course, they never really did. A brand’s identity is determined in the marketplace. It’s what consumers think – be they business-to-business or business-to-consumer – that defines a brand

It is hard for most senior executive to admit they really never had control of their brand. Facing that means acknowledging that all the money spent on marketing and advertising did not provide a failsafe way to ensure happy consumers and ever increasing sales.

Social Media will allow them to listen to what consumers are saying

Social media won’t do that either. However, unlike advertising, it doesn’t make that promise. What it does promise is a way to listen into and influence the conversation that is already taking place about a company or a brand. The odds are far better that there will be a positive outcome if a company knows what is being said.

Some executives will respond that they already know what their customers are thinking. After all, people will send emails when they have a complaint. That’s true. But remember, a person who is so upset that they are motivated to send an email is usually not representative of the customer base. Blog and Twitter comments will provide a far more accurate picture of what people are thinking.

Also unlike traditional marketing, those using social media want to hear the negative comments. How else does one get better unless one knows what the problems are? The good thing about this method it is much more inclusive. Rather than relying a focus group or a marketing study, a company has opened up its comments to entire customer base. That is much more representative of what’s actually happening.

How does one listen to these conversations? By creating a Twitter brand, by blogging, by having a Facebook page and a LinkedIn group. In addition, videos posted on YouTube are good. In each of these cases, and in other social media applications, you are looking for people to comment. It is from those comments that you will find what people are thinking.

Eventually what you to do is convert those commenter’s into fans and eventually evangelists for your brand. I will talk about how to do that in another post. But, I have just told you the first step.

Social Media takes time

After you describe all of this, the next objection is going to arise – social media takes time. Writing a blog, maintaining a fan page on Facebook, Tweeting and responding to Tweets, answering questions on LinkedIn, posting videos and monitoring and responding to comments are not something that can be done in an hour once a week.

These are many executives who used to their agency doing all the work. All they have to do is approve the campaign and make sure the agency has access to whomever it needs to work with at the company. It is a kind of “fire and forget” strategy. Now, you are asking them to become an active part of their own marketing effort.

Remember, social media is not a tactic or a strategy. It is an entirely new way of marketing. It requires a commitment to stick with it. Nothing turns off a potential customer more than sporadic, unscheduled use of social media. Blogs especially have to be posted on a specific schedule. Nothing kills a blog following faster than making it hard to find. The same thing applies to a Facebook fan page or a YouTube video channel.

This is, of course, your opportunity. You are there to teach them about social media and maintain their accounts. You are the solution to their problems of time management. It why they will hire you.

One note though – do not, ever, write your client’s blog yourself. You can edit it; you can proofread it, but don’t write it. That’s dishonest. PR firms have gotten into trouble for doing things like that. Tweeting for them is fine, as is maintaining the Facebook page. Just don’t be a ghostwriter. You want those thoughts about the company or product to come from someone who really knows it. Plus, consumers react badly when they perceive something isn’t what it purports to be.

There is more to do on social media. I will discuss the most important element next week. Stay tuned.

I have to admit, some are clever. But, that doesn’t mean I ever would buy a product based on what some actor tells me. And as for car dealerships – why I would buy anything from someone who shouts at me? TV advertising just doesn’t work anymore. It doesn’t matter that people are watching a lot more television than ever.

According to an August article published by MarketingVox.com: “by 2010, traditional TV advertising will be one-third as effective as it was in 1990, according to a study from McKinsey & Co.

“That forecast assumes a 15 percent decrease in buying power driven by CPM (cost per 1,000 impressions) rate increases; a 23 percent decline in ads viewed due to switching off; a nine percent loss of attention to ads due to increased multitasking; and a 37 percent decrease in message impact due to saturation, AdAge reports (via MediaBuyerPlanner). According to McKinsey, real ad spending on prime-time broadcast TV has increased over last decade by about 40 percent even as viewers have dropped almost 50 percent.”

I often give my new clients a little quiz: I ask them what is their favorite TV commercial. About half cannot name one. Of the remainder, about half of them cannot remember what company or what product was being pushed. Of that final 25 percent, most of them say they like the commercial, but wouldn’t buy the product.

Those commercials are a nice try on an advertisers part, but in real life, nice tries get you nothing.

Which brings me to my point

It doesn’t bother me that advertisers are wasting their money. It’s their business and their money.

What really bothers me is when a company shows the same ad over and over and over again. I cannot speak for all markets – just Milwaukee. And Milwaukee is often used as a test market, so maybe we get more commercials than the average metro area.

I will give an example. The Olive Garden is running a campaign positioning itself as a mid-range restaurant. If you haven’t seen it, the commercials feature various groups of people meeting at an Olive Garden to share good food and companionship. So far, so good.

However for some reason, the campaign has devolved into the same commercial over and over again. It features a mom and dad visiting their daughter at college. When I first saw it, I thought it was pretty good. It had a key element that made it realistic – it showed the parents taking their daughter – and her friends – out for a meal.  Speaking as the parent of two now college graduates, I think we fed half of Miami University of Ohio and Purdue University.

However, by the 20^th time I watched the family talk about eating pasta at Olive Garden, I was screaming at the television. Other companies have done the same thing – I love Southwest Airlines, but I was going to throw something at the television if I heard the phrase: “it’s on” one more time.

What I want to do to my television after one too many commercials.

I once read a study that after six or seven screenings, people start to resent television ads. After 20 or so showings, the reaction to the overplay can actually make people not buy a product.

You know, it’s nice when someone else makes the case for social media, even if they don’t mean to.

As said I Monday, I will not be publishing next week. The next blog will run Jan. 4^th. Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to all.

This is the headline from the Dec. 11, 2009 crainsnewyork.com online business magazine: “367 magazines shuttered in 2009.”

The article goes on to report that: “As bad as the news is, the pace of decline appears to have slowed. In 2008, a total of 526 U.S. magazines ceased publication. In 2007, there were 573 that shut down.

The number of titles that folded may actually be higher, said Trish Hagood, president of Oxbridge Communications, parent company of MediaFinder, which describes itself as the largest online database of U.S. and Canadian publications. She explains that it will take until well into the new year to do a final tabulation.”

A knowledge gap is being created

I decided to write this blog because of last week’s announcement that two venerable magazines were shutting down: Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Reviews are being shuttered.

I know neither of these of magazines would be the kind likely to be sold at the grocery store checkout (except maybe for grocery stores in Cambridge, Mass, the lower East Side of New York and Berkley, Calif.). But, they served important purposes in their niches.

The century-old Editor & Publisher covered the newspaper industry. When I started as a reporter in 1975, it was a must read. If you wanted to know what going on in the business, you read E & P. I got my first two reporting jobs from classified ads in the magazine. It was a magazine in which readers’ actually read the ads first, especially the classified job listings.

Kirkus Reviews published over 5,000 book reviews annually. It was an important outlet, especially for new authors. It was often the first public exposure a first novel received. Kirkus was an important resource for bookstore buyers. They would often choose a novel to offer to their customers based on something they read in the magazine.

Personal note: As one who is writing a novel, and hoping to get it published, I mourn the loss of Kirkus. I also mourn the loss of E & P. It was an important press watchdog.

The closing of those two, and other magazines, is creating a knowledge gap.

Magazines used to occupy a unique place in news and information publishing. Newspapers were looked to as a daily source of information. That role has largely been taken over by Web-based news sources, including Twitter. Magazines were the source of the longer, more in-depth pieces. Magazines had the space and time to really tackle a subject. But, they were more immediate than a book.

With the death of so many magazines, a valuable source of explanation and analysis is going away. Oddly, to me at least, many newspapers are trying to turn themselves into daily magazines. They write long investigative stories that often run for several pages. That’s not why people read newspapers. They want to know what’s going on in the neighborhood. People don’t have time to ready long stories in the morning – when newspapers are delivered.

There is a solution

Yeah, you guessed it – I think magazines should be moving on line completely. I know Editor & Publisher has been on-line since the ‘90s. Kirkus is also online.  However, I don’t think either did a very good job of bringing readers to their websites. Like a lot of other publications, I think they saw the websites as an auxiliary to their print editions. It should have been the other way around.

There is precedent for this – the move of soap operas from radio to television in the early 1950s.

A little history first. In 1946, there were approximately 10,000 television sets in the United States, according to questia.com. By 1950, there were 3 million and by 1953, half of all households in the United States had a television. Kind of sounds like the growth of social media, doesn’t it?

Proctor & Gamble started soap operas on radio during the Depression. It was a marketing decision to sell more laundry soap and other products. When television began to dominate, P & G moved the soaps to television. After all, you go where the customers are – which is a rule of social media by the way.

So, why can’t magazines do the same thing? The web is becoming the dominant media – so why not move to the customers are? More and more people are doing their reading online. I still get Sports Illustrated’s print edition, but I also read it online every day. SI and other publications can do more on the web – post videos, run a lot more pictures, link to other relevant sites and be a lot more immediate in their analysis.

I think that move would save a lot of magazines. In cost alone, it would be a good move. No longer would a publisher have to factor the cost of production and printing.

Seems logical to me. Any thoughts anyone?

Note: I will not be posting on either next Monday or Wednesday. It is a holiday week and I am taking some time off. The next blog will run Jan. 4, 2010.

After posting last week’s blog (In case you have noticed, social media has already taken over), I was curious about those people who still either oppose using social media, or think it’s a fad. I know there are people out there who just aren’t too sure about it. For instance, I had a conversation about a year ago at a function where the director of major public relations agency told me he didn’t think social media was going to last. I wasn’t as adept as I am now, but I still knew he was wrong.

I think a lot of people out there who feel like the residents of Oz (no, not Australia – the mythical place created by L. Frank Baum). They look up in the sky and see this skywriting witch demanding they surrender Dorothy Gale. The residents of Oz all run to the see the wizard. The doorman assures them the wizard is going to deal with the issue.

Well, Social Media is not the Wicked Witch of the West. And the wizard cannot stop it anyway, although some executives are apparently still trying.

In my research, I found this: “51 percent of … executives fear social media could be detrimental to employee productivity, while 49 percent assert that using social media could damage company reputation,” in a research brief from the Center for Media Research. The brief reported on a study done by Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law that found that “senior US marketing, management and HR executives are concerned about the risks of increased use of social networks within their companies.”

A study by Equation Research and reported by eMarketer.com found these reasons for companies not adopting social media.

I think Walter Schwabe did a good job of explaining the resistance in the blog “fusedlogic.

“The truth is, most organizations despite the decline are still spending large dollars in the traditional advertising space and are justifying these expenditures on metrics that are estimates in many cases,” Schwabe wrote. “Then those same executives look at social media investments with risk in their eyes, a lack of understanding and claiming there’s no way to measure.

“What they’re really saying is “we don’t understand,” Schwabe explained. “Then they provide a media buyer with $250,000.00 or more to go fire away at the big three, print, television, radio for a 90-day campaign. Why? Not because it’s necessarily the right answer but because it’s what they understand and the safe move.”

Of course there are ways to measure Social Media impact. I have to say first that I have never understood some of the measurements of traditional marketing. I have heard marketing people say: “well, 10 million people saw that commercial during the game.” Or, “that magazine has a 800,000 readers.” So what.

To me, there is only one measure of the effectiveness of a marketing campaign in both business-to-business and business-to-consumer marketing: did sales increase? Anything else is just commentary. If a campaign doesn’t increase sales, what’s the point? Yes, brand awareness has to built. People have to know about a product before they will buy it. But, I think a lot of marketers stop there. They forget the goal is the sales funnel – not getting people to watch some cutesy commercial.

Social media can drive sales – I think more effectively that traditional methods. But I digress. That is the subject for another blog.

The other fact that surprised me was that Twitter is for adults. Teenagers and tweens just don’t use it, according to The Participatory Marketing Network (PMN), an organization that helps marketers transition from push and permission marketing to participatory marketing.

“Just 11 percent of its (Twitters) users are aged 12 to 17, according to comScore, the New York Times reported. “Instead, Twitter’s unparalleled explosion in popularity has been driven by a decidedly older group. That success has shattered a widely held belief that young people lead the way to popularizing innovations.”

The Times went on to report that: “In fact, though teenagers fueled the early growth of social networks, today they account for 14 percent of MySpace’s users and only 9 percent of Facebook’s. As the Web grows up, so do its users, and for many analysts, Twitter’s success represents a new model for Internet success.”

Studies have found that tweens and teens prefer texting to Tweeting. There are two primary reasons, the studies found: tweens and teens do not want their parents to know what they are doing and it turns out Twitter is optimized best for marketing and news. Teens and Tweens have little use for those activities.

In other words, Social Media is maturing. Don’t worry; you won’t have to surrender anything. And you might just find Social Media is the key to the City of Oz.

I intended this week to write about an entirely different subject .Two things changed my mind: I love the blues. As I write this I am listening to Son House sing “Government Fleet Blues” on iTunes. It occurred to me that the reason I can hear a Blues song recorded over 80-years-ago is because of a technology perfected in the 1920s – phonograph records. It seems quaint now, but the record was a huge leap from the waxed cylinder previously used to record music. It democratized music distribution. Social media is having the same effect on information distribution,

Second, I was a reading the Socialnomics Blog. It contained information that just blew me away. I read a lot of social media blogs written by some of the best: Simon U. Ford, Chris Brogan, Brian Solis, Sarah Evans, and others. They are all saying that Social Media is taking over. I know they are right. But the following information underlined that fact in a way that surprised even me. Did you know:

(If you prefer the information in video form, here’s the link to the Social Media Revolution.)

• Because of the speed in which social media enables communication, word of mouth has now become world of mouth.

• In the near future we will no longer search for  products and services – they will find us via social media.
• Successful companies in social media act more like Dale Carnegie and less like David Ogilvy – listening first, selling second.
• Successful companies in social media also act more like party planners, aggregators, and content providers than traditional advertiser.
• Twenty-four of the 25 largest newspapers are experiencing record declines in circulation because the Web is now the primary news source.
• By 2010 Gen Y will outnumber Baby Boomers – 96 percent of them have joined a social network.
  • Generation Y and Z consider e-mail passé…In 2009 Boston College stopped distributing e-mail addresses to incoming freshmen.
  • Social Media has overtaken porn as the number one activity on the Web.
  • Three out of eight couples married in the U.S. last year met via social media.
  • Years to reach 50 million users:
    • Radio – 38 years
    • TV – 13 years
    • The Internet – four years
    • iPod – three years
    • Facebook added 100 million users in less than nine months.
    • iPhone applications hit one billion in nine months.
    • If Facebook was a country it would be the world’s fourth largest – between the United States and Indonesia.
      • More than 1.5 million pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared on Facebook – daily.
      • The fastest growing segment on Facebook is 55-65 year-old females.
      • Some sources say China’s QZone is larger with over 300 million using its services (Facebook’s ban in China plays into this).
      • Facebook USERS translated the site from English to Spanish via a Wiki in less than four weeks and cost Facebook $0.
      • comScore indicates that Russia has the most engaged social media audience with visitors spending 6.6 hours and viewing 1,307 pages per visitor per month – Vkontakte.ru is the number one Russian social network.
      • A 2009 US Department of Education study revealed that on average, online students out performed those receiving face-to-face instruction. One-in-six higher education students are enrolled in online curriculum.
      • Percentage of companies using LinkedIn as a primary tool to find employees – 80 percent.
      • Eighty percent of Twitter usage is on mobile devices…people update anywhere, anytime. Company reputations are often killed before the company even knows it is bleeding.
        • Ashton Kutcher and Ellen Degeneres have more Twitter followers than the entire populations of Ireland, Norway and Panama.
        • There are no secrets in social media – ask any job applicant who didn’t get hired because of those college party pictures on Facebook or Flickr.
        • The second largest search engine in the world is YouTube.
        • Wikipedia has over 13 million articles…some studies show it’s more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica…78 percent of those articles are written in languages other than English.
          • If you were paid a $1 for every time an article was posted on Wikipedia you would earn $156.23 per hour.
          • There are over 200,000,000 blogs and 54 percent of bloggers post content or tweet daily.
          • Twenty-five percent of search results for the World’s Top 20 largest brands are links to user-generated content. Thirty-four percent of bloggers post opinions about products & brands.
          • People care more about how their social networks ranks products and services  than how Google ranks them.
          • Seventy-eight percent of consumers trust peer recommendations
            • Only 14 percent trust advertisements.
            • Only 18 percent of traditional TV campaigns generate a positive return on investment.
            • Ninety percent of people that can skip ads using TiVo do so.
            • Hulu (the online video site) has grown from 63 million total streams in April 2008 to 373 million in April 2009.
            • In the past month, 25 percent of Americans said they watched a short video – on their phone.
            • According to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, 35 percent of book sales on Amazon are for the Kindle when available.

It takes a lot to surprise me. I was a newspaper for 25 years. I have pretty much seen it all. These facts, though, amazed even me. Social media isn’t taking over, it has taken over.

Traditional marketing, public relations and advertising are dying. They just don’t know it yet.

Note: Two weeks ago, I posted a blog about how the kindle could save newspapers. I thought it was an original idea. Well, I was wrong. In 1994, the old Knight-Ridder newspaper chain came up with the same idea. They called their reader The Tablet. What stopped them was technology had not moved far enough along to make it viable. Check out this video to see what Knight-Ridder planned to do.

It is no secret that the recession is deeply affecting marketing, public relations and advertising agencies. In the last two months, at least a dozen marketing communications people I know have lost their jobs. It is nothing they have done or haven’t done. It’s just that clients are just not spending.

I can attest to the recession’s effects on my own small business. Clients have cut spending, gone away completely, or taken longer to make decisions on new marketing efforts. I don’t blame them. There is a lot of fear out there. We have not been through anything like this since the end of World War II. None of us know what to do.

So companies are doing what seems logical. They are retrenching, laying off people, and slashing their marketing budgets. The thinking seems to be that we need to hoard our resources or we won’t survive. Right now, we cannot worry marketing. Besides, the thinking goes, consumers aren’t buying right now anyway. They too are retrenching.

On the surface, that seems like the course to take. Prudence and frugality should rule until the whole thing is over. do. But it’s not the course companies should be taking. and I can prove it. Let’s first consider the cereal giant, Kellogg.

“So, when the Depression hit, no one knew what would happen to consumer demand,” James Surowiecki wrote in the April 20, 2009 issue of The New Yorker. “Post did the predictable thing: it reined in expenses and cut back on advertising. But Kellogg doubled its ad budget, moved aggressively into radio advertising, and heavily pushed its new cereal, Rice Krispies. (Snap, Crackle, and Pop first appeared in the thirties.) By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost thirty per cent and it had become what it remains today: the industry’s dominant player.”

Surowiecki also wrote “… a major study, by the Strategic Planning Institute, of corporate behavior during the past thirty years found that reducing ad spending during recessions did improve companies’ return on capital. It also meant, though, that they grew less quickly in the years following recessions than more free-spending competitors did.”

It is understandable that many executives are scared to gamble on introducing and marketing something new. I think they see themselves as captains of the Titanic. If they go too fast, they risk running into the iceberg. Going slow allows them to miss the obstacles. But remember this about the Titanic: it wasn’t speed that sank it; it was the failure to see the iceberg that did in the ship. Neither lookout had binoculars and didn’t see the massive piece of ice until it was too late.

Fearing that iceberg, executives don’t see the value in stoking the engines up. But, as long as there are good look-outs with the right equipment, the ice can be avoided. Some companies know that. Let’s look at some the products introduced and marketed during economic hard times:

• Kraft introduced Miracle Whip in 1933. Through both radio and newspaper ads, it became the top salad dressing in the United States.

• In 1933, Proctor & Gamble went on the radio with the first soap opera – “Ma Perkins,” sponsored by Oxydol.  P&G was so satisfied with the sales increase, they went on to introduce “Vic and Sadie” for Crisco, “O’Niells” for Ivory Soap and “Forever Young” for Camay.  By 1939 the Cincinnati-based company was sponsoring 21 radio programs. It doubled its radio-advertising budget every two years during the Depression.
• Also during the Depression, General Motors used intensive advertising to pass Ford as the number auto company. I find it interesting that Ford is now gearing up its marketing efforts, while GM sits on the sidelines.
• Apple introduced the IPod in 2001, around the bottom of the last recession. Apple is a master of viral marketing. We all know what happened to the Apple’s profits as a result. In addition, Apple has used the cache built by IPod to increase its market in areas such as laptop computers.

I could on, but the point is, cutting back the wrong thing to do. Of course, it’s a gamble.

As Surowiecki concluded: “The academics Peter Dickson and Joseph Giglierano have argued that companies have to worry about two kinds of failure: “sinking the boat” (wrecking the company by making a bad bet) or “missing the boat” (letting a great opportunity pass). Today, most companies are far more worried about sinking the boat than about missing it. That’s why the opportunity to do what Kellogg did exists. That’s also why it’s so nerve-racking to try it.”

Of course, I have an answer for that – social media. I know I am obnoxious about this, but I firmly believe that social media is going to replace traditional advertising, marketing, and public relations within the not-to-distant future. Think of social media in the same Proctor & Gamble thought of radio in the 1930s. A lot of the company’s shareholders were opposed to using the new medium, especially during The Great Depression.

Think of social media as the new radio. As radio was to P&G, social media could be to a smart company willing to take a chance. A lot of companies are starting to dabble in it, but few have made a total commitment. I think there is both fear and unfamiliarity with the new medium. A survey by the blog überceo found that the majority of CEOs whose companies are on the Fortune 100 are – the blog’s words – social media slackers. They don’t understand it or know how to use it.

That’s where someone like me enters the picture. It is my job to show executives why it is smart to market using social media. Just let any savvy marketer who understands media into the room and we will show why this recession could be the best thing that ever happened to your company.

A Time magazine poll done shortly after Walter Cronkite’s death found Comedy Central “news anchor” Jon Stewart is now the most trusted newscaster in America. For those of you too young to remember, that title was held by “Uncle Walter” for the almost two decades in which he anchored the CBS Evening News.

That a comedian is now considered the most trusted man in American news has profound implications for those of us in marketing and public relations. It is another demonstration that the old rules no longer apply. Newspaper or television coverage of a client will no longer translate into increased brand awareness, increased sales or brand loyalty.

It means that social media is the now the best way to market. In fact, in the not-to-distant future, I believe social media will sweep away traditional advertising, marketing and public relations.

Why? And what does this have to do with Walter Cronkite and Jon Stewart?

Well, Walter Cronkite reported the news. He didn’t embellish or editorialize. He presented the facts as he saw them. People believed him because of who he was. Cronkite talked and we listened. Advertising, marketing and public relations were done – is still done in many cases – the same way. On behalf of our client, we tell a potential customer why a product should be purchased. We get a newspaper or a broadcast outlet to do a story on a client. We think convert potential customers into buyers because of what we did. We think we have succeeded.

We’re wrong.

Watch a Jon Stewart broadcast on Hulu.com. He doesn’t so much report as comment. Much of what he does is satire. One of my favorite segments is when he plays a tape of some public figure making a statement he never said something controversial. Stewart than plays half dozen clips showing the politician making the controversial statement. He often doesn’t say anything, but his expressions after some stories say what he thinks about what was just reported. Stewart is a reflection of much of today’s cynicism about just about everything.

This is how most of today’s consumers think. Just telling them something is good isn’t going to cut it. In fact, study after study shows that most people under the age of 35 just don’t trust advertising. Advertising and public relations doesn’t even reach most of them. They don’t read newspapers or magazines, they don’t listen to radio. In other words, the traditional model no longer works. Even if they do watch television, they probably use a Digital Video Recorder, or DVR, to record shows.  A DVR is programmed to skip commercials. Where today’s consumers get most of their information is from the Internet.

The recession has also things tougher. There just isn’t as much money to spend as there was even two years ago. Consumers are becoming extremely discriminating in how and where they spend their money.

An article in the June issue of McKinsey Quarterly notes: “Marketing has always sought … touch points, when consumers are open to influence. For years, touch points have been understood through the metaphor of a “funnel”—consumers start with a number of potential brands in mind (the wide end of the funnel), marketing is then directed at them as they methodically reduce that number and move through the funnel, and at the end they emerge with the one brand they chose to purchase. But today, the funnel concept fails to capture all the touch points and key buying factors resulting from the explosion of product choices and digital channels, coupled with the emergence of an increasingly discerning, well-informed consumer. (my emphasis) A more sophisticated approach is required to help marketers navigate this environment, which is less linear and more complicated than the funnel suggests. We call this approach the consumer decision journey.”

The best way, the only way, I feel to reach those increasingly sophisticated consumers is through social media. They need to be convinced that what they are considering purchasing meets their needs. They have to be shown. Most consumers today are going to do a lot of research before they make a purchase. They are going to talk to their friends and go on to discuss brands.

As I tell potential clients:” there is already a conversation going on about your company, event, or product. You need to be a part of that conversation. Whether you are not, the conversation will go on.”

That’s the role of social media. Companies can join in the conversation. But in doing that, they need to provide real reasons why a consumer should buy into that company’s concept. A company has to use all of the social media tools to convince a reluctant buyer that they should buy a product.

Blogs by company officials can tell a consumer the thinking behind a particular product’s creation. It can detail why the creator feels it is good product. A good blog will allow consumers to ask questions about the product. Remember, they expect accurate, concise answers. Try to hype them and you will lose them. If the blog is well done and honest, other blogs will link to it, consumers will tweet about and the word will spread.  To support the product, a company can post videos on YouTube demonstrating the product and how it works. Again, there has to be room for consumer questions and comments.

Many companies are starting to understand. I could use a Starbucks or Southwest Airlines as an example. But I will leave you with the story of a Texas car dealership. General Manager Hagen Durant is using Facebook, MySpace and Twitter to bring in business. This is an excellent demonstration of how everyone should be embracing social media.

NOTE TO MY READERS: If you are interested in a free, introductory course on social media, email me. Myself and three other social media acolytes are giving away an EBook written by social media guru Simon U. Ford. Ford sold several thousand of the books for $67. However, we have permission to give it away for a limited time. In addition, you get five free podcasts. We also will be holding a series of four virtual “book clubs” to go over the book. Between the book, the podcasts, and the four of us, you will receive a comprehensive overview of social media. Because we want to provide the best possible training, there are 25 spots left. For more information, go to the Social Boomers site. That’s right, we are actually marketing to Boomers – and anyone else who is interested.