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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the things came up on the search was the young man’s Twitter feed. My friend told me to describe this feed as scatological would be understating things. This feed made my friend immediately decide this student was not nearly mature enough to handle a work environment. She decided anyone that would tweet in great deal about relationships clearly needed to grow up before attempting a leap into the real world.

You might read about the Buckingham Palace guard who posted some very inappropriate things about his royal bosses on Facebook. The United Kingdom’s Press Association reported that Scots Guardsman Cameron Reilly, 18, who usually stands guard outside the royal palace, called Prince William’s bride-to-be a “posh b****” and other nasty names on Facebook.

ABC news reported that Reilly reportedly wrote, “hur and william drove past me on friday n all a got was a sh*tty wave while she looked the opposite way from me, stupid stuck up cow am a not good enough for them! posh b**** am totally with u on this 1 who reely gives a f*** about hur”.

Reilly also posted anti-Semitic and racist comments on his Facebook page, the Press Association reported. The Ministry of Defense is reportedly investigating the claims and has removed Reilly from his wedding day duties. I don’t know what happens in the British Army when one screws up like that, but I am guessing young Mr. Reilly will soon be guarding the Outer Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland. The Scots say that’s where the Lord tests his storms before unleashing them on the rest of the Earth. Not always a pleasant place to be.

At any rate, these are two examples of what I hammer constantly to clients and groups when I speak. The key thing to remember is that nothing is ever private on the net. Number two, trust no one among your followers.

Once you have more than say 100 followers on Twitter, Facebook or any other site your are not going to know all of them personally. They might like you, they might not. Post something that is critical or offensive and one of those “friends” might decide to share it with the world.

Forrester Research estimates that one post on a social media site reaches approximately 150 people. If 10 of those people repeat the post, there is a potential of reaching 1,500 people. And if they repeat it and so on, your seemingly private comment has gone viral. It could also be an embarrassing picture or video. Those tend to spread even faster.

As I always clients, don’t do anything stupid because it will hang around forever. Remember the words of Ben Franklin” three can keep a secret – if two are dead.”

The cancellation of both shows marks the continuing decline of a once powerful marketing machine. I think social media is doing the same thing to conventional marketing. It won’t happen overnight – and traditional marketing and public relations should still be part of any marketing plan. However, it is going to happen.

What many people don’t know anymore is that soap operas were started in the 1930s on radio by Proctor & Gamble to sell soap and other products – hence the name. According to P&G’s corporate history in 1933 “‘Ma Perkins,’ a radio serial program sponsored by P&G’s Oxydol soap powder, aired nationally. Its popularity leads P&G brands to sponsor numerous new ‘soap operas.’ Faithful listeners become loyal buyers of P&G brands at the grocery.’” The soaps helped P&G get through the Great Depression. When radio gave way to television, the soaps easily made the jump.

The soap operas came to dominate daytime television. Soaps were “once considered the stable revenue generator of the broadcast television model: the consistently popular daytime staples that helped fund primetime experimentation,” Fast Company Expert Blogger Sam Ford said. But not anymore.

There were once a dozen soaps on the air. There are now just four. Ford wrote that many in the television industry feel those four on their last legs. I think the demise is inevitable.

Like medicine shows and Burma Shave Road Signs, soaps apparently just don’t move product anymore. And that is the ultimate aim of most television shows and other marketing mediums. If it doesn’t sell something, it isn’t going to stay around. The audiences went elsewhere for any number of reasons and the advertisers saw that.

In the case of soap operas, “Many may say it’s because the fans abandoned the genre,” Ford wrote. “The story you often hear from fans is that it’s because the shows lost their way and their interest. As soaps tried to battle over the dwindling daytime audience as if ‘soap opera fans’ were all fans of the genre more than fans of the show, little thought was put into a sustained effort to bring lapsed fans back.”

Does this sound familiar? Let’s look at what’s happening to some other mass media.

“The Audit Bureau showed that average weekday circulation at 635 newspapers declined 5 percent compared with the same six months last year,” the New York Times reported last October. “The decline last year was more than twice that, 10.6 percent, as newspapers struggled through the recession and more readers abandoned print copies for the Internet.” (emphasis mine.)

Just like in soap operas, the advertisers are going away. “Newspaper publishers are still laboring to reverse a massive decline in advertising revenue – the Newspaper Association of America reported that total industry ad revenue fell 6% in Q2,” the Reuters blog MediaFile reported in September.

The same thing is happening in television advertising. “Advertisers are losing confidence in the medium,” respondents to the Association of National Advertisers/Forrester study of national advertisers said. The survey respondents said they have “a lack of confidence in TV ad effectiveness. Sixty-two percent of respondents think that TV ads have become less effective in the past two years.”

So, where are these advertisers going? You know the answer – they are heading to the Internet, of which social media is a part. I could fill this blog with the statistics – 740 million Facebook users, 100 million-plus Linkedin members, Flickr now hosts more than five million images and so on.

Mashable predicts that in 2011, $3.08 billion will be spent on social media in the United States.

“That’s a 55% increase over the $1.99 billion U.S. advertisers reportedly spent on social networking sites in 2010, and nearly 11% of what they are expected to spend on all online advertising in the U.S. in 2011, eMarketer says,” Mashable reported. “Worldwide spending on social networks is expected to rise 71.6% to $5.97 billion, approximately 8.7% of the total amount advertisers are predicted to spend online in 2011.”

Online advertising, which includes social media, is starting to snowball, the Economist reported. “Global spending on advertising will grow by 4.5% in 2011, double the rate of the previous year, according to ZenithOptima, an ad agency,” the Economist said. “This will be led by online advertising which will increase by 16%.”

Look at the Economist chart below. Online advertising is the largest, but it’s the fastest growing.

Chart courtesy of The Economist

So like medicine shows, Burma Shave Road Signs and now soap operas, conventional marketing is slowly going away. It will take some time, but just like those other things, it will happen.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The three key points of branding are:

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

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

I will talk about that next week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Groupon\’s Tibet Commercial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, micromarketing means selling to your neighbors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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

There is no alternative, no other option.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, it still amazes me that in this digital age of electronic sharing of everything people have not internalized that rule. It hey did, it would keep them of trouble of their own making. Not following that rule will always lead to public relations problems and a lot of collateral damage.

The latest person to fall victim to a failure to pay attention to Franklin’s aphorism is U.S. Navy Capt. Owen Honors. Honors’ career was derailed because of a series of videos he made when he was the executive officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise. According to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot newspaper, “The videos were a series of profanity-laced comedy sketches that were broadcast on the USS Enterprise via closed-circuit television.” Some were described as homophobic.

Did Honors think no one was ever going to talk about this to an outsider? But as Ben said, secrets just cannot be kept. In Honors’ case, almost 6,000 men and women who crew the aircraft carrier saw these videos. The odds were better than even that someone was going to talk.

I not am going to talk about the content of the videos or Honors intent in producing them. I am not seen the videos. From everything I have read, Honors was a rising star in the Navy. He apparently was an excellent leader slated to become an admiral. Perhaps he one day would have become Chief of Naval Operations – the overall Navy commander. Not anymore.

This entire situation is about how the videos were perceived and the fallout from their release. There are numerous stories talking about how the videos show the sexist, homophobic culture that the writers claim permeate the military. Again, I have no idea if that’s an accurate picture of our fighting men and women. I would say not from own experiences dealing with our armed forces. I do pro bono work for groups that work with veterans. I married into a military family. I have a lot of experience with our military.

However, truth does not matter, only the perception. I tell this to clients all the time. Perception is reality as far as the outside world is concerned. That’s why you have to be careful because the odds are very good that what you view as an off-hand remark could come back to bite and bite hard.

Remember, this is the era of social media. What once might not have spread beyond a city block will now zip around the world in minutes. Once the problem is out of the box, there is nothing that can be done to put it back.

As Capt. Honors unfortunately found out, it is not just the individual who will get burned. It can be an entire organization.

HowHH

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.

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 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.”

What is SEO? It is a process where key words and links are used to ensure a website shows up on the first two pages of a search engine. Very few people look beyond those first two pages. It might look cool to see that Google found over million search results that matched your search. But so what. No one has the time or inclination to check more than two pages. So it is on those first two pages that you want to your website to appear.

SEO is especially important if you are small businessperson with a limited marketing budget. I don’t know of any marketplace that is not extremely competitive. SEO will help you stand out from your competition by getting your business on those first two pages of the search results.

SEO costs little, if any, money. Probably less than those billboards the farmer put up. There are many tools out there to help you determine which words should go into your copy to ensure better search results. Google has a free one and there are others.

There is also no need to pay for key words. The largest issue with doing that is once you stop paying, your ranking drops back to what it was. Whereas if you do it organically, your rankings will stay in place.

Injecting SEO into a business should start with your website’s design. When you hire a design firm, make sure they know what SEO is and how to incorporate into the website. You should do this anyway, but ask for the names of the some of the design firm’s client to find out how successful previous designs were.

Let me give you an anecdote I use when I speak on social media explaining why SEO is so important. It explains SEO very well. It goes like this:

There was vegetable farmer who had a very profitable business selling his produce from a stand at his farm. Because this farm was out in the country, the farmer placed billboards advertising the stand along the Interstate highway.

Sales were so good the farmer sent all his children to college. His oldest daughter earned both a B.A. and an M.B.A.

One summer the vegetable business dropped off. The farmer had to cut costs to stay profitable. He asked his MBA daughter what needed to be down.

She did an analysis. What made sense to her to cut were those billboards. The cost of maintaining them was dragging profits down. Why were they needed, she thought. People knew about the farm and would continue to come.

Within a month of taking the billboards down what had been downturn turned into a disaster. The customers stopped coming. So the farmer sent his daughter off to a city job and put the billboards back up. Business returned to normal.

Just think of SEO has an Internet billboard telling potential customers about your business.

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

Social Media Value #1:  Unfiltered Feedback

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

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

Social Media Value #2:  Authenticity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media Value #4:  Balancing Transparency AND Privacy

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

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

Social Media Value #5: Supporting Statistics

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

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

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

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

Getting Your Board On Board

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

After all, one of social media strength’s is peer review. I like to see what other people say about a restaurant my wife and I haven’t yet checked out. I like to know what’s good, what’s bad and how well the servers handle things.

Foursquare also gives me a chance to tell others about places I like. Jody and I have pretty eclectic tastes in food, so we hit a lot of different places. As my future son-in-law has noted, I am Milwaukee’s unofficial ambassador.

Something odd has been happening on foursquare. I am getting requests to friend people from places including the Netherlands; New Zealand; India; and Germany. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to friending people who live in other countries. It is one of the things I like about social media. I have Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter contacts around the globe.

But I wonder why someone in India wants to know about the nightlife in Milwaukee? Are they planning a trip here? That would be nice. Milwaukee is a great city to visit. We have a lot to offer.

Still, I cannot help but wonder if I am being friended by people who really have no intention of ever coming to Wisconsin. Instead, are these people just trying to build up huge friend lists? It is some kind of high school thing where the person who has the most friends wins?

Before I go any further, I should note I have more than 8,000 Twitter followers, more than 7,000 LinkedIn connections and I just crossed the 1,000 mark on Facebook. However, most of that is for professional reasons. I follow people who have similar interests. Plus, I use my lists for as outreach for my clients.  I have to note having more 16,000 social media contacts is an incentive for people to hire me.

I don’t follow just anybody. As I have said, the minute you tell me what you had for breakfast, what cute thing your dog did, or you are going to have your nails done, I will unfollow you. I will also not follow anyone who promises to make me rich or plays games. I don’t believe the former and I think the later is silly.

The people I follow are marketers, flacks, and social media people like myself. I learn from them and I hope they learn from me. I will not follow people who do not meet my criteria. For me it is a matter of quality versus quantity.

I make somewhat of an exception for Facebook because I have family members and friends who I stay in touch with through the platform.

I have not amassed a large numbers of followers because I think it makes me cool. That is not the purpose of social media.

Yet, I think there are a lot of people out there who build lists indiscriminately. Why I am not sure. As I have said time and time again, the one with the most friends does not win.

He stops me before I get wound up. His frustration comes from his superiors – he just cannot convince them that social media is the company’s best option. He wants my input on how to perhaps change their minds, although he is not hopeful.

Oh, for those of you who are wondering, my practice is to provide one free call or meeting on social media, marketing or public relations. After that I charge. Hey, I gotta eat too.

I tell the guy that my first rule with a client who has never done social media before is you have to crawl and then walk before you can run. What that means in plain talk is doing two apps before trying to do four or five. Trying to do everything at once is a formula for frustration and failure. I want my clients to succeed.

So, after hearing what the company does and its goals, I suggest starting a blog and creating a YouTube channel. Those two efforts would jive nicely with the company already does. Every study I have read say blogs are the most effective way to establish a brand’s identity. YouTube is a good way to demonstrate a product.

I am deliberately not providing any detail on the company’s location or products. I do not want this guy to get in trouble with his bosses. If you are boss who thinks it was one of your people who called, it probably wasn’t. Besides, my land line covers all of North America and I am adept user of Skype.

So, maybe if he eases them into social media, it will accepted, I tell him. Not going to work he says. He says  there was no way his company would agree to doing even those two applications. They wanted to stick with conventional marketing methods. I am still pondering this dilemma.

However, it is a common one. Despite that the fact that companies from IBM to Mom and Pop restaurants use social media constantly and effectively, many executives still don’t want anything to do with it. I don’t know why, but I have some hypothesis.

They are:

• The herd instinct. None of their competitors are doing it, so they don’t want to be first.
• The fear instinct. They are afraid they might not do it right or it might not work, so they don’t try
• The laziness quotient. Social media demands more time than conventional marketing. Many in the C-Suite don’t want to take the time to write a blog or tweet. They would rather an agency do their work.
• The ignorance problem. They don’t know who effective social media can be and don’t want to bother to learn.

I am sure these people have what they think are other valid reasons. They are not, and that’s just sad.

Walking around all day, I learned my first marketing lesson as I watched the barkers work. The line for the hootchie shows (girlie shows for you young ones) was long. All the barker had to do was collect the money. The garishly painted signs hanging from the tent did the work. The barker the outside the bearded lady’s tent was working a lot harder. He was literally at times trying to push people into the tent. I think he was even offering a two-for-one deal: the Bearded Lady and the Siamese Twins for the price of a single ticket.

What was I was seeing at the circus? Pull marketing always works better than push marketing. The hootchie barker let his product pull people into the tent. The Bearded Lady barker was not willing to do that. He tried to force the issue. He wasn’t letting his potential customers make up their minds on their own. If I remember correctly, the sign over the tent’s entrance said Bearded Lady, but that was it. There were no pictures.

No, at nine-years-old I didn’t know from push versus pull marketing. However, I did see who was getting better results with their approach. I remembered that later when I sold things for my  scout troop.

That’s the essences of social media – pulling in people through blogging, Facebook pages, Twitter, YouTube and all of the other social media applications. You have to give people a reason to consider your products. You cannot push them into buying anything. They need reasons that you give by using both social media and traditional marketing tactics.

That’s why I rail about things such retailers acting like spammers. No one can be strong-armed into buying something they don’t want. Social media demands what used to be called the “soft-sell.” You want to hold a conversation, not a lecture, with a potential client.

It is why I don’t like to deal car dealers, they always push. It is why I like to shop at Apple stores. You walk through the door, someone asks once if you need help. After that, you are left alone to browse. If you need help, someone answers your questions without trying to sell you anything. I think that’s why the profit those stores increased between 2008 and 2009 when most other retailers saw a sales decrease.

Granted the retail profit only rose from $1.33 billion to $1.39 billion – just a $60 million increase. Of course, sales doubled between 2007 and 2008. Retail profits rose from $573 million to the 2008 profit of $1.33 billion.

I should note I am a member of the Apple cult.

My point in this, though, is Apple and companies like it, succeed because they don’t push. They put their customers’ needs first. They give the customer what they want. It’s the same thing that circus barker did almost 50-years-ago as I watered elephants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, Happy St. Patrick’s Day. As my Irish cousins would day:

May the best day of your past

Be the worst day of your future.

Now onto the rant. In this one, I am channeling my former colleagues in journalism. Some of them read Monday’s blog on press releases. They contacted me and asked to add some other things about press releases. Most of their requests covered the same things I used to complain about. Some things never change.

So, let’s cover them:

• Make sure all of your information has been proofread. There should not be any typographical errors, the names should be spelled correctly, the times should be right and none of the addresses should be wrong. Reporters and bloggers are very sensitive about putting mistakes into print, onto the Web or on the air. Sure, they can later explain it was your fault. But, people usually don’t remember that. The reporter will get blamed. By including that error, you have made the reporter look bad. Think that person is ever going to trust you again?
• Along those same lines, make sure every piece of information you provide is accurate. Have the experts check whatever you write. Same reasons as above. Plus, if you don’t want it made public, do not put in anything that will go to the press. Once it is in the release and winging its way to the media, it’s too late. There are no do-overs in something like this. Calling up a reporter or a blogger and asking them not publish something pretty much guarantees it will be.
• In particular, make sure the contact information for follow-ups is accurate. In addition, realize reporters work different hours than most people – other than the police and nurses – do. A number should be listed where you can be reached after so-called normal business hours. If a editor has a question at 9 p.m. and the reporter doesn’t know the answer, that writer has to be able to reach you to get the answer. If you cannot be reached, a story might not run.
• Make sure when you send the information out there is a headline that clearly says what it is. Don’t get cute. If a blogger, reporter or editor cannot figure in about 30 seconds what the press release is about, odds are good it will get deleted. That goes for social media releases also.
• Make sure your sending the traditional or social media release to the right reporter. Do your research on who it should go to. That’s very important. Read the paper or the blogger so you know what they write about. And make sure you are targeting the correct publication. Do your research to ensure the place you are sending the information to cares about the topic.
• I always advise calling the reporter or blogger before you send the information to gauge their interest and to give them a heads up. If they are not interested, they are not going to change their minds. I promise you that, so don’t send it anyway. If one reporter or editor rejects your information, don’t send it to someone else at the same publication. It ticks them all off. No means no.
• If they do say yes, ask them when you call back to see if they have any questions. Again, if they say they will call you back, let them. Don’t become a pest. What’s important to you might not be as important to the reporter.
• As for embargoes and exclusives, I have mixed feelings.
  • On embargoes, most publications will honor your request to use the news until a certain date. Unless an editor thinks for some reason the competition has the story. Then it will run. Or the editor decides for competitive purposes to break the embargo. You are basically powerless in this unless you live in a very large city with multiple media outlets. If you don’t, you need the media more than they need you.
  • On exclusives, I was the recipient of some and my competition was the recipient of others. What happened when my papers didn’t get an exclusive was that we would often try to shoot the story down. Then you are responding to a skeptical journalist who is mad is at you. Not a good situation.

I hope this helps in your press relations. If you have any more questions, email me at jjccole at jjc-communications.com.

When I first met my doctor almost 30 years, I walked into his office, sat down and asked him: “so, what was your grade in anatomy?” He laughed. I asked the question again. He saw I was serious. He pointed to his medical school diploma that was hanging on the wall behind me. It said he had graduated summa cum laude. I was satisfied.

Why did I ask? Because as the joke goes: do you know what they call the medical student who barely passes? Doctor.

You should be asking the same kind of questions when you decide to hire a social media agency. Too many times, I see people and agencies pass them selves off as social media experts when in reality, all they have done is signed up for Facebook and have a Twitter account. When you ask if they use social bookmarking, or how they measure ROI, their eyes go blank. Or, they give you some gibberish about how ROI is difficult to measure.

The agency you want to hire should have a solid grounding in both traditional marketing and public relations and social media. They understand how to use both, how to meld them and how to measure results.

Social media as a method of public relations and marketing matured about four years. That’s when broadband became widespread. Broadband is necessary to run most social media platforms.

Because it is so new, there are not yet any solid standards for determining who’s an expert and who’s a pretender. I have studying and using social media for about three years. I started doing podcast scripts and moved on from there. I have been doing it long enough that I know what I am talking about.

What distinguishes one agency from another is how long they have been using social media, their level of commitment to it, and how successful they have been.

So, if I were looking to hire a social media expert, here would be the questions I would ask:

• How much experience with social media have you and your agency had?

You want to know if they attended a couple of webinars, maybe have a Facebook page and Tweet and now think they are an expert. That does not make them an expert, not by a long shot. Ask to see their blogs, Twitter accounts, LinkedIn usage, Facebook pages, and YouTube posts. This shows they are experienced users. Ask if they use Digg, Stumbleon and other social bookmarking sites.

• Where did they learn social media?

This shows their level of commitment. And also ask how they stay on top of the changing trends in social media. That’s important.

• Ask for the names of clients for which they have run successful campaigns. You want to be able to check on what they did and if it worked.

• How do they view social media – as a tactic, a strategy, or an entire new way of marketing?

The answer is the last one. Social media is not a one-off. It requires a commitment of time and resources. I would argue that it is more effective than traditional marketing, but it takes knowledge to do it right.

• How do they integrate traditional marketing and public relations efforts with social media?

Traditional methods definitely still have a place. Often there is a melding of the old and the new. Many journalists now use Twitter for instance. You need to make sure that traditional methods are not neglected.

• Who handles social media in their agency?

You want to know the senior people are committed to social media. You don’t want to find yourself working with some junior assistant account executive that got the assignment because he or she has a Facebook page.

• How do they measure Return On Investment (ROI) for social media?

There is no one method to do it. Personally, I believe it can best be measured by increased website traffic and sales, but there are other ways. Make sure the agency has a method for measuring ROI.

Those questions you should get started. Next week, I am going tell you about to set up a social media campaign.

And as for Wednesday’s rant: well, I am going to give you my take on NBC’s decision to interrupt the Olympic closing ceremonies.

NOTE: Before we get started, I would like to invite you to join myself and five other social media experts to listen to our Blog Talk Radio show Wednesday at 8 p.m. (GMT -6). We will talk about social media and how you can use it for 60 minutes. Please join us. Just click on the link.

So let’s get to using social media in your business, as I promised last week.

The thing you should know is that social media is not a burden; it’s a gift. That’s not me talking. It comes from Paula Berg of Southwest Airlines. Berg is manager of Emerging Media for the Dallas, Texas Airlines.

Social media is also going to make corporate websites largely obsolete, Randy Sprenger, Harley-Davidson’s manger of electronic advertising and direct advertising.

Okay, let your eyebrows go down now. Both Sprenger and Berg are veteran users of all forms of social media. They work for established companies who wouldn’t involve themselves corporately in something unless they were convinced it was here to stay. Both have seen the value of marketing their companies using social media outlets such as YouTube, Facebook and blogs.

Berg and Sprenger were two of a number of speakers at the Public Relations & Social Media Summit last Wednesday (Oct. 14) at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater. They are were a lot of fine speakers, but these two are the most relevant to what most companies today should be doing.

As an aside, I enjoyed the conference greatly. For anyone diving into social media, I recommend going to such conferences. The learning doesn’t just take place in the sessions. It also happens in the hallways, over lunch, and in the bar after it ends. You are going to get a diverse people at such an event. It is great way to meet people, trade information and learn how to solve social media problems.

From my research, I have to say that Southwest Airlines and Harley-Davidson are two of the best U.S. companies in applying social media tools to their businesses. That’s not to say that other companies are not doing very well also. But Harley and Southwest have leaped into the social media pool with both feet. They are doing this everyday and offer some valuable lessons for companies thinking about starting down the social media road.

Southwest ran a very successful fare sale using only Twitter, Berg said. Harley has its own YouTube channel for riders and would-be riders.

“My honest advice (to anyone getting started in social media) is to go home, grab a bottle or two of wine, and just sit in front of your computer for a night or for a weekend and figure it out,” Berg said after she spoke. “It is not difficult, it just takes a little bit of time. Get your rhythm and see how things work. That’s what I did. It’s taken me pretty far.”

Southwest has been using social media on a regular basis since 2006. The most important lesson Southwest has learned in using social media is speed, Berg said. Social media moves at the “speed of light.” A company using social media cannot wait, it cannot reactive, Berg said. It is important for company to get out ahead of issues with good information, she said.

Southwest has one of the best corporate blogs in the business, in my opinion. I read it as often as I can. I don’t know for sure, but I think it is one of the most popular corporate blogs. The company uses it for many things – communicating with customers, crisis communications, and as a brand platform to name some examples.

Berg said the blog taught the airline another lesson – customers want to engage with them. That’s something I tell clients all the time – their customers really want to talk. Not yell, or scold, just talk. People want to know they are being heard. As Berg pointed out, it can also be a lot fun. One of aspects of social media is breaking down barriers. It can be fun to actually to your customers or clients in a more informal way.

Harley-Davidson’s motorcycle riders have been socializing for almost as long as the company has existed, Sprenger said. That’s part of the lure of owning a Hog – the chance to hang out with people who have the same interest. Harley riders see themselves as individualists. One of Harley’s social media goals to join in with that, he explained.

“Harley-Davidson is just now adopting social media,” Sprenger told the group. I work in advertising, but I do a lot with social media. We have done a lot of leveraging of outside resources, social media agencies and search agencies.”

The motorcycle company’s first foray into social media was when an advertising agency suggested that Harley create a “Biker Claus” channel on YouTube, Sprenger said. He explained it was kind of takeoff on 2003 movie Bad Santa.

“The thing was, they wanted to do just that channel for a campaign,” Sprenger said. “A lot of advertising agencies are like that. They want to use social media as a tactic. They don’t see it as a bigger solution.”

Harley’s owners are already among the most fervent in the motorcycle world. I know that from personal experience. I live in Milwaukee, Harley’s headquarters city. I have many friends who work there and many more friends who ride Hogs. Social media is another way to link those dedicated riders. It allows them to evangelize for the brand in a larger forum.

That’s key for the motorcycle company. The average rider is aging. The company wants to lower the average age of its riders. Social media is a way to reach out to the group – mostly younger – who have rejected traditional marketing channels. So for Harley, social media is not just a tactic. It is a strategy to reach out to potential customers.

That’s what led Sprenger to decide that corporate websites are going to fade away.

“Traffic at corporate websites is trending down,” he explained. “People are no longer going to websites for information. They are using feed readers, Facebook and blogs. People will go to product pages.”

Which hammers home a point I make often, social media is changing the way marketing is done. Berg and Sprenger made the point better than I ever could.

Irina Sharma carried her passport everywhere during the first days of a public relations campaign for Durex condoms. The campaign had been planned and implemented by Sharma’s agency – the Dubai-based eKadaa PR. She was being cautious. It is possible that the Emirate of Dubai would decide she had crossed a line and would deport her. She wanted to be ready if she was hustled onto an airplane.

I had coffee with Sharma last week in the Milwaukee Hilton Hotel. I wanted to talk to her because I am convinced she, and public relations professionals like her, are the future of global public relations. Those of us who practice in the Western world – and think how we do things will work everywhere – should heed the lessons Sharma can teach us.

Sharma founded eKadaa PR in 2003. She went into public relations after a career in broadcasting. That broadcasting career included a stint as an intern with Howard Stern. eKadaa is a full-service public relations agency whose current clients include Lufthansa German Airlines, German National Tourist Board, Canon, National Geographic, Clinique, Crocs, Swarovski, Technogym and many more.

Sharma was in Milwaukee due to the efforts of Ann Knabe, an instructor in communications and public relations at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater. Knabe is an accomplished public relations practitioner in her own right. When she is not teaching at Whitewater, she is a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Air Force Reserve where she handles public affairs. Knabe has served as a public affairs officer for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the war court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and most recently in the Pentagon. She also holds the prestigious Accredited in Public Relations designation from the Public Relations Society of America.

Knabe met Sharma when she traveled to Dubai in May to study public relations there.

Irina Sharma (left) and Ann Knabe spoke to at the University of Wisconsin - Whitewater about global public relations.

Dubai’s diverse, international makeup is ideal for global business and is “absolutely open to the U.S. and its business and practices,” Knabe told the Milwaukee Business Journal. “To many Arabs, Americans come off as a culture of ‘know-it-alls. But continued efforts on education can help change that perception.”

Why do I think Sharma, and those like her, are the future of public relations? Because to use New York Times columnist Tom Friedman’s metaphor, the world is flat and getting flatter. Global communication and global business are now almost instantaneous.

But every country has different rules and mores that need to be respected. Campaigns have to be tailored to fit those rules. The problem is that in many societies, the rules are unwritten. These may be countries that have deep broadband penetration and whose residents wear Nikes, but there are still lines that cannot be crossed. You can complain about how unfair that is, or how backward the society may seem. Tough. It’s their playing field and they get to decide how the game is played.

“For instance, Saudis don’t feel comfortable talking to women,” Sharma explained. “In Dubai, I can wear a dress that exposes my shoulders. But, if I go 20 minutes away to Sharjah, I have to cover up.”

The Durex campaign was done without mentioning sex because that’s taboo in the local culture. Sharma explained at all times the cultural, traditional and religious values were respected. The campaign focused on HIV-AIDS prevention and education. I suspect that many Western account executives would insist on somehow including sex. The mantra for many is sex sells. From what I gather, mentioning sex in many cultures can get you deported. In some countries it can get you jailed.

The culture mores in the Middle East are very different than what most Westerners are used to. While Dubai is a cosmopolitan, international city of expatriates from all over the world, the United Arab Emirates is an Islamic country. Sharma knew she had to walk carefully along the mountain ridge in publicizing an item in such a culture.

“I wasn’t sure what the reaction would be,” Sharma said.

That Sharma was able to lead an English company along the ridge also without stumbling speaks to her abilities – and is a key point we in the West need to learn. The key to any public relations is knowing your audience. As I said, we in the West say we understand that. Too often, we look at the world and see ourselves. We think what works in Peoria will work Abu Dhabi or Kuala Lumpur or even Dublin. As Sharma will tell you, that isn’t so.

“You cannot just cut and paste a campaign,” Sharma explained.

The reason I think is that many Americans have problems understanding this is because we often suffer from the malady known as culturus blinderus. I am always amazed by Americans who don’t speak a second language (Spanish, in case you are wondering), don’t make an effort to learn the cultural mores of the area in which they are traveling ,and are mystified why when they ask for pepperoni in Italy, they get little peppers, instead of sausage (Quite tasty, actually).

Irina Sharma is the kind of public relations person who knows these things. (Well, I am not sure about the pepperoni thing. I didn’t ask) She is also the kind of public relations person that is going to eat an American agency’s lunch when it comes to doing business outside of North America. Perhaps inside North America too, when it comes to representing overseas companies in the United States.

Smart marketing U.S. marketing people should be watching and learning from Irina Sharma and those like her. She and those like her are the future of global public relations.

NOTE TO MY READERS: If you are interested in a free, introductory course on social media, email me. Myself and five  other social media acolytes are doing the second round of a our Social Media Book Club on Blog Talk Radio We are giving away an EBook written by social media guru Simon U. Ford. Ford sold several thousand of the books for $47. However, we have permission to give it away for a limited time.We also will be holding a series of four virtual “book clubs” to go over the book. Between the book 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 only be 50 spots available for the book club. For more information, go to the Social Boomers site. The first show will be Wednesday, Sept. 23 at 8 pm CDT (GMT -6). The URL is bit.ly/Y253H.

If you would like a copy of the book, email jjcole54 at gmail.com. It is helpful to have.

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.